 enbar says: Historian Garry Wills on the use of the phrase "commander-in-chief" to refer to the US President. He reminds us that the Constitution designates the POTUS as "commander in chief of the U.S. Army and Navy" -- not of civilians -- and suggests that the prevalent use of military language to refer to civilian political institutions is indicative of a wider and more problematic trend. I like to say, "he may be the commander-in-chief to my husband, but he's not the boss o' me!" Wow, really surprising! A commander-in-chief is necessary in a time of war? Go figure. Wow, really surprising! A commander-in-chief is necessary in a time of war? Go figure.Like the article says: Yeah. You're right. For the military. But not for the rest of us. Civilians don't serve under commanders. Personally, I've never served the president (aka c-i-c) directly other than by paying my taxes. I've actually never even been to the White House. I kinda want to but anyway the only reason the term is used more often is because we're in Iraq. Just because the term is used more often doesn't mean all civilians are now part of the military. I get what you're saying, but I also think Wills might have a point when he says that this has been going on longer than that (since the 1970s) and that it's a trend we might want to pay attention to. I don't like it at all! "Commander in Chief" is a military term, but this administration has blurred the line between the military and civilian duties of the President. The following clip says it all...... That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket). That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight |
Related ClipsView the Top Clips from January 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
