Who would have thought one would have to consider the politics of Ebola? Well, I suppose I would have, had I given it a minute’s thought. It has become abundantly clear to me over the years that everything – and I mean everything – can be degraded into a political debate. Want proof? Seems Pew Research Center just did a survey of Americans, asking them if they were worried about contracting the Ebola virus. Thankfully, and despite the media’s best efforts to whip us all into a frenzy over this – more on that later – most Americans feel safe. Pew’s new national survey was conducted Oct. 2-5 among 1,007 adults. (A caveat here: This poll was taken two weeks ago. By now, after continuous pummeling by partisans and the media, public sentiment is likely much more dire.) The poll found that 20 percent of Americans say they have a “great deal” of confidence in the federal government to prevent a major outbreak of Ebola in the U.S., while 38 percent say they have a “fair amount” of confidence. Fewer than half express “not too much confidence” (24 percent) or “no confidence at all” (17 percent) in the government to prevent a major Ebola outbreak. And while confidence in the government tops out around 58 percent, so far, the Ebola virus has not led to widespread concern about personal health, Pew reports. Just 11 percent of those surveyed are very worried that they or someone in their family will be exposed to the virus, while another 21 percent are somewhat worried. Two-thirds say they are either not too worried (37 percent) or not at all worried (30 percent) about contracting Ebola. And, public concern over the possibility of contracting the Ebola virus is lower than for other recent public health threats. In August 2009, for example, 45 percent were worried about the possibility of being exposed to swine flu, and in November 2005, 38 percent worried about contracting bird flu. But here’s where it gets interesting. According to Pew, Republicans are much more skeptical than Democrats and Independents about the government’s ability to prevent a major Ebola outbreak in the U.S. By more than two-to-one, more Democrats say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the government to deal with Ebola (69 percent) than not much or no confidence at all (28 percent). Independents also are confident in the government (56 percent vs. 42 percent). But Republicans are divided. About as many say they have little or no confidence (51 percent) in the federal government to prevent a major Ebola outbreak as say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence (48 percent). Well that, of course, is because there’s a Democrat in the White House and no self-respecting Republican these days is going to give a Democrat any credit. So, if you’re a Republican, of course the government – run by a Democrat – can’t keep us safe from Ebola. But it’s not only the Republicans who are blindly and nonsensically partisan on the issue of public health. Let’s roll the clock back to 2005 and the aforementioned bird flu. During that outbreak and time of public health concern, Pew did a similar poll. Guess what it showed? Amid concerns over an outbreak of bird flu, Republicans were far more confident than Democrats in the government’s ability to prevent a major outbreak. At that time 74 percent of Republicans and just 35 percent of Democrats expressed confidence in the government’s ability to deal with a possible bird flu outbreak. And right now, in living rooms and at kitchen tables all across our circulation area, Republicans are saying, “Yeah, but Obama can’t get anything right and Bush was a good president.” Simultaneously, Democrats are saying, “Yeah, but Bush couldn’t handle Katrina and Obama is a lot smarter.” And you know what? They’re just all wrong. The National Institutes of Health and the Centers For Disease Control were equally capable during bird flu in 2005 as they are today during Ebola. Frankly, this kind of thinking is clearly a big part of what’s wrong with America these days. Blind allegiance to one party or another based solely on party affiliation is shortsighted and counterproductive. If he’s got an “R” after his name, he’s the smartest guy in the room. If he’s got a “D” after his name he’s a hapless loser. Or every idea a Democrat has is groundbreaking and a member of the GOP has never had a good idea. More and more, I see people thinking this way and it’s troubling to me. It’s just no way to run a country. Another thing that troubles me is the way the media is all about hype instead of news. When your number one goal as a news organization is to boost ratings instead of inform the public, its a problem. That’s why this Ebola thing has totally blown up in the U.S. Let’s think about this for a moment. Influenza kills some 30,000 Americans each year. So far, there has been one Ebola death. And there likely will be no more. My guess is the nurses in Dallas will recover because they got treatment the instant they were diagnosed. Yet to hear the media tell it, we’ve got to be on the lookout for a full-blown Ebola outbreak. So much so, that, according to the Pew poll, 11 percent of Americans – that’s roughly 33 million people – are fearful that someone in their family will get Ebola. (And remember, that number is probably much higher today than it was Oct. 2 through 5.) What? They’re more likely to be struck by lightning. Gosh, if only (insert your favorite politician here) was in charge, everything would be just peachy.
