We Need a President, Not Just a Commander-in-Chief

I felt a need to pass this on. It is from one of my favorite news sources: www.truthout.org

I feel this argument should become part of Obama's narrative as he begins prep for the general election. Moreover, he can use it to frame "Patriotism" so that the "lapel pin people" start to understand things a little better.

Here is a choice snippet from the t r u t h o u t | Perspective piece by Joe Brewer and George Lakoff:

The president is not supposed to be commander in chief of Congress, nor commander in chief of the FBI or the Justice Department, nor commander in chief of the American people. (snip)

[T]he commander-in-chief role does not extend to most protections that a president should be concerned with - natural disaster (FEMA), health (FDA, health care agencies), environmental protection (EPA) etc. A president must address these domestic issues through leadership skills outside the realm of military action.

More on the article below the fold....

Arianna Huffington has recently come out strongly against Republican framings in the media, and is the basis for her new book, according to her recent comments on the subject.

Brewer and Lakoff do a great job of building additional bridges in the Progressive fight against such framings. In particular, they focus on the "Commander in Chief" framing, which will play a huge role in the General Election, given our perpetual state of war.

Here are some of their thoughts:

Emphasis on "commander in chief" activates a right-wing frame and progressives should be very circumspect in referring to the presidency in this manner.

Though the words themselves are neutral, they have been used within a right-wing frame that is not obvious. The frame includes the following:

The overriding challenge facing our country is military in nature.

The military role of the president is, therefore, far more important than all of the other jobs he or she performs.

Military experience, or direct experience with military affairs (e.g., the Armed Services Committee), is the single most important experience needed for the presidency.

The country should be governed on a military basis. The state should first and foremost be a security state.

The temperament needed for a president is martial; the president should be a fighter and should be engaged in fighting.

The governing style for a president should be giving orders and making sure they are carried out. Others in public service should be obedient to the president's orders.

This issue has already raised its head in the Democratic primary contest, with HRC's false claims of passing the "CIC-hurdle" and the issue will continue to be prevalent in the general election.

In short, when we focus solely on one job of the President, and neglect the rest of his/her responsibilities, we get an incomplete Executive.

The commander-in-chief frame shifts the role of the president away from governing our nation and into the more limited scope of managing military affairs. It takes us away from domestic questions, including other questions of protection and leadership.

Protection and leadership are vital issues in a presidential campaign. But the commander-in-chief frame hides them, and replaces them with a right-wing model of government and of the presidency. Conservatives have a long history of dominating the landscape of ideas by trumpeting security issues. So long as the public generally thinks about military affairs as overwhelming, they will be susceptible to conservative frames.

The authors raise some important Constitutional concerns as well, especially with respect to the "unitary executive" push from Cheney.

This theory places the president in the role of decider at the helm of government, thus denigrating the roles of Congress (the real decider in matters of both foreign and domestic policy) as well as the courts.

[The "unitary executive" mindset] conceals the fact the president is only granted power to direct military activities during times of war

In response to these framings, the authors offer the following Progressive retorts. Obama surrogates would be wise to coordinate their understanding of this framing for the General Election.

The conservative view of the world as a dangerous place where military threats always lurk nearby is not conducive to the tasks that make our world safer: communicating effectively with leaders of other nations, building trust and forging lasting alliances across the globe, promoting peace through diplomacy and engaging in efforts to ease suffering through initiatives that build secure communities at home and abroad.

Progressive leaders need to promote progressive leadership frames. This means dropping the commander-in-chief term in general debates about the nature of the presidency and shifting instead to the overall role of government, protection in general, empowerment of both individuals and business and overall presidential leadership need to accomplish them.

About the authors:

Joe Brewer brings a diverse educational background to Rockridge. He received three B.S. degrees from Southeast Missouri State University - in physics, applied mathematics, and interdisciplinary studies. He received an M.S. in atmospheric sciences from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Since receiving his masters, Mr. Brewer has focused on the study of cognitive science and linguistics, including studying with Mark Johnson - a co-author with George Lakoff on two books. Mr. Brewer has a special interest and expertise in the framing of global warming issues.

George Lakoff is the co-founder and senior fellow of the Rockridge Institute. A professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, he previously taught at Harvard University and the University of Michigan. He has been a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, and a visiting professor at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris (1995) and at the Linguistics Society of America Summer Institute at the University of New Mexico (Summer, 1995).

•  Tips jar

  by TheOpinionGuy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:02:19 PM PDT

•  I have been screaming at my TV for months

  "I don't want a fighter in the White House!  I want a LEADER!"

  by NWTerriD on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:06:46 AM PDT

•  It is not the only...

  qualification but it is required for the job to be an effective and strong Commander-in-Chief.  If you were hiring a person for the job, it would be one of the "required" qualifications...but not the only one...

  by dvogel001 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:08:19 AM PDT

  •  Yeah

    And from the last four Republican Presidents we've gotten bugshit crazy warmongers who attack at the slightest provocation and spill blood needlessly and endlessly while screaming that their critics are traitors.

    The CIC meme needs to be crushed like a goddamned bug.  The United States does not exist to perpetually go to war.  Doing so has cost us our national conscience.

    by slippytoad on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:26:44 AM PDT

    •  Unfortunately...

      it is required to get elected in the GE...

      by dvogel001 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:52:17 AM PDT

      •  What I'm saying is, that is WRONG

        And as a collective group we need to start stepping on the meme, and re-framing it correctly.  The reason the President is CIC is to maintain civilian control of the armed forces.

        Ergo, the POTUS does not need to be "military" or "tough" in order to effectively serve in that role.  In fact, it's better if the President is not, and is rather focused on the concerns of civilians.

        We've seen what a catastrophe it is (Vietnam, Iraq) when muscular-minded Presidents think with their swinging cod rather than their brain.  You'd think the Boomer generation of all people would have learned that at their own blood-soaked expense, but apparently they didn't.

        by slippytoad on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:59:43 AM PDT

•  you mean like this?

  President Hoover, Mr. Chief Justice, my friends:

  This is a day of national consecration. And I am certain that on this day my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency, I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impels.

  This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure, as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

  So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

  In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunk to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; and the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

  And yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered, because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply.

  Primarily, this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

  True, they have tried. But their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

  Yes, the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

  Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy, the moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves, to our fellow men.

  Recognition of that falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, and on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

  Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation is asking for action, and action now.

  Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing great -- greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our great natural resources.

  Hand in hand with that we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land.

  Yes, the task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products, and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, the State, and the local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities that have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped by merely talking about it.

  We must act. We must act quickly.

  And finally, in our progress towards a resumption of work, we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order. There must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments. There must be an end to speculation with other people's money. And there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

  These, my friends, are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the 48 States.

  Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time, and necessity, secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor, as a practical policy, the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment; but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

  The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not nationally -- narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in and parts of the United States of America -- a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that recovery will endure.

  In the field of world policy, I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor: the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others; the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

  If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize, as we have never realized before, our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take, but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress can be made, no leadership becomes effective.

  We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and our property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at the larger good. This, I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us, bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in times of armed strife.

  With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

  Action in this image, action to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple, so practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has ever seen.

  It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations. And it is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly equal, wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.

  I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

  But, in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis -- broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

  For the trust reposed in me, I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

  We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded, a permanent national life.

  We do not distrust the -- the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

  In this dedication -- In this dedication of a Nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God.

  May He protect each and every one of us.

  May He guide me in the days to come.

  by wargolem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:33:55 AM PDT

•  CinC meme is counter-revolutionary

  The framers were very careful in how they structured the new country, as we all know.  There was a great fear of standing armies at the time, because it was believed that a standing army would be a constant threat to the civilian government's control of the country.  As a result, the office of POTUS, created by Article II (that's right, Congress is more important than POTUS according to the framers), was placed as the ultimate authority over the military.  This was to ensure that the military would only serve as a tool of the civilian government and not as a separate power center.

  The wisdom of this approach has been proven many times over, as numerous countries around the world have fallen under control of a military junta while the civilian government has been removed from power (e.g. Pakistan).  The idea that being a military man is a desired quality in a president is thus laughable in my regard, except that so many people seem to believe it.  Note that we have had precisely two Generals (though numerous lower level former military) serve as presidents, and both were subpar, IMHO.  And in order to ascend to the presidency, it is a REQUIREMENT that a military officer resign his commission, just as a sitting senator must vacate that seat to ascend to the presidency.

  In other words, YES!  The CinC meme is insane!

  by Geoffrey Williamson on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:07:47 AM PDT