We want to believe him. We need to believe him. He’s the commander in chief, and there is a legitimate need to adapt the civil liberties regime to the 21st century.
I believe the first time I heard a president called ‘the commander in chief’ – without the caveat ‘of the armed forces’ – it was Dubya, shortly after 9/11. It was a teeth-clenchingly annoying practice then: Lazy, scary in an Orwellian way, and just plain so very wrong. Every time someone applies the title to Barack the Hapless, angels weep while God kills a puppy.
So, for the record: Neither Barack Obama nor any other American president is the commander in chief of me. Or of you either, unless you’re wearing a uniform and being bossed by a sergeant. Okay?
Also: To the next copy writer crafting an ad for a tax counseling service: If you ever again refer to taxes I “owe,” I will track you down wherever you hide and vomit on your shoes.
That is all. Thank you.
I simply can’t imagine why anyone – especially those in uniform – would consider that hopelessly damaged and malevolent person as any sort of commander… whatever their political affiliations or perspective. But that’s been true of every politician who ever came along, actually. Just never made any kind of sense to me.
Agreed, ML…and yet, oddly, I’m glad they do. One thing the new American republic did get right is that, since the founding, the military as an institution has stayed completely away from governance and takes its cues from the politicians, however much the soldiers might personally despise those pols.
It seems to be the one thing the founders – and even the framers – feared most. When the soldiers take over running the show it’s (almost: there have been recent exceptions in Islamic countries) never an improvement.
Seems like a distinction without much difference. Considering the death and destruction the “civilian” politicians have caused with their armies, I’m not sure it would be worse. Probably the same, in the end. The armies still have to eat and buy shiny toys, so they’d have the same problems as any government.
Maybe the best that could be said is that they are equally bad. The moment a standing army developed, basically outlawing the ordinary, voluntary militia, it all went down hill.
If anybody within hearing uses the phrase “Commander in Chief”, you could always reply, “Oh, you mean ‘der Fuhrer’?”
Things started to go downhill with the whiskey rebellion.