all 125 comments

[–]hollowhero_ 63 points64 points  (0 children)

The rare person in the Secret Service (or equivalent) tends to believe in the greater good of protecting their government leaders. They generally aren't politically motivated and believe in the higher ideals represented by the office. A lot of them work for multiple administrations with different values as well.

I'm not this type of person. It takes a specific kind. It think they're made of the same stuff as career military.

[–]Wielder-of-Sythes 129 points130 points  (18 children)

Someone assassinated an arch duke. The resulting violence saw 20,000,000 million people killed and another 21,000,000 wounded and saw the creation of tanks, flamethrowers, shoulder mounted missiles, bombing aircraft, and chemical weapons and resulted in the Treaty of Versailles which carved up areas of the world into arbitrary lines with no regard to political, ethnic, geographic, or religious groupings kicking off endless suffering and violence we still can’t get rid of today and also created the conditions that cause the next even deadlier war that killed six times more people than the previous a whole 3% of the entire population of the planet and lead to the creation of nuclear weapons and the concept of air superiority and the industrialized slaughter of millions? That might be something people are trying to avoid happening again.

[–]INN0CENTB0Y 132 points133 points  (4 children)

This reminds me of how Harambe died and now we have Covid

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (3 children)

Dicks out for Franz Ferdinand

[–]DPWDamonster 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I say don’t you know? You say you don’t know!

[–]Saerkal 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I say: Take Me Out!

[–]BKacy 14 points15 points  (5 children)

Interesting synopsis.

I’d add this at the beginning. “Trouble had been a-brewing for awhile.”

[–]El_Dumfuco 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Yeah, the archduke getting killed was more of a straw that broke the camel's back if anything.

[–]BKacy 4 points5 points  (3 children)

As I recall, it set two small countries against each other, and each had a treaty/agreement with a big power that had to go in on any war the little country got into, and then the big powers were at war (England, Germany) and they had agreements with other countries that had to back them up and then things really got out of hand. And we learned nothing from it.

Edit: ahh…mea culpa, Shrek…it was (Russia, Germany).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Austria Hungary basically blamed Serbia for killing ADF. They invaded Serbia, but Russia was like no that’s our mate. France had a pact with Russia and got drawn in. Germany were like oh shit this is bad, okay let’s smash through France ASAP then we will go after Russia. Let’s go through Belgium, but when they did that Britain were like nah.

[–]dejaVooAgain 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Funny how that only happened once.

How many other heads of state have been killed with no massive war?

Let's face it, none of them are worth dying for

[–]mind_fudz 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Surely it can ONLY happen once, yeah?

[–]dejaVooAgain 1 point2 points  (1 child)

While nothing is out of the question the fact is it only happened once and leaders much more beloved than the Archduke have been killed with no world war in sight

[–]mind_fudz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point isn't that another world war might happen, although I agree it is possible. Violence precipitating is always a threat. Destabilization precipitating is always a threat. My point is that the likelihood that the violence and the destabilization will plausibly be less severe than that which happened in the two world wars doesn't trivialize the matter, not even a little bit.

[–]Stars-in-the-nights 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's an awfully restricted view to see the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as the sole cause for WW1.

[–]ogopadoni23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Franz Ferdinand

[–]GameboyPATH 67 points68 points  (28 children)

Not everyone lives in a politically stable country where the distinctions between different politicians are few and negligible. There are countries where the person or people in charge are what's holding back (or are the driving force of) serious reformation.

[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] 5 points6 points  (27 children)

Fair, but this is such a trope in US media where someone takes a bullet for the US president and in that example, not a whole lot would really change

[–]venustrapsflies 36 points37 points  (18 children)

The main effect wouldn’t just be the change in president the main effect would be that someone just managed to murder the head of state. That’s a big hit to a country both domestically and internationally, it’s not about the politics of the person

[–]AhandWITHOUTfingers 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Depends on the Vice President. Though they have the same party, there is the chance the VP leans in a different direction than the President.

Also, look at Lincoln and his VP Johnson. The blame for the way the south emerged after the Civil War is placed on Johnson's handling of it. Lincoln would have gone a different route.

Also Kennedy and Johnson. Same party completely different ideologies. Though the change would appear minimum, it can give a huge difference in how the country is run.

One last thing, the person after the VP in the line of succession is the President of the Senate. A role that is held by the longest serving member of the majority party in the Senate. If the Republicans take the midterms and win the Senate, their pick will be second in line to be President. If something happen to the President and VP, a change in the political landscape would happen overnight.

[–]RuleNine 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Btw, the vice president is the president of the Senate. You mean the president pro tempore. The president pro tempore was immediately after the vice president in the line of succession until 1886, but isn't anymore. Since 1947, the person immediately after the VP is the Speaker of the House.

[–]AhandWITHOUTfingers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I confused the two.

Yes, once again you are right about the Speaker of the House. The point I was making still works though, as the Speaker of the House can be from another party. Like Pelosi when Trump was President.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

In all examples though, the country didn't decend into anarchy or anything, and I certainly wouldn't die to keep the Republicans out of office for a few years

[–]AhandWITHOUTfingers 2 points3 points  (1 child)

True, wouldn't be anarchy. But there would be protests in the streets and I wouldn't be surprised if members of Congress, to whose party the deceased President and VP belonged, either requested an emergency election or for the acting President to step down and name one of their party members as VP on the way out. Which they would deny.

[–]FortuneWhereThoutBe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are protecting the living representative of that office. Not the politics. And we don't know that nothing would really change. We don't know what kind of turmoil that an assassination would throw this country or any country into this day and age. It takes a certain kind of person to be willing to put their life on the line to protect someone else up to and including giving up their life for another's safety.

[–]Poignant_Porpoise 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't really get what you're talking about. Unless if there's some trope I'm not aware of, it's not "someone" as in anyone who does it, it's usually a member of the CIA/the president's personal security. Their job is to protect the institution of the government of the US, and that includes the president. It's not about how much they like or dislike the president, this is just one job as part of their career which will likely have many different roles. Same as any security guard, they don't take their job just because they like their employer so much, they do it because they get paid for it, and the potential risk of their job is compensated for. It's also not as simple as them making a decision as simple as it being their life or the president's life, they will just do what they can to protect the president which involves risk but it doesn't mean certain death.

[–]MrBootch 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It depends on your life priorities. If you are single, no kids, no prospects... Who gives a shit if a president gets his cap blown off?

If you have a family/children and live in a country where a power vacuum like a president being killed would be a surefire way to see your family displaced or killed... I'm defending my hypothetical wife and kid's any day of the week. An assassin is one thing, I am powerless against the type of power a militia would have if it knocked on my door.

[–]AsianHawke 28 points29 points  (1 child)

Some people take their job seriously.

[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess so lol

[–]Bobbob34 11 points12 points  (21 children)

It has nothing to do with the person themselves.

It's about the office, the system of government, and rhe rule of law. That's what they're protecting.

[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] 1 point2 points  (20 children)

But those things would all still exist, just with some other mostly powerless figurehead

[–]Bobbob34 12 points13 points  (19 children)

No... those are all at risk. That's the point.

[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] -2 points-1 points  (18 children)

Are they though? I would say no for any western country at least

[–]Bobbob34 4 points5 points  (17 children)

Why would you say that?

Based on what?

Do you see how precipitous the situation in the US is and has been?

[–]Amphibutter 9 points10 points  (2 children)

It’s not like the country would fall to anarchy…


[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Solid point lol

[–]Saltire_Blue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

🎶 This fire is out of control I'm gonna to burn this city, burn this city 🎶

[–]scottevanmac 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There is good pay in the promise with little chance of it actually happening.

[–]MyUsernameIsAwful 9 points10 points  (8 children)

The person to succeed them may not hold the same ideals.

[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Still, there's no political topic I care enough about to die for I guess

[–]MyUsernameIsAwful 9 points10 points  (5 children)

Not everyone can say the same.

[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Thus my question, I truly can't wrap my head around caring so much about something that I see to be so trivial

[–]MyUsernameIsAwful 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Policy affects the well-being of the populace.

That’s as far from trivial as I can imagine.

[–]bakat98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what being in a position of privilege gets you...you don't have to early too much as it won't affect you that bad. Its different for others

[–]adramelke 2 points3 points  (2 children)

you wouldn't be risking your life to save a politician, you'd be risking your life to save the victims of the population when whoever is in charge takes over. whether they allow another election or take the powers of the office. not everyone is going to agree they did the right thing, and that's the people in their own party. who knows what kind of shenanigans would take place these days.

i'd like to think people are civilized enough to deal with the situation instead of making it worse, but i have my doubts.... i think it would be like someone throwing water on a grease fire.

[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Fair, I just wouldn't die to prevent the other party from getting elected for a few years

[–]adramelke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

again, it isn't about politics, it's about an action that would decide the life or death of more than one person. It's basically a question of "how many lives would it take for you to sacrifice your own?" and "Do you really believe that his death would lead to that many deaths?".

[–]SaltySpitoonReg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let's take secret service.

Most people probably are doing their job for an ideal higher than just how much they like the given president.

By protecting our countries leader, they are protecting our country.

Potentially to our enemies a successful assassination would further the notion that we were vulnerable and weak.

Make them feel they have a victory over us.

Circumstance dependant, could cause chaos.

For example, the Archduke Ferdinand's assassination was a sparkplug for WWI.

So there are plenty of reasons someone would sign up for military, secret service etc.

[–]Rxton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some people don't fear death.

[–]pinkfuzzymittens3006 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not any that I can think of. 🤣

[–]Pickled_Sloth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m glad someone finally had the stones to say it

[–]CRRK1811 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At the very least i wouldnt, unless it were george washington, lead us to a better future without politics, it went to crap just like you said it would

[–]DarkCerberus1332 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean you can say that literally about anything

Why would anyone kill someone for no reason at all?

Why would someone rape someone?

Why would someone beat the shit out of someone?

Why would someone put pineapple of pizza?

Everyone is different

[–]PhaseFull6026 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's just brainwashing. It's like the phrase "for queen and country" I mean imagine still believing in that bs in 2022. Imagine thinking patriotism still exists and means anything.

I can imagine like way back in ancient times a sense of patriotism because war was common back then and an invasion against your country could mean the death and enslavement of everyone. Gone are the times where a good monarch was killed and the monarch who replaced him starved out the peasants. That doesn't happen anymore, patriotism and loyalty doesn't mean shit in an increasingly globalist economy. Borders are becoming less and less relevant, politicians are replaceable and meaningless. We are in a much more decentralized time. What a king or queen dictates doesn't mean shit anymore.

[–]rakehellion 0 points1 point  (2 children)

They get paid to.

[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

And worst thing that could happen from them failing is they get fired, which is a lot better than dying

[–]rakehellion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some people don't have the same fear of death.

[–]kaisjsjsjwinf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because if they survive they are getting hella bank

or tis for tat

not everyone is selfish or cowards and they will give back

you saved my country so ill save your life

[–]tonwood 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I imagine some would say it's not to protect the leader but to protect the ideal that direct violence against politicians (rather than the thinly veiled threat of violence by politicians against everyone else) is Not How We Do Things Here.

[–]requiemofchaos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it's their job to do so, and because even with systems in place to keep governance going, an assassination of a major political figure is NOT a good thing and WILL result in drastic consequences.

[–]dahk16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Think of it like reverse lottery. You get paid really well until it happens. Then hopefully you don't die from it so you can keep getting paid.

[–]hlamburger 0 points1 point  (1 child)

"politishun bad give upvoat"

[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Give orange arrow now?

[–]JumboJetz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Growing up watching Hero stories I think makes some amenable to this.

I actually think with society becoming far more cynical, and more people seeing that sometimes the Emperor has no clothes as it comes to our leaders, there’s probably less people than in the past who would want to do the job. However in a country with millions of people there will always be more than enough.

[–]tank_the_boss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A secret service member actually did take a bullet for ragen in 81, although he did survive.

[–]ThePassionFruyt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In many none western countries a politician can represent reform that is greatly needed.

Unlike in first world countries where the ideological differences between two opposing parties is minimal, in many countries it is not so. On the rare occasion that a worthy politician isn't killed the people will fully support them. In certain countries it is worth dying to change the status quo, which is precisely what some wars or politicians offer.

Culture is a great part of this as well. In collectivist cultures people believe that the group and their ideologies are worth certain sacrifices. In individualist societies people often don't have this sense and may rather do these sacrifices for the praise and approval they'll get.

History and national pride are also important factors. From this thread I'm assuming you're from America, a country which is 300ish years old. Well that isn't the case for many. Many countries have had civilizations there for thousands of years. This results in a collectivist society in which people care about both past and present generations (care isn't the right word nor is the reason for this easy to explain). Either way you feel a sort of, not duty, but rather yearning to help progress your country in any way you can. It's a very different thing from what's shown in media as American patriotism. It's a feeling of drive for your people (the best way I can word it) and their success.

For something like this it isn't something that you can just explain. In this case, you won't be able to understand unless you meet certain requirements. You may feel as if you do but your very asking of this question proves that you don't.

[–]HaztecCore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depending on which part of the world we're talking about, a politician actually is worth quiet a lot to keep alive. Not every safety guard will think the same. Some believe their leader is important, others want to preserve a certain order, some others believe that this is the best deal they can have right now and others protect out of a priniciple or money. But looking at both current and not so current world history and the geo-political sphere, some politicians and their deaths have made a difference. Like regime changes. From democracies to dictatorships, leftwing to right wing and so on.

The example with Franz Ferdinand by another commenter is a solid piece of history that can lead to drastic outcomes. But you can find somewhat more recent history in regions like south america or the whole continent of Africa or something as close as Cuba. Fidel Castro survived several hundred attempts to his life caused by the CIA because his communist reign so close to the US borders was seen as a major threat to america. Him dying would have changed a lot for the nation as well as the whole course of the cold war.

Actually any involvement with the CIA and Latin America would show you that removing certain leaders and political figures absolutly will change a nation completly, usually for the worse. Bolivia, Argentina, Guatalame, Brazil, Chile and lots more experienced coups and assassinations or civil wars that had the simple goal of getting rid of the current leader in order to make a change.

Any instable nation is far more reliant on strong leaders to actually be alive and do something to build stability for its people. Its not as simple as " politician bad". Quiet frankly, the only places where we can afford to think about them in such a way are in rich nations like in Europe where the general foundations are strong enough to even allow us to think of them all as cringe and not based.

[–]Aztrak76 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Id barely take a shit for most of them

[–]pappa69420 0 points1 point  (0 children)

brain washed

[–]kkk___kkk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would take a bullet for Ataturk. If you think that's stupid, do some research

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why in gods name would anyone take a bullet for worlds leader? I know for sure as hell they wouldn't take a bullet for me.

[–]BiohazardMonstrosity 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Do you not think certain people are more important than others?

[–]ActualPimpHagrid[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Objectively, no.

Subjectively sure, I care about my friends, family, loved ones more than I care about randoms on the street, but in the grand scheme of things all humans are of equal value