Each year, thousands of threats are made against the first family. Many are the product of delusional minds and many are found to be implausible. But then there are the other plots. Those that were not detected and are instead enshrined in awful history. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy.

History has been fortunate to other American presidents. Ronald Reagan's survival rested on a knife edge, and a handkerchief may well have saved George W Bush. The evidence is clear and abundant. The security of the first family is a paramount requirement of American democracy.

Sadly, some Americans just don't get it. Increasingly, the protection of the first family has become a political football. This is wrong. This protection is not about politics, it's about the deepest of American values – the sanctity of the family and the security of our country. We mustn't forget that.

Let's also be clear, President Obama's cancellation of White House tours was a pathetic act; an extension of his broader approach to the sequester. And yes, secret service operations abroad are far more expensive than manning pre-existing posts in the White House. But we must also be cognizant of the rightful boundaries between politics and protection. The first family requires protection. Without it, the executive center of American government stands on the precipice of paralysis.

Some conservatives don't get the distinction.

On Monday, Breitbart's Matthew Boyle wrote a piece which publicized where Malia and Sasha Obama's spring break vacation was taking place (greatly complicating the duties of their secret service detail). Last year, another conservative group published the government costs for Malia Obama's trip to Mexico. The same organization previously reported on the costs of a 2010 Spanish vacation by Michelle Obama and her daughters. In producing these reports, the messaging was clear: protection for the first family is too expensive and should be restrained.

Ignorant to their double standards, these conservatives seem to be issuing an ultimatum: the president's wife and daughters should not be allowed to vacation and until they stop, we will harass them for their acquiescence. This is ridiculous. Neither the first lady nor her children are political officers of the United States. But because of their family relationship, they're nonetheless forced to endure the restrictions of 24 hour close protection. As a result, their privacy is minimal, their freedom of movement is highly restricted and their ability to blend with normal society is almost non-existent.

By any measure, they live in an uncomfortable state of public-private flux; living without the responsibilities of office but denied the privacies of private existence. And as the Bush twins frequently illustrated, for all its apparent prestige, living inside the bubble isn't a pleasant experience.

And the threat isn't exaggerated. Having worked a player security supervisor at Wimbledon for seven years, I can attest that high profile individuals attract an array of psychopaths, obsessives and violent extremists. The first family is at the highest receiving end of this threat spectrum.

As they enter their difficult teenage years, the first daughters will be forced to endure ever increasing scrutiny. Sadly, this is probably unavoidable. Regardless, we must remember that when we hear stories of expensive vacations, we're not gaining insight to a couple of profligate prima donnas, we're just ensuring that this vacation doesn't end with an al-Qaida video. Protection isn't a political game. It's a constant struggle between those who would do harm and those would stop that evil.

The protection of the first family deserves our support.