« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Frightening World of Presidents (formatted)
I live in D.C.'s Maryland suburbs and I work in downtown Washington. In
fact, every day on my way to work, I walk past the White House. I have only been here a few months, however, and today I saw something I
hadn't seen before. It was a motorcade.
I have seen other motorcades, but this one was different. Three cars sped
through traffic ignoring traffic signals. The first car was a
Metropolitan Police Department black and white with its lights and
sirens running. It was followed immediately by two black Chevrolet
Tahoes flashing concealed lights. Although the sirens were odd, this
normally would not have been too unusual.
The first Tahoe caught my eye. The rear driver side window as rolled down, and a blonde man in
a light brown suit sat there looking out at the sidewalk--looking at
me. He wore a light blue shirt with a yellow tie. His left hand held
the grip of a Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun.
I know it was an MP5 because I've played a lot of video games, and
because like any good American, I love guns. But, like any good gun
lover, I know that guns like that are designed to kill people, and I
find it disturbing to see them in public.
As was well reported a few weeks ago, D.C.'s gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court. You might not have heard that the Metropolitan Police recently set up mandatory road checkpoints in the northeast section of the city in order to curb drive by shootings. On Sunday, bystanders in the Adams-Morgan neighbor chased down and beat a man who shot another man in broad daylight. There is a problem with guns in this city, but the man with the MP5 was not there to protect against
random or gang related gun violence.
On a day-to-day basis, my biggest fear is that I will get hit by a car. This fear largely comes
from the fact that I walk everywhere, that I am frequently very close
to moving vehicles, and the fact that there are an unusually high number of pedestrian deaths in D.C. It is my environment--the cars flying past me, the number of crosswalks I use--that inform and create my fears.
The blonde man in the Tahoe was not there to protect against random gun
violence. He was there to stop unknown attempts to kill whoever he was
protecting. And he forms that person's daily environment. This the
world in which Presidents, Vice-Presidents, and the Secretaries of
State and Defense live. A world where they must constantly be on guard
against secret plots and vague conspiracies. A world where their life
is at risk every moment of every day. A world in which even a man in a
suit on his way to work is a potential threat.
This is something to consider as we get ready to elect the next President. If Barack
Obama becomes President, he will live in this same environment. The
mere fact of such intense protection will change how he perceives the
world, but it is impossible at this point to tell how. For those of you
who are concerned with the excesses of the war on terror, be ready to
fight to keep Obama from falling off the edge. He will live in a
frightening world.











Comments (5)
Dammit TPM, institute an editing function. Every time I copy and paste, things get screwed up. I tried reformatting it, but I didn't make any difference.
July 15, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's worth keeping in mind, and thanks for pointing out something different.
As I've been saying in some other threads, it's almost impossible for us to imagine how brutal is the responsibility of presidents. We see them all age so rapidly, even Bush, who seems simple-minded and breazily oblivious to everything around him.
When discussing FISA, I've raised the possibility (possibility, mind you) that Obama isn't just playing politics, but perhaps became more acutely aware of the terrible responsibility of protecting 280 million people in a large, wide-open country with porous borders as the prospect of actually getting the job became more than an aspiration. When he said he'd come to believe the 'tools' were necessary, he may have meant just that.
I'm not trying to reopen the FISA debate on this thread, but am merely pointing out that this possibility is something we haven't given much consideration. We've assumed, as I did at first, that it was politics. And we've been throwing furniture at each other discussing the bill itself. But behind that all of that, no matter what any of us thinks about that bill, is one helluva responsibility.
And at the same time, as you point out, he's got to wonder how many of his own fellow Americans would rather see him dead.
July 16, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had much the same concern, but from a different angle. Like you wondered in an earlier blog post whether Obama was serious about his new FISA position. However, if he is serious, I see it rather as the end of civil liberties as we have lived them throughout the majority of our lives. Put another way: The President's responsibility is to uphold the Constitution, and not merely protect us against vaguely defined military and criminal assaults. For our security is actually compromised--not protected--by government intrusions into our liberty and illegal programs.
That is why we must be on guard. Even if Obama becomes President, we cannot simply assume that he is doing everything in our interest. The Constitution is there to protect us.
July 16, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt, it is a sticky wicket, and i think the whole thing illustrates a number of convergences between the nature of modern communications technologies, the nature of terrorism, and so on.
I don't disagree with the criticisms of the new FISA, or the concerns they raise. I've just become decreasingly persuaded that it was a purely political move. Not saying it was a brilliant move, or one I agree with, necessarily, in the abstract. But I do think it's possible the issue looks different to someone in Obama's shoes than it might to me.
July 16, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate that we agree that there is a substantial possibility that Obama now believes that this was the right policy. However, that does nothing to justify the policy. It just means that his view of the world is skewed. The point of this post was to point out that the view of presidents can often be unnecessarily skewed by the environment in which they operate. After all, I was walking down the street not at all concerned about plots against the president or even random gun violence. The President has such massive protection not because such threats are real, but because the loss caused by him getting shot is much, much larger than the loss if I get shot. The risk may very well be the same, but the damages are bigger for the president.
So, keep that in mind--policies may not be justified and right even if they represent Obama's actual position.
July 17, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment