One of the downfalls of Newt Gingrich was his whining about not being included on Air Force One in a trip coming back from a trip to Europe. Now the new Speaker has found herself in a flap because she requested a plane from the Air Force to fly her back home to San Francisco. This week her office issued a statement where she tried to imply that they we camping on her request because she is the first woman to hold the Speakership. Nonsense. The GOP tried to get a story going that the request for a plane large enough to be able to fly the Speaker to California would contribute to global warming. Nonsense again. But there is a story here.
One of the concerns I have about the current state of our political system is the increasing distance that our public officials have from their public. When you now enter any of the congressional offices you need to go through security and are restricted from going to certain places in the Capitol. Most government buildings are locked down in the same way. Many members rarely have the opportunity to mingle with their constituents. Elected officials, for some marginally good and some significantly bad reasons have claimed the need for these additional security measures because of their status. They should rethink those security demands.
Ultimately, the new Speaker could earn a lot of points by flying commercial back home. There is a very small chance that the Speaker will suffer any significant increase in security risk. Her greatest risk would be to have to try airplane food. But the potential benefits of at least seeing the American people on a regular basis would be huge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Hello Dr. Tax, I'm not entirely familiar with the history of transport for the Speaker, but I thought that ALL speakers were entitled to military transport and that, furthermore, the previous Speaker had a plane capable of flying non-stop to his home district. I heard on a broadcast that the person making the request for a transport with the same capability but all the way to Cali was the Master of Arms for the speaker.
How much of this is true?
Ariel-
Indeed Mr. Hastert used a slightly smaller plane to get back to Illinois. And by that principle, Ms. Pelosi is entitled to get a plane that will take her back to her district.
My point is slightly different. In the name of security we have isolated our elected officials. Speaker Pelosi is the second in line for the presidency. The rationale for giving any speaker a plane is her security is involved. I think the chances, with proper preparation, of having an incident on a commercial plane are very remote and the tradeoff of getting the speaker out of the cocoon that many elected officials are wrapped in is much greater.
It is increasingly impossible for Americans of all stripes to have a chance to see their leaders except in a very controlled environment. In the long term that is bad for our democratic system. In 1955, when I was very young and my family was on a vacation, I met President Eisenhower. I understand the risks involved of having that kind of open contact with the president today - although I think we have given up too much of that. But when Speaker Pelosi or any other official spends 100% of their time in a security blanket the represenativeness of the House of Representatives is diminished. I would say the same thing for her predecessor and (when it happens) for her successor.
Very true, thanks for clearing that up. I explored the topic a little more and proponents of military transport for Pelosi metion that she's 2nd in line for the Presidency and that that should factor in the decision. What do you think of that argument?
I think it comes back to the larger question which precipitated the original post. The chances that the Speaker could be attacked on a commercial flight - with proper precautions - IMHO are very small. The benefits of her flying with average people could be significant. These are trying times and I can partially accept the rationale that our top elected officials should have some protection - but where does it end and as importantly what are the tradeoffs for elected officials who never have the opportunity to understand the trials that average Americans face in things like air travel?
Post a Comment