The TSA critic’s guide to America’s 2012 election

by Christopher Elliott on September 9, 2012

Now that the Democrats have wrapped up their political convention in Charlotte, it’s time to take a hard look at both major parties and their official positions on America’s cherished travel freedoms.

By the way, even if you’re not a U.S. citizen or don’t care who wins November’s presidential election, you’ll want to tune in. This could affect your next trip to or from the United States.

Last week, I offended many Republicans when I expressed surprise that their party adopted a platform that included the goal of privatizing the Transportation Security Administration.

I’m still shocked. After all, the TSA and the invasions of privacy we now must allegedly endure were introduced under the Bush administration. Now it looked as if the GOP wanted to rein in the bloated agency, a goal many Americans would approve of in principle.

Would the Democrats have created the TSA, if they had been in power after 9/11? No one knows.

But last week we got a pretty good idea of what might have happened, had the roles been reversed.

(Yes, now it’s my turn to offend the Democrats in the room.)

Many TSA observers have watched in dismay as the Department of Homeland Security has taken an even more hard-line approach to security during the last four years. They hoped it was a fluke.

But the harsh policies only intensified under the Obama administration. The prison-style patdowns at the airport, the widespread implementation of full body scanners, the TSA moving beyond airport security to trains, bus terminals, and NFL games — all of that happened under a Democratic administration.

All of which raises the question: Are Democrats even less concerned about our Fourth Amendment rights than their opponents?

After the Democratic convention, I hoped to get a definitive answer, maybe in its platform (PDF).

Alas, the Dems were completely silent on the topic of the TSA, travel freedom, and the oft-repeated criticisms that the DHS is creating a de-facto police state.

They had plenty of opportunities in their platform; at 26,629 words, it covered just about every topic under the sun, including the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, tribal sovereignty, and standing up for women’s rights around the globe.

Not that these issues are unimportant. But are we really expected to believe that the issue of limiting our freedom of movement doesn’t even merit a mention in the party platform?

It’s a shame, because like the Republican platform, the Democratic one has plenty of laudable ideas and promises. Ideas you, or I, might be inclined to agree with and support.

But unlike the Republicans, which just appear a little opportunistic with their TSA platform language that demands the agency be privatized, the Democrats seem at best, clueless, and at worst, duplicitous.

“The President put in place government reform that has led to the most open, efficient, and accountable government in history,” the platform brags, adding, “We are committed to the most open, efficient, and accountable government in history, and we believe that government is more accountable when it is transparent.”

This stands in sharp contrast to the actions of the DHS and the TSA under President Obama, which have failed to obey the law and which, say critics, operate with such secrecy that one hand often doesn’t know what the other is doing.

So where does that leave you, the voter?

If one of the defining issues of this election is your constitutional right to move freely throughout the country without being frisked, prodded, microwaved, or interrogated about your intentions, then what do you do? Should you choose between the lesser of the two evils among the major candidates, or throw your vote away on an alternate candidate who has no chance of winning the election?

I can’t tell you how to vote, because I don’t even know how I’m going to vote. Yes, there you have it: yet another undecided.

I don’t like my options.

If you’ve made it this far in my story, you probably don’t, either.

Whether you lean left, right, or play it straight down the middle, I think we can all agree on one thing: Regardless of which candidate wins in November, the real winner will be the top-heavy $8-billion-a-year TSA with its staggeringly vague mandate to screen Amtrak passengers, ballpark visitors, cars, Metro riders, and political conventioneers, all in the name of “homeland” security.

Are there any political candidates brave enough to confront this sprawling agency, whose tentacles extend to ever transportation system in America?

If there are, then they have my vote.

 

  • http://tinyurl.com/9cfusz9 The most beautiful blog

    Amazingly Beautiful WordPress Themes
    http://tinyurl.com/9cfusz9

  • GregInMemphis

    Checkout Gary Johnson- Libertarian candidate for president. He is the only candidate that would get the government out of the screening business.

  • http://twitter.com/angstela Angela

    I believe the Greens are a choice as well; their platform does not specifically mention the TSA but includes “Support strict Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure. “

  • http://www.facebook.com/sommer.gentry Sommer Gentry

    Gary Johnson is getting my vote because of his position opposing the TSA’s disgusting sexual assaults. Here’s a snippet from his campaign website: “THE FREEDOMS ON WHICH AMERICA WAS FOUNDED are now under attack from the very people charged with protecting and upholding them.”

  • http://tinyurl.com/9rqnsfp Blog experts

    Improve PageRank and make money with your blog !
    http://tinyurl.com/9rqnsfp

  • http://tinyurl.com/8gsy88k Prophet

    Force the Search Engines to Create Your High PR Links for You !
    http://tinyurl.com/8gsy88k

  • Dolt

    It really frustrates me every time I see someone write that voting for a 3rd party is “throwing your vote away”. It is not. First of all, if you are voting for what you believe in, for your principals, then it is never a “throw away” vote. Second, the majority of us live in states where a vote for a Dem or Repub make 0 difference. Do you think anyone voting for Romney in California is going to make any difference in the outcome? No. In fact, I would say that vote is more of a “throw away” vote than any 3rd party vote. Is someone in Mississippi voting for Obama really going to affect any outcomes? Nope. Another “throw away vote”. Lastly, if everyone I have ever seen claim this nonsense about throwing away your vote actually did vote 3rd party, it would actually make a difference. Would that person WIN, probably not. Not this time. But over time, it can make a real difference. Sadly, though, I’m convinced that most people don’t vote on their principals or what they truly believe, they just simply pick the one they hate the least of the top 2 candidates and hope the one they choose wins. They just want to be a part of the winning team. Don’t vote with that mentality. Vote on what you believe in regardless of who wins.

    • http://tsanewsblog.com/214/news/history-repeats-itself-with-tsas-strip-search-tactics/ Lisa Simeone

      Dolt, totally agree. I’m voting for Jill Stein.

      • Dazymae

        Who is Jill Stein?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Oline-Wright/772108468 Oline Wright

      I am looking at 3rd party options for all elected officials. If I get my absentee ballot that is as I have moved out of the States. Those candidates that have voted against the violations of citizens rights may have a chance to get my for for their re-election however. Personally I feel that if people all started voting 3rd party/independent votes there might be enough of a decrease in total number of votes that are cast for a major party as to make the whole election invalid as there would be no clear majority. one can hope so anyway. and who knows maybe just maybe one of the 3rd party people might get a place in the election. Here the spirit of compromise to get some of what you want has become dangerous.

      • Dolt

        I doubt it would take away a majority if you combine the 2 major parties votes, but you don’t need a majority to become included in our Republic. Just about 15% of the votes and support will at least get you included in debates, get air time on the news channels and have new ideas and conversations presented to the majority of people who never hear other view points from other parties. That’s what voting 3rd party will do. It will get the views and ideas out to more people.

  • obvi

    the divergence is simple – neither party cares about civil liberties> except one party is anti-union, and the other is pro union…and that is the extent of their involvement…

Previous post:

Next post: