Saturday, September 22 , 2018, 12:42 pm | Mostly Cloudy 66º

 
 
 
 

Michael Barone: It’s Not Unnatural for Republicans to Want the President Protected

"Even opposition lawmakers who have spent the last six years fighting his every initiative have expressed deep worry for his security."

So wrote the New York Times' Peter Baker in the lead paragraph of a story on the congressional hearing on the Secret Service.

Baker is an excellent reporter and a good writer, and so it's useful to consider the implications of his framing of the story. And let's leave aside his hyperbole about Republicans opposition "every initiative" — some presidential initiatives are uncontroversial and widely supported — and look at that word "even."

Contained within that word and in the snarky tone of the story is the assumption that if you are politically opposed to a president, you won't mind seeing him or his family murdered. After all, you're against him, so why would you feel "deep worry for his security"?

A good writer always has in mind the characteristics of his readership. The conclusion I draw is that Baker assumes New York Times readers think it's unremarkable for political opponents to wish for a politician's death.

Not all of them do, of course. Baker quotes Paul Begala, former Bill Clinton aide and tough Democratic partisan, as saying Republicans were asking questions out of genuine concern. "This is totally on the level," Begala says. "They're acting like real human beings."

I have known Begala for 20-some years, and I have no doubt that back in 2006, when the British TV film Death of a President, envisioning the assassination of George W. Bush, debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival to applause from a capacity crowd, Begala was appalled. Similarly, with Nicholson Baker's 2003 novel, Checkpoint, about people planning to murder Bush.

To encourage people to contemplate the assassination of a president is despicable. A strong desire to ensure the safety of the president, however much you disagree with him, is a natural and healthy impulse for every citizen.

So it shouldn't be surprising that Republicans are just as angry as first lady Michelle Obama is reported to have been about the Secret Service's failure to keep an intruder out of the White House, and its four-day failure to realize that a sniper's gunshots hit the first family's residence.

Not everybody evidently feels this way when a Republican is in the White House. The New York Times movie critic's verdict on the 2006 movie: "Death of a President is, in the end, neither terribly outrageous nor especially heroic; it's a thought experiment that traffics in received ideas."

I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it doesn't sound like something Begala would say.

If Baker thinks many of his liberal readers are not disturbed by threats of violence or even murder directed at political opponents, that is unfortunate — even more unfortunate if he is correct.

Consider the protests in Wisconsin against the law restricting the bargaining perquisites of public employee unions passed by the Republican legislature and signed by Gov. Scott Walker. I have not seen any evidence that Walker's opponents expressed regret for the many death threats he and his family received during that wild time. One hopes that some liberals did speak out against them, and that most or all regretted them in the privacy of their thoughts.

I am reminded here of the official name of the organization that fought to the U.S. Supreme Court the Michigan constitutional amendment banning racial discrimination in, among other things, university admissions: Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight For Equality By Any Means Necessary. You can find it inscribed in the Supreme Court reports.

"By any means necessary," a common phrase of the hard Left, carries a threatening implication, a whiff of violence — one particularly vivid, perhaps, in a state whose largest city has suffered a devastating riot and some of the nation's highest rates of violent crime.

Enraged and self-righteous, some liberals seek to abridge opponents' basic human rights — by shutting down opponents' speech, campus speech codes, illicit investigations such as the one to which Gov. Walker was subjected and other limitations on the First Amendment. But do they find it natural that one side would wish actual violence upon the other?

Perhaps Baker thinks many New York Times readers will find it surprising that Republicans don't wish the death of a Democratic president. Let's hope he's wrong.

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. Click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @MichaelBarone, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >