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

[Joanne98]

In this primary season, the question of what makes a good presidential candidate has taken many forms. Is it how to negotiate with leaders of other nations? What kind of experience qualifies one to be a leader? Yet, the question that should make progressives ripple with discomfort is “Will the president be a strong commander-in-chief?”

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.
That is what it means to make the “commander-in-chief” question the main issue in a campaign. 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.

That frame is not what America is about. It does not embody fundamental American values. Nor does it portray what the role of the government is in our democracy. The dual roles of government are protection and empowerment, as we have written elsewhere. Protection is not just military or police protection, but a wide range: consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, social security, protection from natural disasters and disease, and protection from economic devastation.

That is the major protective mission of the government. The protective job of the president is leadership, primarily in these areas, and also in military matters when our country is in serious danger of attack by a military force. Leadership in all of these areas places different requirements on a president:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/19/7757/

[pacalo]

1. Very good perspective & I could only wish the candidates would take this to heart.