Editorial: Shooting likely will mean greater buffer

Thursday, Feb. 8, 2001 | 10:15 a.m.

President Bush never was in any danger, but Wednesday's shooting outside the gates of the White House still generated considerable interest. It is likely that the gunman's presence so close to the White House will revive the debate about how well a president can be protected. Of course, the Secret Service should see what steps, if any, could be taken to improve security around the White House. But the fact is that the shooting occurred on a public sidewalk. It also is important to note that, unless he becomes a "bubble boy," there is no way to establish foolproof protection for a president.

Interviews with presidents often reveal that once they're in office, they feel cut off from the outside world and the problems that everyday Americans face. Paradoxically, Americans want to ensure the president's safety with thorough security measures, yet they also want him to have enough freedom so that he feels he can venture out into the public.

The past decade has seen an increase in the number of measures to increase the president's security, including the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It's not just the White House affected, either, as beefed-up security was put in place at the U.S. Capitol after a gunman killed two police officers there in 1998. Some security enhancements are warranted because of the increased threat of violence, but it is dispiriting that this in turn has further distanced the people from those they elected to represent them.

archive