Thursday, October 28, 2004
(8:35 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Our Commander in Chief
Sure, this statement from Wesley Clark is great in that it turns Bush's own words against him. Bush was asking for it when he said, "…a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief." But you know what words I'd like to jump on? "Your Commander in Chief." I don't know about you, but I'm not in the military. Neither are the majority of the people who live in this country. George W. Bush is currently the commander in chief of the armed forces of the country of which I am a citizen, but he is not my Commander in Chief. If he is elected, John Kerry will similarly not be my Commander in Chief, nor will he be the Commander in Chief of my grandmother, Atrios, or the retired General Wesley Clark.George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief of the US military, indubitably, but he is not the Commander in Chief of the American people. Were he to command me to do something, I would have no legal obligation to comply.
I understand that most of the people who use the term "our Commander in Chief" would argue that they are using that term as shorthand for "Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces," but it seems to me to be a particularly dangerous shorthand, given that it invests the citizen's relation to the presidency with a deference and loyalty that are completely out of place in civilian life. The president is a civil servant whose appointment depends on the good pleasure of the citizens he serves. There is no particular reason to be loyal or obedient to the president, any more than there is any reason to be loyal or obedient to AT&T.
The use of the idea of "our commander in chief" is one of the many examples of the persistent militarization of the public discourse in America -- a militarization that may have been started by the Republicans, but which has been eagerly taken up by the Democrats as well.
