I'm sure you heard that both Chris Christie and Rand Paul caught heat this week for statements they made about measles vaccinations. Neither man urged parents not to vaccinate their kids. Christie didn't give voice to any of the theories about harm vaccines can do to children. Paul sort of did, but not in a Jenny McCarthy sort of way - and only by way of making the point that the state does not own your children, and parents should have some say in what is going to be injected into their children.
As has been the norm of late, people went completely insane in response to these statements - prompting both potential presidential candidates to quickly "clarify" that they are not anti-vaxxers, and that they both had their own kids vaccinated, and that they believe other parents should do the same, etc.
I see no reason either man should have had to backtrack in the slightest. Neither was guilty of a "stumble" as the AP is trying to say. I think they were acknowledging the same question I've been asking myself in recent days - a question for which there is no easy answer:
There is no doubt that the vaccinations have been and remain a positive thing. We absolutely do not want to see a re-emergence of measles or other diseases that have the potential to become large-scale epidemics, especially when children are likely to be the most hard-hit victims. The fact is that most children spend significant time in close quarters with other children - either in school, day care, youth group, little league, etc. - and one child with measles is a major risk to other children.
If there's a simple way to protect your own child and others from that and you don't do it, I am of the opinion that you're being negligent and irresponsible.
And yet . . . I have no trouble admitting some discomfort with two things. One is the state using its power to mandate this for all children - not because I believe the conspiracy theories about the vaccines nor because I deny the seriousness of the disease threat, but simply because, if it doesn't give you the shivers a little bit to think of the state mandating that you have a substance of their choosing injected into you, then I don't know about you.
I get the rationale for it. If everyone doesn't do it, and as a result just a few people are walking around with the potential to contract and spread the disease, you haven't really eradicated the disease. Making it mandatory is one way to at least theoretically make the vaccinations universal. (Although, in fact, you know perfectly well that mandatory or not, some people won't do it for whatever reason. You're never going to get 100 percent of the population vaccinated.)
So that's the first thing. The second thing is the way the left and the media have decided to turn this issue into a litmus test for fringe craziness by piling on to anyone who raises even the slightest concern and labeling them as fringe anti-vaxxer wackos, even though they may not be that at all but might just be wrestling with the same question I am about the desirability of people being vaccinated vs. the concern attached to making such a thing mandatory.
The term "political correctness" has been dulled down to an almost meaningless cliche, but its origin was in the phenomenon that saw the left establish that on certain issues, only one position (theirs) was correct and acceptable to even express. If anyone of note would question that position, the mere fact that the question was asked - that the convention was challenged - would become the impetus for a controversy and widespread condemnations. You've seen this a lot on gay rights issues. Someone - perhaps a celebrity, sports figure or officeholder - makes a statement that is less than supportive of gay marriage, or that otherwise embraces the biblical view of homosexuality - and news stories are written merely about the fact that the person said this, since it's so beyond the pale to even question the orthodoxy that the statement itself is thought to merit a news story of the can-you-believe-he-said-that-he-must-apologize variety.
They're now turning the vaccination question into a similar political bludgeon. What Christie and Paul were guilty of was not urging parents not to vaccinate their kids. They said no such thing. They merely acknowledged that it would be better if we could find some sort of balance between the desirability of having everyone do this and the rush to give all power to the state in mandating decisions for us about our kids. The fact that having the kids vaccinated is the right decision is beside the point. The left is quite comfortable with the idea that if something is good, the state can and should mandate it for everyone. They think the power of government is awesome and they see no reason to limit it in any way, so of course it's not going to bother them. Those of us on the right can recognize a thing is good but still see danger in government mandating it for everyone. We think society is stronger overall if people have the freedom to make choices, even wrong ones, and deal with the consequences.
Of course, the consequence of getting this one wrong can be deadly, which is why it's not an easy issue for people like me who absolutely want people free of these diseases but still maintain a healthy instinct to resist giving the state power to compel such decisions.
Personally, my desired outcome is that everyone get vaccinated. My preferred method would not be for the state to mandate it, but I admit I'm not sure I know another way to get to the desired outcome. So I remain uncomfortable with just about every potential way forward.
I know it's a waste of your time try to engage liberals in conversation on a matter such as this, but sometimes I do it anyway, and yesterday on Facebook was one of those days. I expressed essentially what I've said in that column. For this, I was informed I am a "fringie anti-vaxxer" who probably also a) opposes motorcycle helmet laws; b) opposes fluoridation of water; and c) opposes the licensing of drivers and airline pilots, and even the requirement that you be sober when driving or flying a plane.
In fact, I have no problem with any of the three (and it seems absurd to even have to say that about C, but that's what people will do when their purpose is to make you sound like a lunatic rather than trying to deal in a serious way with what you're actually saying).
If you read this column much, you know that I am not a libertarian. I have no problem with anti-drug laws, for example, because I don't think it's a problematic advance of the state's power to prohibit certain behaviors for the protection of public health and safety. But I do think there's a difference between prohibiting certain things on the one hand, and mandating that everyone let the government inject a substaance into them as a condition of being alive.
I never said I'm against it and I certainly never said I don't want people to do it. I just said the state-mandated nature of it bothers me, and I think that's all Chris Christie and Rand Paul are saying. If you can't even say that without people labeling you a crazy anti-vaxxer and demanding that you apologize (or "walk it back" if you want to talk like political class mushbrains), then we've lost the ability to have honest conversations about pretty much anything in this country.
And in its own way, that is as big a threat to this nation as the diseases themselves.
