Seizing on ill-informed and ill-advised comments by Republican presidential candidates Chris Christie and Rand Paul, many on the Left are trying to use the current measles outbreak as an occasion to bludgeon Republicans.
Liberal commentators and mainstream reporters have begun suggesting that opposition to vaccines is a Tea Party phenomenon, thus opening the door for pious lectures about the dangers of “anti-government” sentiment.
This is the standard nonsense of the political debate.
In truth, a philosophy that preaches individual liberty and generally resists state compulsion is compatible with an aggressive pro-vaccine stance.
First, you can believe that everyone ought to vaccinate their children against measles without wanting more laws about it. The White House took precisely this position on Wednesday when press secretary Josh Earnest said President Obama “believes it shouldn’t require a law for people to exercise common sense and do the right thing.”
Second, most current vaccine “mandates” are not simple state compulsion. They are requirements for students who would attend public schools. Even if you think parents have the right to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children, clearly a school’s management — whether it’s a church, a county or a state — has the right to place reasonable requirements on those who would enter.
Third, 48 states allow parents to opt out for religious reasons or other personal beliefs. Most Americans don’t hold views that would preclude them vaccinating their children. A minority does object to some or all vaccines. This minority is willing to jump through hoops, fill out paperwork and argue with doctors. The hassle of jumping through the hoops helps guarantee that such exemptions are not utilized lightly — and it helps increase immunization rates.
Finally, for safe vaccines to prevent the most communicable and dangerous illnesses, vaccine mandates can fit within even a very narrow view of government’s role.
Libertarian Ron Bailey put it well in Reason magazine. Citing Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous line that “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” Bailey argues aptly: “Being intentionally unvaccinated against highly contagious diseases is, to carry Holmes’ analogy a bit further, like walking down a street randomly swinging your fists without warning. You may not hit an innocent bystander, but you’ve substantially increased the chances that you will.”
Measles are highly contagious and can be spread through the air. No parent can plausibly promise to keep their unvaccinated kid from getting or spreading measles. As long as you accept government’s role of protecting the innocent from violence, it’s easy to see where government has a role in requiring safe and effective vaccines for highly communicable diseases.
This argument doesn’t apply to vaccines for less easily communicable diseases, such as the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, or HPV.
Data suggest that most vaccine opposition comes from wealthy, white, secular, liberal enclaves. But Rand Paul’s comments — that vaccine mandates are a “liberty” issue — suggest a strain of vaccination skepticism is present on the Right.
Much vitriol is hurled these days at those who oppose mandatory vaccination or refuse to vaccinate their own children. But if you find someone’s view mistaken and dangerous, it’s usually better to try and understand it, rather than just demean it.
Many opponents to vaccines are parents who saw an ebullient, outgoing child suddenly turn inward, and start showing the signs of autism. Scientific studies overwhelmingly reject a link between autism and vaccines, but it’s understandable that some parents, emotionally distraught over a child’s condition, would seek an explanation.
Vaccine opposition also finds roots in a dislike of government micromanaging our lives. Government tells us what light bulbs we can have, it forces us to buy health insurance, it requires permits and inspections before we can erect a Rubbermaid tool shed, it makes our showers and toilets weaker, and it bans large soft drinks (except at 7-Eleven).
When government weighs in on these matters, where it has no legitimate role and little or no scientific basis, it fosters a skepticism and opposition to government interventions. That skepticism persists even when the science and the moral authority are present.
The elites — through overreach, cronyism and incompetence — have lost the public trust. One casualty might be public health.
Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner’s senior political columnist, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on washingtonexaminer.com.
