LJ, the Secret Service, Guns and God

[major_clanger]

A number of people on my friends list have noted the incident involving the USAian LJ'er who got a visit from the Secret Service after posting some less than polite comments about George Dubya.

One of the common points of concern seems to be the astonishment that the Secret Service could take what looks like an idle wish so seriously, especially one phrased (rather sardonically) as a prayer. In my view, understanding why involves understanding both the nature of the Secret Service, the impact of a gun culture and the view of prayer in a conservative society.

The Secret Service is a deeply paranoid organization. Not just figuratively, but literally: it really feels that its survival is threatened. Think about it - why does the US have a separate body that is both Presidential bodyguard and anti-counterfeiting police, when both jobs arguably fall well within the remit of the FBI? I recently read Philip Menlanson's The Secret Service, a book which concludes that the Service is still collectively traumatized by its failure to protect Kennedy and the near-assassination of Reagan. Coupled with some very near misses (Harry Truman in 1950, Gerald Ford twice in 1975) this, Menlanson suggests, instills a fear that another attempt against a President, even unsuccessful, might lead to the Service's mission being handed to the FBI.

And being paranoid, the Secret Service exhibits paranoid behaviour, treating any and every threat against the Presidency as worthy of investigation, for fear of missing a real assassin-in-the-making. And, in a gun-obsessed culture like the US, the gap between threat and action can be distressingly small. As S M Stirling once noted, whilst it is technically true that 'guns don't kill people, people do', guns do make it so much easier.

The other important aspect of US culture to consider is the role of religion. For a nation with a constitution that formally embraces secularism, the USA has a culture in which religious conviction is so important that in some small way it is a de facto theocracy. In the UK, when someone says "I pray for X", they generally mean that they hold some sincere but vague hope. In the USA, from my experience, it can quite often mean that for the speaker, X is an issue of overwhelming and immediate moral importance. Under such circumstances, it is perhaps understandable why the Secret Service might take a wish phrased as a prayer particularly seriously.

Having said all this, I am still very disturbed by the LJ incident. Even accounting for the reasons behind the Secret Service's response, it was still disproportionate under the circumstances. What is of course especially upsetting is the way that they became involved: through an informer, the sort of person who kept the East German Secret Police in business. It is very easy to fall into the trap of assuming that Fandom (or the sort of fandoms we inhabit) is a 'safe space', a sub-culture where everyone is friendly, reasonable and nice. Unfortunately this has never been the case but sadly it seems that the present political divide in the US is bringing it to the fore as never before.

MC

Comments

[lady_of_asheru]

This is an interesting take on the whole thing - though I also wonder how much of what is posted on LJ can be taken as truth without external verification (the American LJ'er may just have been making the whole thing up, we will never know one way or the other).
S

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

Bodyguarding seems to be one of those security roles which is open to sudden political meddling. And there's certainly a turf-war element in it. Some of the stuff I've seen on affairs in the UK suggests that the SAS is involved, and other cources put it in the hands of the Military Police. Possibly it's somebody else by now.

I wonder if you heard some of the same stories about Bush's stay at Buckingham Palace -- were the Secret Service prepared for the rampaging packs of ankle-biting Corgis?

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

What is of course especially upsetting is the way that they became involved: through an informer

This is what upset me. Sadly, it's also what makes me feel that the story is true.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

On the other hand whenever a gay person is killed in the US a finger is pointed at the culture of it being okay to intimidate and say threatening things to/about gays. In some ways it is disproportionate, on the other hand I think that people ought to stop and think about what they are saying. It is something I learned at an early age, never point a gun at anyone, even in jest, and never joke about shooting anyone. "Never, never let your gun, pointed be at anyone..." and all the rest.

Never point your gun...

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

Indeed. I learned it as a young kid from my shotgun-expert father as 'Never, ever point your gun - loaded or not - at anyone'. I'd not thought of how it can be extended to our wider behaviour before, however.

I read what is supposed to be a screen-shot of the original posting, and it was ... crass: not good satire. I can see how it could have been construed as a threat.

[victoriacatlady.livejournal.com]

The Secret Service is a deeply paranoid organization. Not just figuratively, but literally: it really feels that its survival is threatened. Think about it - why does the US have a separate body that is both Presidential bodyguard and anti-counterfeiting police, when both jobs arguably fall well within the remit of the FBI? I recently read Philip Menlanson's The Secret Service, a book which concludes that the Service is still collectively traumatized by its failure to protect Kennedy and the near-assassination of Reagan. Coupled with some very near misses (Harry Truman in 1950, Gerald Ford twice in 1975) this, Menlanson suggests, instills a fear that another attempt against a President, even unsuccessful, might lead to the Service's mission being handed to the FBI.

This is a very interesting point, and indeed your whole analysis seems reasonable to me. I have one question, though: why does the Secret Service have anything to do with anti-counterfeiting of some sort, as well as bodyguarding the President? Is there some connection between the two tasks?

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

The US Secret Service was set up in the aftermath of the Civil War to couter the then-rampant problem of counterfeiting. As such, by the end of the 19th Century it was one of very few Federal law enforcement agencies of any soft, the only other major one being the US Marshals. When Congress decided that a presidential guard was needed, the Secret Service thus got the job more as a historical accident than anything else.

MC