A couple of years back I saw president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran on TV talking to a group of people in Tehran. He just stood on the top of a car with a megaphone and a big crowd of people surrounded him. Sure there were a few bodyguards, but you if you wanted you could pretty much tap him on the shoulder. Now I don't want to overestimate the merits of Iranian democracy, but I was kind of impressed by this.
Compare this with the leaders of the Western world. If there's a summit, the city gets under siege as if it's a Hollywood production. People are not allowed to stand on their balcony. If you get within half a mile of Obama, a sniper will put a bullet through your head. There is just something wrong about this ritual of self-importance. Seriously, aside from personal tragedy, what does it matter if some terrorist kills Obama? We just replace him with the next guy in a suit and tie, and the following day it would be the exact same politics. The system runs itself and no longer depends on the individuality of the persons in the top position. In that sense it reminds me of Europe in 1914 where the diplomatic system overruled the kings and presidents. It may be one of the deeper reasons for Trump's election -- people wanting somebody who can shake the tree.
"We just replace him with the next guy in a suit and tie"
I think this misses a key point of democracy. The president is not important as a person but because he is legitimized by the american public. Replacing him requires an enormous effort which is really what it is all about.
On top of that one could argue that the president has to be kept safe so that there is somebody willing to get elected and take the risk. Sure, someone will always become president but that person might not have the required skills.
US Presidential security is a result of a series of assassinations. For whatever reason a lot of people prefer to target the US President. As the US' role internationally has increased over the years the risk has also increased. When presidential security increased nutcases and axe grinders started targeting candidates. The risk is not hypothetical.
The people running the system do matter; change is effected slowly over time through the actions of the people holding office. It might seem like "the exact same politics" but history proves you wrong.
I don't think Trump's election is some reasoned attempt to "shake the tree", otherwise people wouldn't have voted straight-R and handed control of Congress right back to the same Republicans who have controlled Congress for the majority of the past 30 years and are the people actually responsible for the problems in government since Congress controls domestic policy far more than the President.
Trump's election was a combination of apathy of certain D voting blocs, gerrymandering, and people wanting to send a "screw you!" message to some perceived Not Real America™. The total number of votes required to change the outcome is far less than a million in just a few midwestern states.
Gerrymandering is probably the biggest problem we have right now. It's actual electoral fraud designed to disenfranchise the majority's will and I don't see how it is qualitatively or quantitatively different than other forms of electoral fraud like Putin engineering his own re-election.
TV appearances don't always show how well the crowd was monitored and people in it vetted and searched. And I can think of plenty of Western leaders that have made TV appearances standing in the middle of an apparent non hand-picked crowd. John Major standing on a soapbox surrounded by crowds jeering at him and waving placards condemning his government springs to mind. (Imagine a crowd being allowed to do that in Iran!)
The US president is a more potent symbol of his country's power and values than Iran's president and thus a more conspicuous target (even without taking into account the importance America citizens attach to possessing firearms as a supposed bulwark against tyranny)
Dont be impressed. Nazi officials also traveled with minimal protection in occupied countries. When Reinhard Heydrich was killed, a few villages were leveled in retaliation.
US president should be protected. But it should be protected as other military targets. You would never put a nuclear silo into large metropolitan area.
Just mentioning a Nazi does not invoke Godwin's law. You have to compare the person to a Nazi. The implication here was Nazis were hated in occupied territory but didn't travel in bulletproof bubbles, not that anyone who doesn't travel in bulletproof bubbles is a Nazi.
Compare this with the leaders of the Western world. If there's a summit, the city gets under siege as if it's a Hollywood production. People are not allowed to stand on their balcony. If you get within half a mile of Obama, a sniper will put a bullet through your head. There is just something wrong about this ritual of self-importance. Seriously, aside from personal tragedy, what does it matter if some terrorist kills Obama? We just replace him with the next guy in a suit and tie, and the following day it would be the exact same politics. The system runs itself and no longer depends on the individuality of the persons in the top position. In that sense it reminds me of Europe in 1914 where the diplomatic system overruled the kings and presidents. It may be one of the deeper reasons for Trump's election -- people wanting somebody who can shake the tree.