The column below appeared in the December, 2010 issue of the Sturbridge Times Magazine.
November saw much discussion in the media about the vast
resources allocated to insure the president’s safe trip to India. There was some disagreement about the
number of naval vessels that would accompany him. Even the lesser number than originally quoted would have
been enough to destroy all but the world’s largest navies. To insure a peaceful sleep, it sounded
as if every hotel room in Mumbai was to be reserved, just in case.
The security mania did not start with the incumbent and
Mumbai does have an image problem around safety after the 2008 siege. Still, the recent foreign tour highlights
what to some, namely me, might seem a problem.
An article, Lunch With George, written by the publisher and
editor of this publication has been on my mind since it appeared in the August
of 2008 issue. Paul Carr wrote
about an afternoon spent in the near company of George Bush the elder. I did not think his portrayal of
the ex president to be unsympathetic, but neither was it fawning. It was a day in the life of a man who
had had his day in the sun. The
41st president was just enjoying post celebrity mode.
What I took away from Paul’s article was not about the man
being out and noticed by the public.
What caught my eye were the security arrangements. The man had been out of office over a
decade and a half. The only person
known to have it in for him lethally went to the gallows. Yet, he will be accompanied by men
described in the article as “behemoths” as long as he lives. Every president will have this
protection for life.
Contrast this with the current state of travel for an
American citizen. He or she may
have to go through a machine that will leave nothing about their anatomy to
speculation. If they opt out of
the electronic pat down, the physical one is more demeaning.
So are we being paranoid? Let’s do the math. It has been reported that we have passed
the million mark on our national No Fly List. Breaking down the numbers, on 911
it was a team of 19 men who executed the plan. Assume that there were six
liaison, handlers and other staff. That makes up a crew of 25. That means a
possible 40,000 terror teams whose potential members we know about, but just
won’t let fly. I may never come out from under my bed.
It seems we are going to the National Security State with us
all on lockdown. A few years ago a car veered off our street. An officer
responded and did a normal investigation. It was a little strange that he was
wearing a SWAT uniform. At our town meeting, the department requested and was
voted the police version of the M-16. There is almost never an arrest here. It
is that boring aspect of the town that we love. Yet, our town dads and moms can
be easily stampeded into paranoia.
Never mind that statistics show that we are pretty safe. We
are still told that without a constant effort we will be at the mercy of the
terrorists. With what we are paying for our Department of Homeland Security, we
should not have a care in the world.
There is reason for a climate of fear. We are in danger. It’s just not the danger being sold.
When we screw our courage to the sticking point and finally get in the car to
get a slurpie down at a convenience store, we have a good chance of becoming a
casualty. Not from Abdul the Jihadi, but from another driver crashing into us.
Go and poll undertakers in your region about how many kids they’ve buried due
to a drowning in the family pool. Ask
them how many local terrorists have caused any funerals.
So we are heading toward more and more control. We need “Real
Id” to make us feel better. In a scene from the movie The Hunt for Red October,
Sam Neill's character is talking with Sean Connery's. Neill talks about how he is going to travel from state to
state in his recreational vehicle when he becomes an American. At one point he
says, "No papers?" and Connery affirms, "No Papers." It is
the difference between a free and unfree country. What will we say when we have
to hear, “Your papers, please.”
I expect to be accused
of Lèse majesté for the suggestion I intend to make, but so be it. It is time to take away the Secret
Service protection of presidents and candidates and other officials and people
of importance. Now, before giving vent to paroxysms of rage, think about it. A
vast sum of money is spent to protect him and a fortune is spent to watch you
in your own name. There is no incentive to change the system.
I have no desire to see anyone in government be the victim
of any violence. Let me not mince words. I wish it to happen to my lumpen
countrymen far less. We should all have the same level of protection or the
same risk.
The desire to protect the president is understandable. There
have been a number of assassination attempts since JFK. Like all my
contemporaries, I remember my circumstances that day. The funeral was
spectacle, but it was heart wrenching no less for that.
Since then we’ve had the King shooting, the attempt on
Reagan’s life. The multiple bizarre attempts on Ford didn’t help. Remember
Arthur Lee Bremer? We started
getting paranoid even about fringe candidates.
That all is true, but the thing about the presidency is
there is never a dearth of ambitious men (and some women) who seek it. It is a
pinnacle of success. It is also a position of leadership and therefore should
not be without risk. Serious risk. Though not a betting man, I would be happy
to wager that even without the coterie of guards we now provide, there would
still be a surfeit of aspirants.
So how would this reform help anything? If the president
cannot have a protecting force for himself, he may be cognizant of a shared
risk. Our protection should be his protection and his should be ours. It is
theory we should be willing to test.
Who knows, we could get back to a real human presidency.
Harry Truman used to walk down to the drugstore by himself in the morning to
get the paper. That may never happen, but if the president doesn’t want to go
out without a helicopter hovering overhead, he can subscribe.
Oh well, things won’t change. I should just seek a sinecure that leads to the need for
protection. I want three security personnel and a driver on the federal dime.
Would be willing to trade one of the agents for a masseuse.
