Commander in Chief, part 2

Here is a further reflection on this troubling title.

Why are we so eager to refer to our president as something other than ‘president’?

What are we trying to say about the president that the official title for the office is insufficient?

Commander in Chief is intended to be a stronger term than president.

It is a term that highlights the military role of the presidency and placing that above the office’s other responsibilities.

Article II begins:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

It does not say any of the following:

• The Commander in Chief can suspend the constitution.
• The president shall be called The Commander in Chief.
• The president shall rule the military with an iron fist.
• The Commander in Chief can use the title wherever s/he pleases.
• The Commander in Chief is the specialest guy in the whole world.
  

Clearly, the term has not only the context of the military, but is a descriptor of military rank—not title.

Here are a few other misuses of the term that you might hear this year:

• Senator, as Commander in Chief, how would you address our economic woes?
• What are some of the main ways the Commander in Chief can help the education system?
• What role should the Commander in Chief play in fixing the health care system?

That last one might be funny—“yes, I think Marshal Law would be great for hospitals!” or maybe “I would seriously consider strategic bombings of underperforming facilities!”

The truth is that we have had 7 straight years of the perpetual Commander in Chief, and it is about time we gave that crap up.

The next president will be the Commander in Chief when he sits in the Situation Room and when addressing military matters in the Oval Office, not anything else.

The constant use of the phrase is clearly an attempt to diminish the roles of the president that are supportive of the infrastructure and simultaneously elevating the military role.

It also is suggestive of supremacy—perhaps its most fascist usage—over all else in government. Commander in Chief, when used outside of the military loses interest in the first word and gains it for the third: chief. This further distracts the people by encouraging our vision of Bush as tribal chief, as top of the heap, while Congress in not only a co-equal branch of government, but legislative branch. They direct our nation. In their position in declaring war, they are also responsible for directing the nation in conflict, while the president directs the military as chief officer. He must still bow before the Congressional authority to begin and end war.

You know what, it may be better if we never use the term Commander in Chief again.