I understand, of course, why it's fairly rare for sitting Presidents of the US to be assassinated. They're a tough target. But there are any number of lesser figures whose death could be seen as desirable by splinter groups and fanatics, and who aren't anywhere near so well protected. Just consider the current candidates for President: Suppose you were a really fervent atheist, and believed that nothing could possibly be worse than Huckabee for president. Surely it couldn't be that difficult to kill him? Rifle, urban outdoor speaking event, getaway car, done. Even if you handed the election to, say, Romney, eh, at least he's not one of them braindead fundies.
It's clear that the overwhelming majority of people wouldn't try anything of the sort; but the recruiting ground for assassins isn't evev limited to 300 million, it's more like 2 billion. (That is, adults with some sort of chance of entering the US and buying a gun.) Plus, of course, (#NGov - 1) where #NGov is the number of governments on the Earth.
So, there are three requirements: One, you must be able to enter the US for a short period and acquire a gun in it. (This is not difficult, I think.) Two, you need to think that one of the candidates is a total disaster compared to the others - Hitler running against Gandhi, Churchill, and Roosevelt. It's not enough to think a Republican victory would be really bad, because killing Huckabee might create sympathy for the others; you have to think that your target is so utterly vile that their removal is good no matter who wins otherwise. And three, you must be able to get away, or else be suicide-bomber uncaring. That may be the sticking point; but surely there are lots of fanatics and just plain nuts out there? I don't understand how the candidates survive.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Presidential candidates get Secret Service protection too. Have since Bobby Kennedy was killed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not to mention that we really do a pretty good job for following up on attempts, and the results of a failed attempt can be the opposite of the intent and make the target ever more popular.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
riv -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that counts for the pre-primary candidates, only the two nominees. The Secret Service doesn't have the manpower for 18 different people under full protection darting about the country every which way.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lyr, it varies. Obama currently has protection, for instance. Clinton does as a former First Lady, and if any of the others have requested protection, they probably have it too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Not to mention that we really do a pretty good job for following up on attempts, and the results of a failed attempt can be the opposite of the intent and make the target ever more popular.
Which raises the question of why there aren't more faked attempts, instigated by the candidates. Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
Which of course would make the uncovering of a fake attempt on a candidate an insurmountable obstacle to recover from.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hence the smiley. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Martyrdom.
I think to kill a president, or even a presidential candidate, one would have to take a look in the mirror and recognize that in all likelihood, one is going to die in the attempt- or as a result of the subsequent manhunt. While it's a broad statement, I don't think someone who doesn't realize that probably has the reasoning abilities to carry out a successful assassination.
If there are multiple people involved in such an attempt, each person is a link in the chain that could break down. If there's only one, that person has to motivate themselves to the idea that a) they're achieving a great good by the act, and/or b) they'll be recognized as a hero for their actions. The latter seems to have been a fairly frequent uniting factor in presidential assassins- boy, was Booth ever in for a shock.
Recognition of the likelihood of their own martyrdom can't help but raise in many people's minds the possibility that their target will be lionized in death, and the results may lead to the detriment of the causes the assassin might favor and the betterment of causes the assassin hoped to harm. Some historians, for example, have suggested that Lincoln's path was much more towards reconciliation with the South; Johnson and Grant took more punitive views.
To consider the example, what would it benefit the atheist assassin if Huckabee's death created a backwash of sympathy for evangelicals and a nostalgia for the values the ex-candidate seemed to exemplify, and led to, say, Pat Robertson making another run?
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I think it's safe to say that very few people with the drive to be in politics want to be a martyr.
I don't think Bhutto had martyrdom in mind at all. That being said very few political figures of her importance will expose themselves in public the way she did. She might still be alive is she didn't make a habit of standing up out of her vehicle in the middle of giant crowds of indiscriminate composition .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, its hard to get motivated for the minor targets. Your prospective assassin, much as he hates Huckabee, is going to be thinking, maybe Huckabee won't win the primary . . . and I can always kill him later if he does. Then when he wins the primary, it either becomes too difficult, or he goes, maybe Huckabee won't win the race . . . and I can always kill him later if he does.
Additionally, by having an orderly succession policy, even assassinations of high level officials have little of the effect they tend to in less organized parts of the world. It really isn't that fulfilling to kill off a guy who gets replaced by another guy who does the same thing, absent a specific personal wrong.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I read this about three times as "Why aren't there more assignations?" and, well, you can see where my mind is. Firmly in the gutter.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, with me in California and my wife in Ohio, there are clearly going to be zero assignations until the tenth or so when I get there. Hence my interest in assassinating people. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*giggles* I know how you feel. The three-year-old has taken to sleeping in our bed-- even if that means kicking my husband out so there's room for her and me-- and she and her sister wander in whenever we try to take alone time otherwise, or knock on the door if we lock it... I could assassinate someone myself sometimes.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I've always wondered why no one has assassinated Fred Phelps. I mean, everyone hates him, so you would think he would be a high target.
I finally decided no one thought he would be worth going to jail for the rest of their life for. *shrug*
Have there been any major assassination attempts since Reagan?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, Dubya came close to assassinating the President. But pretzeling ain't exactly major.
[ December 31, 2007, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
I had a long post featuring Googled sources, but I underestimated the power of Wikipedia.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"On September 12, 1994, at 1:49 a.m., a Cessna 150L airplane crashed onto the South Lawn of the White House, killing the pilot, Frank Eugene Corder, but injuring no one else. The plane came to a halt against the south wall of the Executive Mansion..."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Have there been any major assassination attempts since Reagan?
Monica Lewinsky somehow escaped prosecution for blowing Clinton away.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)