Be a Patriot. Don't Hoard Cipro!

By Michael Kinsley

The government doesn't want you to stock up on Cipro, the antibiotic treatment for anthrax. Officials emphasize that your risk of getting anthrax is very small. They promise that Cipro or other equally effective drugs will be available if needed. They warn of rare but dangerous side effects. This is all patently disingenuous. No one has any idea how many people might ultimately be exposed to anthrax. And why are we supposed to shrug off the allegedly tiny risk of getting anthrax but worry profoundly about the tiny risk of side effects from Cipro--except that both attitudes support the conclusion that you shouldn't buy Cipro?

It may even be true that other drugs in plentiful supply work just as well for anthrax as Cipro does. If so, there's no reason to hoard Cipro but also no reason people shouldn't hoard Cipro if they want to. Whether valid or not, the government's own concern about a Cipro shortage is why the government wants to persuade us there's no cause for concern about a Cipro shortage. That, plus the worry that germs develop resistance to antibiotics that are used promiscuously.

The risk of scarcity and the risk of reduced effectiveness are both excellent arguments for discouraging people with no known exposure to anthrax from stockpiling Cipro. So why are these reasons downplayed in favor of others that make less sense? Answer: the dubious ones involve risks to you as an individual, whereas the good ones involve risks to Americans as a society. Cipro is a classic example of the democratic dilemma known as "the problem of the commons." This refers to situations in which we would all be better off if we all did one thing but each of us is individually better off by doing the opposite. Cipro is most likely to be available for anyone who needs it if nobody hoards it, but hoarding is the best guarantee that you and your family will have it if needed.

The problem of the commons is inherent and perennial in any democracy, but it has been more severe in ours during the past quarter-century because of the near universal denigration of government, politics and politicians. The assumption that the government was some monstrous other--not the expression of our collective will--became axiomatic, unchallengeable (you might even say politically correct). This made it nearly impossible to persuade the citizenry to trade short-term self-interest for the long-term interest of society.

Now polls are showing that respect for government--and even for politicians--is rising as people contemplate the heroism of cops and fire fighters--government workers all--on Sept. 11. As we are forced to revise our low estimation of pols from President Bush on down. As it dawns on us that defeating terrorism is not a task that can be privatized or turned over to the states. But will all this newfound appreciation last if it requires people to give up more than a few minutes talking to a pollster?

The real reason you shouldn't stockpile Cipro is simple: it's unpatriotic. In America we do not exalt the nation over the individual or the family. But you and--yes--your family owe this one small thing to your country, your fellow citizens and their families. Our soldiers are risking their lives in a large way. You can risk yours in this small way. Never in any living person's lifetime--not even during World War II--has every American's personal security (rather than an abstraction called national security) been at stake the way it is today. Good Americans shouldn't undermine this campaign to make everybody--including you--a lot safer by trying to make you and yours a little bit safer than everyone else. Yet even in the midst of a nationwide flag-waving orgy, this is an argument our government and political leaders don't make. They apparently believe that even dubious appeals to self-interest are more likely to work than valid appeals to concern for the common good.

This puts all the flaggery in an unflattering light. We have an awfully easy nation to be patriotic in. If you want to help the war effort, says the President, go out and spend money. Meanwhile he and the loyal opposition will decide whether defeating Osama bin Laden requires Americans to swallow a tax cut or suffer new infusions of federal spending. If this is what you can do for your country, then ask not what your country can do for you. It's hard to imagine how the government could coddle us more.

President Bush has used the S word, but when asked what "sacrifices" Americans would have to make in the war on terrorism, his example was enduring the hassle of increased airport security. As something to tell the grandchildren, this lacks a certain Stephen Ambrose quality. Of course, sacrifice should not become a fetish. Wars usually mean domestic austerity, but squeezing the civilian economy isn't necessary or helpful for this one. World War II required a universal male draft. The war on terror has no need or even use for most of those who are qualified to serve. So what does that leave?

There could not be a milder test of American patriotism than asking people who have not been exposed to anthrax to keep their hands off the Cipro. If we're not up to that, we should put the flags away.