Ebola and Political Authority

My sense from listening to the news on the Ebola crisis is that many of those from the liberal side in the media (i.e. most of the mainstream media) have the view that the proper end of the U.S. political authorities is to promote global welfare. For instance, it just seems obvious to some that the President should be at least as concerned with the plight of those in Sierra Leone if not more so than with U.S. citizens, such that it's unthinkable that he temporarily block flights of persons from certain countries or of persons exposed to Ebola.  It seems obvious to some that it is wrong to give experimental medications first to U.S. citizens and secondarily to non-U.S. citizens (or perhaps not at all due to their experimental nature, lack of proper consent, etc.)  Some of the background assumptions, here, seem at best utilitarian, at worst Marxist.

On the contrary, the President (just to stick with one branch of government) in the capacity of President (not qua human, qua infrequent attender of St. John's Episcopal Church, etc.) has an obligation first and foremost to the people who he has been given the authority to rule over.  The President has no authority over Nigerians or Sierra Leoneans.  His primary duty is to protect the U.S. people from threats foreign and domestic.  Of course, there is nothing special about the U.S. or the U.S. President in this regard.  Vladimir Putin's duties as President of Russia are first and foremost to promoting just treatment of and among Russians.

Similarly, as a husband and father I have some duties towards the care of my family that take precedent over duties to certain others.  It's an unjust and unloving father who runs a utility calculus treating the welfare of his daughters as no more a matter of his concern than the welfare of anyone else in the world.  Rather, he is to be concerned first with the welfare of his daughters before he is to be concerned with the welfare of his congressman.  Of course there are obvious limitations and restrictions.  To give just one example: it's unjust to steal from the neighborhood kids to give toys to the daughters.  The violation of moral rights is never acceptable for the sake of increasing welfare or happiness.

The Christian-Thomist in me, though, will throw those who disagree with me the following bone: it may very well be that justice demands that the U.S. do certain things to stop the spread of Ebola in Sierra Leone.  On the Thomistic view (dare I say, the Christian view) everyone has a right (to speak anachronistically of Aquinas) to a certain minimal amount of welfare.  As such, "the neighbor" who is well enough off has certain duties with respect to enabling the neighbor who is languishing.  Many Sierra Leonians are certainly languishing.  Precisely what all duties the U.S., France, Great Britain, etc. have is not easy to lay out, but assisting in some way to me seems obviously in the right.  But that the U.S. government should do so without first taking into consideration the welfare of its own citizens does not.

Aside: I sometimes wonder if Christians who disagree with this (and who don't think of themselves, e.g., as Marxists) think there is such a thing as legitimate political authority of the state.