Tear Down That Fence: Security Theater Won’t Protect The Capitol

But it would hurt our democracy and divert attention and resources from more effective improvements.

By and
16

In the aftermath of the January 6 storming of the Capitol, lawmakers are studying how to make sure that shameful event never recurs. One idea persists: Wall off Congress by erecting permanent fencing. The acting chief of the Capitol Police has called for such a barrier, and the union has endorsed a proposal from retired Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honoré that includes various options for fencing. A permanent fence around the Capitol is unnecessary, actively harmful to our democracy, and diverts attention away from more effective measures.

Maybe we can’t go back to the good old days when Washingtonians picnicked on the west front stairs or wandered into the building sans metal detectors. But kids should still be allowed to go sledding on snowy days, the public should still be able to go on tours, and advocates should still be able to bend the ears of their representatives in person. Visiting the seat of government should be as frictionless as possible. Allowing the U.S. Capitol to become a fortress would be a tremendous injury to democratic vitality and the nation’s reputation as a free and open democracy.

And a permanent fence would be mere security theater that would fix none of the actual problems we have. The failures on January 6 were the result of poor management, bad planning, and failed leadership at the top of the Capitol Police. Having thrown tons of money at the Capitol Police over the decades, we know that the problem is not funding, but leadership. 

The dramatic increases in funding for congressional security have been undercut by an expansion of the Capitol Police force’s mission. Capitol Police officers now spend an inordinate amount of time conducting local drug busts, policing vehicular traffic in the neighborhood, and even enforcing rules at Union Station, more than a half-mile away. This is an unnecessary expansion of the force’s jurisdiction that has stretched its capabilities and diverted it from its primary mission, protecting federal legislative buildings and members of Congress. These non-security policing responsibilities can easily be shifted to local and other federal law enforcement agencies, whose training is better suited to them anyway.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
16
By and
Comments (16)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    Convincing

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Pstahley

    Is there more readily available information about the mission creep referenced in this article? Some links to coverage or even the underlying authorities that seem to have been added would be great.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Adam Bridge

    It's seems like how to protect the Capitol involves asking: From what? The large fence is great for keeping out everyone - especially large crowds where armed security can hold the perimeter. But it's a BIG perimeter and unless some idiot calls together all the Q adherents and the other cultists for a big rally on the National Mall we probably won't get a huge crowd.

    If the security folks did start to see people coming - not thousands but hundreds - having a rapid deployment of police/national guard can make attacking the Capitol a very expensive operation for the aggressors.

    But it seems like smaller groups are more likely the problem. That's a place for an active policing force.

    Just take down the fence because it's offensive to the very notion of what our government is all about. If crazies come calling: protect the government.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Agreed. remove it.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Although I'm open to whatever technical security solution that works, the author misses an important aspect of the Capitol's security that we must maintain.

    What did *not* occur on 1/6 was a massive slaughter of Trump's terrorists at the hands of the Capitol Police and other agencies. That's what would have happened if they crowd were to attack, for instance, a military base.

    If the Capitol were defended like a military base--i.e. with clear shoot-to-kill orders--then we would only need fraction of the force being used.

    The Capitol, on the other hand, is a much trickier project because you need to deal with protests adjacent to the Capitol with escalating levels of force. (Those brave CP officers were protecting the lives the terrorists as much as they were the lawmakers when kept them physically away from them--if they got physically close they would have started shooting and there would have been a lot of deaths).

    One other thing missing is that the Republican party, as a party, has not fundamentally denounced the 1/6 violence and continue to make excused for it, and most importantly, continue to tell their followers that **this is the only way Republicans can obtain power** since they already succeeded at the ballot box and that didn't work, and the court system failed them. It's correct and proper to expect that the White House and Capitol will be at the center of much more violence going forward--and most likely much better planned and coordinated violence.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      Your comment seems tangential to the substance of the actual article.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ed P

    Nope. There is still a huge minority in this country living off the big lie that Tru o actually won the election. The insurrection is less than 2 months behind us. These protection prevent any monkey business and we do not know what such monkey business might have occurred in those 2 months if these protections were not in place.

    Erring on the side of caution in the protection of the Capitol is logical and justified for the foreseeable future.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John Q. Public

      The next time that there's a massive, widely-advertised, pre-planned gathering of people in DC with the express goal of stopping Congress from doing its job, I will happily support putting the fencing back up. Until that time, there's no point in leaving it up.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ed P

        There very well might have been one today had not very visible security measures been in place protecting the Capitol.

        Its almost like defenses serve no purpose unless directly under attack at this very instant.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Kevin Durant?

      Fences don’t work.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        I see what you did there.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Ed P

        Protecting the Capitol is maybe slightly different than a 3000 mile long border. But I’m sure such minor intricacies of reality are just an inconvenience and can be ignored.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kevin Durant?

          OMG I forgot about shifts. So it’s more like 60,000 good paying union patrol jobs!!

          The problem will be finding poor Americans near the border who need a job.....

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Kevin Durant?

          Yeah the 3000 mile border requires more people.

          5 people per mile is 15,000 people. Good paying union patrol jobs.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Ed P

            I have zero problems with securing the border. Lets just not do it in the stupidest fashion possible.

            Collapse