Doron Karavani - Time To Rise (Noex Records)
1 hour ago
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Political Comment
Has anyone noticed that in the past six presidential elections, the candidate with less military experience has won each time? In most, the difference in such experience was not even close, with all those who actually saw combat coming out on the losing end. I don't know what to make of this, since so much emphasis in each campaign has been on the question of who will keep us most secure, but I do hope that it leads to one change that is long overdue: stop using the term "commander-in-chief" as a synonym for the president. The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, not the entire nation or its civilian citizens, and it kind of bugs me when I see it used that way. I don't know when that practice started, but it seems to have become pronounced under Bush, and it works to inflate the status of the executive at the expense of the other branches of government (which makes me think Dick Cheney may have had a hand in promoting its usage), and also promotes a militaristic conception of our society that is not supported by recent selection of leaders (even if Bush, for one, seemed to push that connection).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dr John,
You know I have not noticed the use of "Commander in Chief" being used more often than in the past. But looking back I sense it was use more when Reagan was in office, and then continued through Bush, Clinton, Bush. I understand you thinking the reference is made to all that is a president's job but I myself when I hear that term think only the military, and actually only seem to hear it in reference to the military aspect of the job. Anyway do you think you are hearing (seeing) the term more because it is "sarcastically" being used? and you are not necessarily catching that? Just wondering
Lil' Sis
PS I heard something the other day and wondered if you want to comment on it... I heard that as long as Clinton is Secretary of State she cannot have a "Polical Macine" putting together funds for her possible running for President. I did not know this, did you?
Dr John,
I was thinking about your first point you made (less military experience gets elected) and started to think about that.. Lets look at them specifically- (1)Bush Sr vs Dukakis. I found out Dukakis did serve in the Army for a couple of years (55-57) and Sr served for a couple of years (42-45) Sr has one year more experiece. (2)Clinton vs Bush Sr - you win your point here. (3) Clinton vs Dole - you win your point here. (4) Bush Jr vs Gore- here is something interesting Bush Jr served for 6 years in the National Guard, granted no active service overseas (some claim it was because of Sr's political career). Gore served 2 years in the Army- but- he served as a journalist and his call up only came after his father lost his senate seat. Years wise Jr gets this but neither really fulfilled a "military" service. (5) Bush Jr vs Kerry- you win your point here. (6) Obama vs McCain - again you win your point.
As you can see 4 elections for sure support your comment. 1 does not and 1 is a wash but I think your statement of it "not being close" really only applies to the Clinton years and this past election (3 out of 6). Just fyi I did the research on Wikipedia.
Lil' Sis
Lil Sis,
Referring to the president as commander-in-chief has been common, if not prevalent among civilians for a number of years, and definitely moreso under Bush than before. Heck, Al Gore conceded the 2000 election by saying that he accepted Bush as his commander-in-chief (even though he was not then in the service). It's a tendency that puts the chief executive's role with the military in a superior position to his other duties, going along with the general tendency by many to credit Bush for declaring war on Saddam Hussein, even though he did not have the constitutional power to do so. I'm not saying this is universal, only that it represents a growing militaristic outlook in the country and is at odds with the actual responsibilities of the president as defined by the constitution. As to the service records, I actually miscounted (did not mean to include the '88 election, which does not fit). But Bush Jr's phantom service is no way comparable to Gore's even if it was ostensibly longer. Gore served in Vietnam, whatever his duties, while Bush essentially sat it out.
Dr. John
Post a Comment