Politics aside, what should we do about the TSA?

American voters, who have felt powerless against the allegedly invasive screening methods used by an expanding TSA, got an unexpected gift from a very unexpected place last week.

At the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., the party adopted a platform that included a pledge to reform the TSA.

I’m not making this up.

Republicans reining in the TSA. Who would have thought?

Here’s the actual platform language:

While the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks brought about a greater need for homeland security, the American people have already delivered their verdict on the Transportation Security Administration: its procedures – and much of its personnel – need to be changed.

It is now a massive bureaucracy of 65,000 employees who seem to be accountable to no one for the way they treat travelers. We call for the private sector to take over airport screening wherever feasible and look toward the development of security systems that can replace the personal violation of frisking.

It’s the first time since the TSA’s creation a decade ago that any major political party has taken an official stand on the agency, and it marks a real turning point. Until now, the cause of TSA reform has been marginalized to a few activist legislators on both sides of the aisle.

But with this document, all that changes.

Disclosure: I’m a registered independent. I disagree with many of the Republican party’s platform issues. As a matter of fact, I also disagree with many of the Democratic party’s past platforms. But on the issue of TSA reform, I stand with the GOP.

Something needs to be done. Now.

Will the Democrats follow? We won’t know until their official platform is adopted at their national convention in Charlotte next week. (I doubt it. The early buzz on its platform, and a look at previous position papers, suggests the TSA remains a non-issue. But we can hope.)

The TSA’s critics aren’t exactly doing backflips. Because while almost everyone can agree with the first few sentences of the Republican platform section on the TSA — that the agency is in need of reform, and that it’s a “massive bureaucracy” that seems accountable to no one — there’s no consensus on what to do about it.

The TSA’s most hard-line critics want to eliminate the agency, replacing it with private airport security. Others say the agency should be reformed but remain part of the federal government.

Almost no one is publicly saying the agency works just fine as it is. To claim the TSA is doing a good job protecting America’s transportation systems in the face of widespread complaints, lawsuits and its own paper trail of misdeeds, would probably be political suicide.

As usual, it isn’t what candidates are saying, but what they aren’t saying, that’s the problem.

Pretending the TSA isn’t an issue would be foolish, an indication that a candidate is tone-deaf and out of touch with the reality of traveling in 2012.

Yet even acknowledging the TSA is an issue can be politically risky, too. The only presidential candidate who has taken a stand on the TSA is former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, and he has zero chance of getting elected, which is too bad. Makes the whole presidential election look fixed.

And consider the latest dust-up between Texas Rep. Ron Paul and TSA agents in Clearwater, Fla., last week. Was that confrontation a coincidence? I doubt it.

The only ones who benefit from remaining silent on the issue of the TSA is the TSA bureaucracy and the subcontractors and lobbyists who have made a fortune from our collective fears.

Everyone else loses. The voters lose, because they get four more years of an incompetent, overpriced and dishonest agency “protecting” us from a nonexistent threat, critics will point out. The incumbents, should they be re-elected, will also lose — more specifically, their legacies will be tarnished because they will always be remembered as the ones who failed to curb a wasteful and abusive federal agency.

Like it or not, the TSA already is an election-year issue.

If Democrats, independents and Green Party candidates remain silent on the problems of the TSA, then we should all be prepared for another four years of abuse at the hands of an agency that is, by most accounts, of control.

And the nominees who ignore the reality of traveling today should prepare themselves too — for a probable electoral defeat.

  • Norwegian Blue

    Plus, liberals will make you take the caps lock off.

  • Kevin Mathews

    The one difference with privatizing security is that it brings in competition. So while yes, they will lower the wages of the employees to some extent, that can’t completely crush the employee pay and expect to retain the contracts.
    Private companies have more incentive to ensure their employees do the job correctly because they are always in danger of losing the contract and revenue that goes with it. TSA currently does not have that same fear level…

  • IGoEverywhere

    I will not allow my customers to leave out of Pittsburgh without a warning that they are by far the rudest employees second only to Cincinnati. If you know before you go of the possible loopholes at Pittsburgh, and there are, then you can get to the gates with a minimum loss of dignity. We are 99.999% not criminals or smugglers. I don’t want touched or x-rayed with a machine, 100x’s stronger then a dental x-ray.

  • Chasmosaur

    What I would like to see happen is TSA moved under the Department of Transportation, away from Homeland Security. That way, they can’t hide behind “classified” or “national security”.

    That way, the security for transportation is overseen by the people who have a vested interest in seeing transportation flow smoothly. TSA would be happy if no one traveled again.

  • http://twitter.com/DaveLovesDee David Hook

    I think it should be a combination of private contractors doing the screening, supervised by a small team of TSA management co-located with of Federal Marshals at each location. Marshals are used to dealing with people detained for Federal crimes, and are experienced at working with aircraft. If a person is suspicious enough to cause concern but there is no proof, a Marshal could be placed on the same flight to monitor.

  • Brooks Hurd

    There is no question that the TSA has improved since I was first exposed to them after 9-11. I’ve been through border security (mostly airport) in more than a dozen countries since the TSA was formed. Of the security screenings that I have experienced, the TSA is not at the top, sadly they are still not near the top. The TSA still concentrates on objects rather than the people. Preoccupation with objects means that the TSA is always looking at the last threats, not what terrorists are planning for the future. One way that the TSA can stay ahead of the terrorists is to learn from the most successful border security system on the planet – Israel’s security system. I have been through Israeli security on 18 round trips. I believe that if the TSA adopted a few of the security screening methods perfected by Israel, that their effectiveness would increase dramatically.

  • Brooks Hurd

    Very good points!

  • Brooks Hurd

    Obama has consistantly side stepped Congress and used the DOJ to push his agenda. The Constitution set up checks and balances so that no one of the 3 separate but equal branches of government could monopolize control. Obama is ignoring the foundations of the Constitution.

  • Brooks Hurd

    My feeling exactly! Obsession with objects means that the TSA is forever playing catch up with the terrorists.

  • Pingback: The TSA critic’s guide to America’s 2012 election by Christopher Elliott (TSANewsBlog.com) | Americans for Travel Freedom

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5QQQ3ZH7R2QJODYKQN53J7SRL4 Bob

    I hate the TSA so much that it really almost was the deciding factor in my voting Republican, even though I disagree with Republicans on most  other issues.  Hearing Romney degrade the working poor and elderly, though, just makes me sick to my stomach.  There’s no way I could ever vote for him.  

    *Sigh*  The Green Party opposes the Patriot Act and still believes in freedom and basic human dignity.  They’re a little extreme, and I disagree with their views on illegal immigration, but, otherwise, I guess it’s the closest thing I can find to what I really believe in….. :(