On Aug 5, 5:53pm, Jim Dixon wrote:

...

Imagine this: you're a politician. If you're a US politician in particular you will be correctly told that you are, by virtue of your position, a target for a lot of "extremeist" groups and terrorism. [etc]

This has little to do with being a politician and even less with being a US politician. People at all levels everywhere at all times are willing to pay for what they perceive as additional security.

The original point was an explanation as to one of the reasons why politicians can do unaccountable 180 degree turns of opinion when entering politics. As such it had everything to do with being a politician. Your point that it is a manifestation of a more general desire for security is valid, but you missed the main point at issue here. Ian.