Homeland Insecurity

Something I've been thinking about lately: Back in the old days, the White House was wide open. Citizens could enter freely---much like they enter, say, the post office or the local police station in modern times. Back then the president was far more accessible. It was not uncommon for him to walk around Washington alone or ride a horse across town in broad daylight. It was not uncommon for ordinary citizens to line up outside his office and solicit him for a government job. One could even enter a receiving line at certain state functions to shake his hand, as well as the hand of the first lady.

Abraham Lincoln used to call these interactions with the electorate his "public opinion baths." He considered them crucial to maintaining proper equilibrium.

After his second inaugural in 1805, Thomas Jefferson threw open the doors of the mansion to the public. Most of the people who attended his swearing-in followed him home for a party, where he greeted them warmly in the Blue Room.

In 1829, Andrew Jackson was forced to leave the White House for a hotel when 20,000 citizens showed up at the White House to celebrate the dawning of his presidency. The mob was ultimately placated when aides lured them outside and directed them to large tubs filled with a potent mixture of orange juice and whiskey.

The nation's capital was a much smaller town back then. The country was smaller. The world was smaller.

The rivers were cleaner.

The frontier was bigger and more desolate.
 

 
 

Today, the president lives his life inside of a hermetically sealed White House, surrounded by armed guards and hidden cameras. His mail is screened and scanned for poisonous powders. Military aircraft patrol the skies over Washington. The first family is driven around in armored SUVs with five-inch thick bulletproof glass. Rarely does the president interact with the general public---or anyone else, for that matter---in a way that is not formalized, scripted, and counted to the minute by a phalanx of private advisers.

I'm old enough to remember the days when smoking was permitted on airplanes and the White House was open to the general public in a (somewhat) simplified way. Twice during my childhood I went on White House tours. Once with my family, once with my eighth grade class.

Nowadays the White House is only open to tour groups of ten or more, and entry must be arranged via one's congressional representative at least six months in advance.

From the official White House website----a list of prohibited items for those seeking to take a White House tour:

Prohibited items include, but are not limited to, the following: handbags, book bags, backpacks, purses, food and beverages of any kind, strollers, cameras, video recorders or any type of recording device, tobacco products, personal grooming items (make-up, hair brush or comb, lip or hand lotions, etc.), any pointed objects (pens, knitting needles, etc.), aerosol containers, guns, ammunition, fireworks, electric stun guns, mace, martial arts weapons/devices, or knives of any size. The U.S. Secret Service reserves the right to prohibit any other personal items. Umbrellas, wallets, cell phones and car keys are permitted.

Please note that no storage facilities are available on or around the complex. Individuals who arrive with prohibited items will not be permitted to enter the White House.

 

It should also be noted that there are no public restrooms or telephones available to the general public inside the White House proper---never mind the fact that we technically own the thing and pay for its perpetual upkeep, not to mention the salaries of its tenants. If nature calls during a tour of this grand "public" mansion, you are expected to either hold it in or evacuate your bowels into a (star-spangled) adult diaper---all in the name of national security.

 

The trend here seems obvious: As the country grows older and---until recently---more powerful, it also grows more militarized. As the world grows smaller, national security becomes a bigger, more complicated problem. The government feels increasingly threatened. The president's security detail becomes more and more robust, and his removal from those he represents becomes more and more complete.

Technology is a threat; the sophistication and proliferation of deadly weaponry is a threat.

What if someone hacks the White House computers?

What if some homicidal maniac gets his hands on a suitcase nuke?

And so on.

Difficult challenges for the members of the, um, Intelligence Community.

Fodder for the paranoid mind.

 

The pertinent question for me then becomes: Why, exactly, has this happened to us? Has our government become more and more defensive as a result of technological development and the shrinking of the global village? Or have human beings simply devolved over the past three centuries? Have we become increasingly homicidal and paranoid and violent? Has the collective consciousness suffered dismal damage on its way through the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, two World Wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, et cetera? As our material needs have lessened and our lives have become more comfortable, have we lost something vital in the way of our spirits? Our basic humanity? Our native intelligence?

What is the deal here?

Am I missing something?

Logic seems to indicate that a government's need for hyper-complicated security is at least a partial reflection of its dealings, both at home and abroad. And surely it would be narcissistic to believe that our current situation is simply the result of being a shining beacon of freedom on the hill.

Also: Great displays of (paranoid) national security behavior do nicely to scare the pants off of the general populace, don't they? And as we have seen in such stark fashion over the past eight years, a frightened populace is often a pliable populace.

Something tells me the chief executive of, say, Denmark, isn't nearly so cloistered.

 

Anyway, it's food for thought. As we approach Inauguration Day, it seems like a relevant thing to discuss.

At the same time, it has been nice to hear the president-elect talk about the need to make his White House and our government more open and transparent in the coming years. It'll certainly be interesting to see if what he's saying is simply lip service, or if he's actually going to do something about it.

 
 

In closing, I'll offer you this somewhat tangential thought:

What happens when somebody invents a pair of explosive pants?

Sort of silly, I realize, but when you actually stop and think about it, it's not all that deranged. Doesn't it seem likely that at some point, someone is going to invent a lethal device of some sort that is virtually impossible to defend against?

A ballpoint pen full of liquid so lethal that one tiny droplet can kill a man on contact.

(Wait a minute. Does that already exist?)

Point being: When these explosive blue jeans come along, what then happens to airport security? Inauguration Day parades? White House tours?

Will we all be flying pants-less? Shuffling through the Blue Room in our skivvies, staring at a portrait of James Monroe on the wall?

"Good afternoon, Mr. President."

"I like your diaper."

"Thank you."

 

Your thoughts, as always, are welcome on the comment board below.

 

Sort of paranoid,
BL

Comments

[Fjlisti]

What can we remember that has lasted "forever"? What would it take in the society of today to lower security requirements? Would we be pleased with trading the risks that come with a more "trusting" way of life?

How about those questions for philosophizing?

[bronceye]

I remember, in 1962, touring the White House with my fellow Explorer Scouts. We all had a partner while traveling the many sights of D.C. My partner had a case of the G.I.'s and my touring was somewhat limited to standing outside various "comfort stations" waiting for my partner to come forth and rejoin the rest of the troop. I will never forget that in the White House, he was allowed to use what we playfully referred to as "John 's John". I wasn't permitted to accompany him on that trip but they saw the immediacy of his predicament and acted in a human way. All of the smelly, outside(August) toilets, I was allowed to swat flies outside of. However, the humaness has left "our" capitol and we are allowed to vote and stay out of the way, now. We are no longer "We".

[Powderhound522]

The worst part is that the security is a farce. You can easily get your hands on a mortar launcher that fires shells a mile or more; put 10 of those in the back of a flatbed with a tarp over them, and presto, you've got a smoking crater where the White House used to be. There's practically no way to prevent it - and that's just one of the many things that make the militarized security so ridiculously infeffective.

[SeanONe]

As a country the US is grotesquely uninformed about what is being done in your name. The security people do know and are taking appropriate measures. Perhaps a more in depth study of the foreign policy is in order.

[hortonhearsawho2]

Start with say, checking your student visa...

[SeanONe]

I've never had to present any documents to get in or out of the US.

[TammyAllen]

This is a brilliant observation. I believe that spy movies tend to predict danger.

[GloriaH]

Listi sent me over here from his blog at bradlisti.com. Here is my reply from over there:

I think the answer to this is really complicated. And if I were sitting across from Brad in a bar nursing a frosty pint, I would love to have this discussion.

The gist of what I would say is: yes, I think the hatred has reached a new zenith, but I don’t think it’s just because of technological development, the shrinking of the global village, or the devolution of humanity. I think there’s a lot more to it than that.

Other contributing factors: global war, overpopulation, environmental concerns, fear of the end of the world, famine, global woman’s health crises, media domination, trade embargoes, foreign policy (especially the way our foreign policy interacts with all of these other issues) …

[Thabit]

i think " foreign policy (especially the way our foreign policy interacts with all of these other issues) " is the biggest reason for the paranoia of our government and you could add domestic policy (all the wars on everything that our government wages against it's own people)