Last night in his otherwise excellent (apparently extemperaneous) victory address, Barack Obama said something like "When I'm your Commander-In-Chief, I will..." and went on to say some (sensible) things he'd do in defence of the United States.
It's the beginning of the sentence I will take exception with. The President of the United States is not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States; (S)he is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. There is a crucial distinction here and one I am alarmed to see such an accomplished public speaker as Obama fudging.
This may seem to some a trivial distinction and it is a very common mistake, one which has crept into American discourse slowly over time. So I raise it now to hopefully put a stop to it from Democratic leaders. Republicans have (probably purposely) elevated the title to "commander in chief of the United States" and largely gotten away with it. Here's Tony Snow:
MR. SNOW: Politics aside, he's the Commander-in-Chief of the United States, and I would defer to the commanders-in-chief of the other nations.
Paula.
Q No Child Left Behind (irrelevant question follows not calling out Snow for that previous remarkable aggrandizement of the President's role)
And we on the left have at times called out the Republicans for doing this. Kevin Drum:
Bush, Durbin said, "reacted very strongly. He got very animated in his response" and emphasized that he is "the commander in chief."
We still have two more years left of this guy. Jeebus.
And sometimes more explicitly (from my fellow Canuck, no less I note):
That's it. He's the commander in chief, not of the country, but of the military only. And as for what that actually has to mean, well, let me put it this way: the official commander in chief of the British, Canadian, and lots of other national armed forces around the world is this person. It's not a term with a lot of inherent meaning.
So my request to Senator Obama and hopefully President Obama is not to fall into this rhetorical device. I think the comment was part of some smart politicking to work in references to himself as commander of the US Military to get voters more psychologically used to the idea of Obama running the Army, and blunt McCain's possible edge here, but words matter and this is a key difference between a civilian leader and military dictatorship.
We want Republicans to stop blurring the line between the populace and the military and instead we see good Democrats falling into the trap.
I know some of you will make the obvious point that it's just a clumsy manner of speaking, that of course he means "when I'm your commander-in-chief of your military" but he just shortens it or something. Sorry, I don't accept that (though I hope sincerely that is how Barack thinks about it and that it's what he meant) since the difference here is too important to be subject to confusion.
Too many Americans already think the President is "their" Commander-in-Chief for us to tacitly accept Democratic leaders contributing to that misconception.
Also, on a political front, keeping the bright line between the President's military authority and his civilian leadership is beneficial to Democrats who typically do not get the same credence as military leaders (because they are less belligerent naturally). Jimmy Carter believes that Kerry only lost the 2004 election because there's about 10% of the nation that will never vote out an incumbent President in a "time of war." This type of nonsense in antithetical to democracy and is precisely the kind of cultural norm we should explicitly resist as liberals. The aggrandizement of the President's military role is what often hurts Democrats. Dukakis in the tank. Kerry windsurfing. How many elections have hinged on the issue of whether or not candidate X is compatible with the role of C-in-C? Since the Republicans field an endless array of mature white males with a penchant for swaggering and wearin big codpieces, they benefit from this.
Presidents are disposable. The whole point of elections is to get rid of crummy ones, especially in times of crisis like a war because a bad person can do a lot of harm at a time of heightened consequences.
So I hope you will take this criticism of Obama's hopefully careless and isolated mistake in the spirit it is offered and recognize the serious issue underlying it. If Obama just slipped, and doesn't do it again, fine, but we must be watchful for it. We are not the hypocritical right and we must hold our leaders to account, especially the ones we admire most. Otherwise the "both parties are the same I'm voting for Nader" crowd are right, and we are just a flip side of the same coin.