The recent break-in at the White House by a crazed man has predictably sparked a debate over national security. The intruder, 42-year-old Army veteran Omar Gonzalez, hopped the surrounding fence and breached what is supposed to be the most guarded house in the country. Gonzalez overpowered a guard at the front door, and traversed much of the main floor before being subdued.
Clearly, this was a security lapse. The intruder alarm near the door, which should have signaled the trespassing, was muted by request of an usher’s office. Had the president been present, his life could have very well been in danger. The White House is supposed to epitomize security. The commander-in-chief is ostensibly the leader of the nation. In a democracy, more value is placed on the life of an elected head of state. Therefore, he should receive the best protection that money – even stolen funds – can buy.
That a man could scale a fence, run across the White House lawn, and casually enter the front door should be disconcerting. As Maureen Dowd of the New York Times writes, “It’s terrifying how poorly conceived the security for the president is.” Taxpayers fund a service that was clearly lackluster at best. The break-in fueled calls for accountability. Public outrage forced Secret Service Director Julia Pierson to resign. Bullheaded congressmen Peter King demanded an investigation into the affair. It certainly didn’t help the Secret Service’s credibility when news broke that an armed contractor with three prior criminal convictions was allowed on an elevator with President Obama – a violation of basic protocol.
This series of oversights leaves many questions. When law-abiding citizens are harassed at the airport, the public expects a robust protection network around the president. Why should a wheelchair-bound toddler have her body defiled by the government’s hands when the institution can’t protect the man in charge?
The problem is one of high expectations. When it comes to national security, no country can ever be completely secure. Ben Franklin’s warning of trading liberty for security and losing both is true because security is not something that can be guaranteed. At best, it can only be marginally increased. The world is far too unpredictable to ensure any kind of absolute safety.
What leads many people into demanding that we accomplish the impossible? It would seem that democracy and political campaigning give the public a distorted view of what government can actually achieve. There is a mythic narrative about the state that exists in liberal democracies. The idea of “permanence” and grandeur surround concrete, menacing bureaucracies. They elevate government to a supernatural deity, capable of stopping the Earth on its axis and intervening benevolently in human affairs. They don’t realize that public officials are afflicted with the same imperfection that haunts the rest of the members of society.
Like most government agencies, the Secret Service has a sordid history of wasteful excess and debauchery. The protective agency was caught soliciting prostitutes back in Columbia in 2012. It was far from the first time the professional bodyguards gave in to their lascivious desires. Not only did the hiring of call girls reflect poorly upon the president, it also put state secrets in danger.
That scandal produced a fair bit of public outrage. But it was far from unexpected. Set loose in a foreign country with a tourism trade centered around the world’s oldest profession, the worst part of human nature took over. These men were away from their families, in a place they thought was out of the limelight. They abandoned personal responsibility for a night of fun. The affair cost many their jobs. For all the brouhaha, I’m positive there are still some agents who frequent hookers overseas while guarding the president.
Imagine if employees of a private protection agency were caught in the same situation. Public outrage may not be as big, but it puts the company at risk. Prostitution is still frowned upon as an occupation. Private individuals caught engaging in solicited sex would, in all likelihood, not be viewed as disciplined protectors. The employer would suffer the consequences of a less valued brand. There is a built-in incentive to discourage bad behavior.
The same can’t be said of the government. Socialization of service dilutes accountability. Whether it be an intruder breaching security or low level employees caught with hookers, consumers don’t have much of a choice but to keep paying for incompetence. They end up with a paradox; expecting better-than-normal performance but also discounting the effectiveness outright. Campaign slogans say otherwise, but bureaucracy is not the same as business. Washington isn’t Walmart. It’s the Department of Motor Vehicles writ large; slow, lethargic, and full of faults. People complain of lousy government service yet somehow expect better results.
The state is really a victim of inflated hope. Much of this is because of the monopoly on security and conflict resolution it controls. When government is seen as the only source of protection, people naturally demand better outcomes. When failures occur, as they inevitably do, there is consternation. Politicians hit the TV circuit, declaring that the error will be fixed. They build up the public’s expectations so that when another mistake happens, the outrage commences all over again. This cycle results in demands for more aggressive service. The government is more than happy to oblige these requests as it means increased power and authority.
Limiting the state means recognizing the extent of its abilities and the danger of allowing too much discretion in the hands of bureaucrats. If government were truly capable of protecting the nation from any and all threats, it would probably have more consent from the populace. Instead, an ongoing series of lapses makes for contempt. Distrust in government is a good thing; but not when it leads to increased security measures that trample on basic liberties.
When news broke of the White House break in, some media types were outraged that Gonzalez wasn’t shot on sight. But the fact that the Secret Service failed to kill Gonzalez is a good thing. Government should always use the utmost caution when it comes to taking the life of a citizen. My worry is that high expectations will soon erode the cautionary outlook. When government is expected to do everything, there is nothing it won’t try.