One of the things that I did not like about King Bush II was his publicly personal involvement in the Iraq war. Here’s something that I wrote during a 2002 trip to Alaska:
From June through October 2002, every time we emerged from the wilderness we’d find George W. Bush complaining about Saddam and Iraq and every time we felt diminished. Iraq is a country that, before the Gulf War, had a GDP comparable to that of West Virginia. George W. Bush represented the entire American public. Was it possible that we the American People had nothing better to think about than a tiny country on the other side of the globe? It occurred to us that, as a matter of protocol, Queen Victoria would not have dealt directly with the potentate of an insignificant foreign land. It would have diminished the citizens of England to see their leader treating one-on-one with the leader of an inferior nation. A problem like Saddam would have been delegated to a 3rd undersecretary in the Foreign Office. When asked about Iraq, we kept expecting to hear George W. say “I’m not sure. I delegated that problem to Colonel Smith and he is going to report back to me in three months. Can we move on to questions that more directly concern our society?” But of course it never happened.
I’m therefore thrilled that the Libyan war is coming to an end while President Obama is on the golf course on Martha’s Vineyard. As U.S. military power fades (due to our fading economic power), this is how I’d like us to be remembered, i.e., our hero president casually squashing a Third World dictator while sitting on the beach with the family.
[I myself would be on the Vineyard as well right now, visiting a close friend who is getting on in years, but it is not practical for peasants to fly personal airplanes there during Obama’s visit. I was there the day before the lockdown began and the airport was crammed with cargo planes, vehicles that had been flown in, etc. Before my departure, my friend and I shared the pilot’s lounge with some of the Secret Service employees. We were amazed that the country could afford to take so many young intelligent people out of the productive workforce, put them on taxpayer-funded salaries, rent them cars with tax dollars (or fly SUVs in on C17 cargo planes), and rent them beach houses on Martha’s Vineyard for two weeks.]
[Note that even had we stayed we would not have been able to see Air Force One land. The main runway at MVY is just over a mile long and when your personal airplane is a Boeing 747 it means you need to fly to Otis Air National Guard base to meet one of the helicopters that has been previously flown up there to greet you. Then you transfer from the B747 to the helicopter for the flight back south to the MVY airport, then shut down Vineyard traffic for the motorcade trip to the $50,000/week estate (it is unclear why he couldn’t take a helicopter directly to Blue Heron Farm, but maybe his Marine One helicopters are simply too big to land on the small private golf course associated with the house (aerial photo inside this article)). Michelle Obama and her daughters arrived four hours earlier via a similar collection of taxpayer-funded jet-powered aircraft (an extra $500,000 cost to taxpayers, considering operating costs and the Secret Service details required?).]
While I agree with the substance of your remarks, I think the situation was a very different one. Queen Victoria was secure – although less so than we are inclined to believe nowadays – as Queen-Empress of the Empire on which the sun never set. Until Kaiser Wilhelm started thinking about colonies and rattling his sabre, some time after Victoria’s death, Britain never faced a serious threat.
While it’s arguable that the USA under Bush was even more secure in its superiority, the administration felt pressure and reacted in the timeless way of governments: by blaming a little-known minority and starting a foreign war in a remote part of the world. So Saddam may not have been important enough to merit Bush’s personal attention, but as Bush’s chosen scapegoat he was the premium topic for rants designed to distract the populace from their woes.
Just in case anyone hasn’t yet seen this very apposite quotation, I might as well reproduce it yet again. Every time I read it, I am struck by what looks like its uncanny prescience. But of course that is just because Goering was describing a standard political pattern, which recurs over and over with little variation. Why change something that always works so well?
“Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”
“There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”
“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
– Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert
If you were surprised when thinking about the costs of the Secret Service employees taken out of the workforce, I wonder what you would have thought of the enormous personal entourage Michele Obama brought, we she came to visit here in Marbella, Spain on her vacation.
My jaw drops every time I have to pay 7 Euros to drive the 15km toll highway segment between here and the Malaga airport. They took the one costlier option — private helicopter — on the way to their $5,000 per night hotel.
(I know Philg’s commented on something similar to this with FDR but…)
Whether you like Truman or not, I always admired him that when he became Vice President (and even as President), they assigned one (!) Secret Service agent to him, Truman thought this was terribly intrusive, and would give the agent the willies every time he took a spontaneous walk through Washington. He thought it odd to have someone drive him around, and when he became President, he just wanted to keep on living in the Blair House (although I guess he eventually did during White House repairs).
The nonsense that goes on during any Executive-level trip these past 20 or 30 years is staggering. Although, I do remember when Obama came to Cleveland last winter, a number of us all definitely hung outside of the office and watch the motorcade come down the road right in front of us; we thought it was totally badass.
Phil,
here some pics. of the new taxpayer funded $ 2 million Obama pleasure palace and his usual groupie convoy entourage of Secret Service stooges etc..
http://cryptome.org/info/obama-protect44/obama-protect44.htm
No wonder America is bankrupt
Phil, you’re constantly remarking on the expense of the Presidents travel, and the burden it places on your recreational and small business flying.
Here are some thoughts to chew on. In modern times, I can think of two very successful presidential assassination attempts–Kenedey was successfully assassinated, and Reagen very nearly was(he probably survived only because of the secret service around him, and the medical access that comes with the job). Due to our political system and the great animosity that exists even within our country, not to mention external threats, is there a job with a greater risk of being assassinated in the country?
Sure, we could toss Obama the keys to a Prius and give him a gas card and hope things work out okay. There are a million ways to make his travel more efficient, but to what end? Planes and helicopters fly every day in the military whether there are wars or not. Pilots need training–flight time. Presumably the pilots associated with the presidents travel are getting good flight training. They other duties before they flew the president, and they’ll have other duties after.
Is there a more important, singular job in the entire country than president? We need to be able to attract the best talent possible for the job, wouldn’t you agree? How are we going to attract the best and brightest minds to a position where they may very rightly fear for their lives, or their families lives? No vacation or other perks? Good luck. Their pay is already laughable when compared against corporate america–future “private sector” potential earnings aside.
There’s also the fact that if the president is driving his own car, or whatever, he’s not doing anything else. Presumably he works while he’s sitting in his shiny 747. Modes of travel which seem outlandish to normal folks, still can make sense. If a lawyer makes $600/hr, and you’re paying him to be somewhere an hour away, it makes sense to pay the incremental cost of a limo so that your lawyer can do $600/hr work for you, instead of driving himself which someone making $25 would be quite capable of. Now scale that up to what some of these american CEO’s are making–thousands of dollars per hour, and those fancy corporate jets start to make more sense.
If you want to muse about costs, what would the cost to the US be if another president was assassinated? What about if the only people who applied for the job didn’t mind being shot at or the possibility of no vacation for themselves or their family for four years. What would the cost of that be to the entire country?
Yeah that bus is pretty fly, but can it compare to Will Smith’s 53 foot double decker trailer truck?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/will_arious_last_laugh_tow_smith_6IPr2tuaWFlUdCJf4eYWyM
I know, he paid for his, or the studio did, but you have to admit it is a case of “mine is bigger/better than yours.”
The same golf playing, hero king seems to be suffering gross defeat in Afghanistan (after bleeding tens of billions of taxpayer dollars fighting a vastly ‘inferior’ people). That’s how history might remember him too.
Why entertain a superiority complex . . . especially when you are able to do nothing?
Senorpablo: If the Presidency of the U.S. attracts the “best and brightest” Americans, looking back at the last few presidents, perhaps it is time to invest in China. As far as security goes, if that truly is a concern, it wouldn’t make sense for Obama to travel every few days to a fundraising dinner. He is more at risk in a hotel in Los Angeles than in the already-secure White House. So why not save him the 747 trip (disruptive to his work, no doubt) and invite the fatcats to the White House (offer them a free 747 ride at taxpayer expense if necessary)?
Señor Pablo —
Both examples you cite, the JFK assassination and Hinkley’s assassination attempt on Regan were due to operational failures of the protection detail.
Sending a convertible motorcade through an urban area with high-rises at a time when significant anti-Kennedy sentiment was known in Dallas beforehand source was probably not the wisest idea, regardless of who squeezed off the round, or from what position in Dealey Plaza
Hinkley’s attempt likewise showed several operational failues source
Mr. Obama’s extravagance is best compared against his peers. Take for example Mr. Cameron’strip to America as a head of state on state business, versus Obama’s personal vacation.
-Jay
Let’s not kid ourselves. The presidency is a 24/7 job and no one is ever really on vacation. I want whoever is in charge to have the best, most reliable communications, security, and access to information at all times. Every president resists “the bubble” to some degree or another when they first enter office, but ultimately realizes the scope and scale of their responsibility.
While I can understand Phil’s frustration with the impact presidential security has on his personal aviation, I would note that the logistics of any president’s travel are essentially entirely out of his control. The Secret Service establishes the required security precautions, probably out of an abundance of caution given past assasination attempts and the number of crazies out there, and the military provides the transport if by air. They are not going to let him pile Michelle and the kids into the minivan and drive off for holiday.
None of this is new with this administration but has been on a escalating path since at least WWII. And as far as Truman is concerned, I imagine his resistance to the Secret Service’ recommendations eased somewhat when two Puerto Rican nationalists started a fire fight with his security ourside his bedroom window at Blair House. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_assassination_attempt
Tom: If you want Obama to have the “best security at all times” then you should want him to stay in the White House rather than being at fundraising dinners in far-flung cities every second or third night. Even if we spent 50% of U.S. GDP on presidential security that would not be sufficient to guarantee the security of someone who is constantly going to new places. And there is always the risk of a helicopter or airplane crash. Does Obama have a letter from God promising that neither Air Force One nor a Marine One helicopter will never crash? If not, how is his security enhanced by taking four helicopter rides every three days en route to a fundraising dinner?
The “logistics” are “out of his control”? Obama is the commander in chief and head of the executive branch. There is no federal law that says that presidential security must be done in a particular way. If the buck doesn’t stop with Obama, with whom does it stop?
The two parts of your post seem at odds with one another…
If it diminishes us to have our President dealing directly with some lame dictator, wouldn’t it also diminish us to have our President go about without the modern trappings (security, traffic jams, closed airspace) of the leader of the Free World? How would Queen Victoria have looked heading to a summer palace with a butler, a carriage and a single guard?
Reminds of a story about ex-president Taft who was seen taking the train somewhere. How he was sweating and uncomfortable as all the other passengers in that era of no A/C. Ah! A return to the days of yesteryears.
Maybe it was a good idea for bush to have that out of the way place down in Texas for clearing brush and riding bikes. Maybe much smaller logistics?
Also to Tom: I can’t speak for Truman once he became President (I ashamedly quit reading the McCullough biography at inauguration day and haven’t picked it back up yet (I didn’t say my argument was good, this is my favorite blog and I just like commenting here 🙂 ) but I enjoy the humility of this excerpt from his Wikipedia page:
Four months after leaving office, Truman was invited to address the Reserve Officers Association in Philadelphia. Refusing official transportation, Truman instead drove his brand-new Chrysler New Yorker, with Bess accompanying him in the passenger seat. The trip, which included stops in Washington, D.C., New York City, and smaller towns, caused a media sensation, especially when the former President was pulled over by a policeman for driving too slowly in a passing lane.
Once again, aside from his political stances, I can’t help but enjoy parts of his personality.
Christopher: You raise an excellent point! I guess the Queen’s security trappings didn’t seem so paranoid. She was, after all, beloved by her subjects. She didn’t go to fundraising dinners every 2nd or 3rd night, thus shutting down her subjects’ cities. And her guards had much more interesting uniforms than the Secret Service. So it was a better show, it didn’t happen 3X/week, and it cost a lot less.
How many illegal wars did Queen Victoria preside over?