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).