|
 s
it possible, do you think, that Democratic senators are, in reality,
demons sent by the Devil to pester, humiliate, and torment the rest
of us? It may be a somewhat far-fetched theory, but take a look
at the latest proposed policy initiative from Dianne Feinstein and
see if you can come up with any other explanation.
Ms. Feinstein, the senior senator from California, has decided that
the experience of air travel in this country needs to be made worse.
The senator, a lawmaker with, clearly, too little to occupy her
time, has recently written to the CEOs of seven major air carriers
suggesting that they should not serve any passenger more than two
alcoholic drinks in the course of a domestic flight.
Now, a "suggestion" from Dianne Feinstein is, like a "request" from
Don Corleone, something to take seriously. Just in case any of the
CEOs did not understand this, the sober-sided senator spelled out
the threat implicit in her proposal. If the airlines would not comply
"voluntarily" they would be required to do so by law. "I am," she
warned sternly, "in the process of writing legislation." And that
legislation would be tough. The ban, she explained, would apply
"regardless of the type of alcoholic beverage served."
Let us imagine what that could mean. You are in Coach, in a middle
seat narrower than George W. Bush's Florida majority. One neighbor,
grotesquely obese, is spreading out from the confines of his chair
into your own space. The other, who does not appear to have washed
for some days, is sobbing quietly after a nasty spot of turbulence
over Des Moines. Two rows behind, a baby screams, but undeterred
his mother carries on with the grim task of changing a diaper then
and there (she has little choice — the line for the restroom
stretches halfway down the plane). The flight itself, theoretically
a six-hour hike from New York to Seattle, took off very late owing
to unspecified "trouble" at O'Hare. You will, you already know,
miss the meeting that was the purpose of your journey in the first
place. The flight attendant has just informed you that the last
chicken entrée has already been taken, leaving a choice of a bean-based
mush or a packet of honey-coated pretzels. It has been two or three
hours since your last drink. To numb the pain, you ask for a third
Bud Light. Under the terms of the Feinstein fatwa your request
will be denied.
If there is anything guaranteed to spark an outburst of anger, this
is it, which is ironic really, as the alleged purpose of the two
drinks limit is to reduce "air rage." Of course, why Sen. Feinstein
should be so worried by this subject is not clear. The senator was,
after all, famously relaxed ("we've got to step back…let cooler
minds prevail") when, in this year's most spectacular instance of
aerial misbehavior, a hot-dogging Chinese jet collided into an American
surveillance plane. We can only speculate as to what it is that
has now led Ms. Feinstein to take a new harder line against trouble
in the sky. It would, of course, be absolutely inappropriate to
suggest that a double standard is at work and quite, quite wrong
to hint that the senior senator from California is a self-important
busybody, who finds it easier to boss around American citizens than
stand up to Communist China.
No, the answer must lie elsewhere. Was there, perhaps, an incident,
senator, a squabble, maybe, on one fraught flight over just whose
suitcase was going to have priority in a jam-packed overhead locker?
We can only speculate. There is no evidence of such a drama, but
then, why worry too much about that? There is no evidence of any
epidemic of air rage either, but that does not seem to have stopped
Ms. Feinstein.
The real data are, in fact, rather reassuring. In response to the
senator's proposal, a spokesman for an airline industry group, the
Air Transport Association, has claimed that most of the four thousand
or so (usually fairly minor) incidents of "air rage" that take place
each year do so on the ground. Minor or not, that is four thousand
too many, but it is worth remembering that U.S. airports catered
for over six hundred million passengers last year. Based on those
statistics, therefore, unruly travelers account for .0007 percent
of the total, and most of those are enraged not by drink, but by
delays. One of the principal causes of those delays, Sen. Feinstein,
has been Washington's failure to bring the private sector into the
management of the air-traffic-control system.
What is more, when a drunken passenger is, or may become, a problem,
the airlines already have all the powers they need. As Ms. Feinstein's
own press release admits, under FAA regulations airlines are prohibited
from serving alcoholic beverages to any person aboard who appears
to be intoxicated. Disorderly passengers can be handcuffed or otherwise
restrained. Quite rightly, as a number of loutish holidaymakers
have recently discovered, they can also be prosecuted.
As for those who argue that two drinks should be enough for anyone,
well, that may be true for them (and for me. I'm a very frequent
flier, but, in the air at least, a very infrequent drinker) but
it is not for others, and those folks should be left to make their
own choices. A drink or three can help wile away the time, or soothe,
perhaps, the truculent traveler who might otherwise cause just the
sort of problems which, supposedly, so alarm the senator. In addition,
most of us know those terrified fliers (hi, Mom!) who need more
than a little something to help them through their ordeal. Why should
they suffer?
In the end though, the utilitarian case misses the point. This particular
example, the right to that third beer, may be not be the most important
cause, but what matters here is the underlying principle, the principle
that government should not take away any of our freedoms without
a good reason. In this instance, Sen. Feinstein has not shown us
that reason. The facts do not support her argument, and if we reject
Satan as an explanation for Dianne's draft diktat (and, probably
we must, although the Devil does, notoriously, find work for idle
hands), then the only motive that can be found is in her own mindset,
one all too typical of her party's leadership: priggish, arrogant,
condescending, and unbelievably interfering.
And you don't need to get in an airplane to be angry over that.
|
