re: "Unless You’re In The Military, The President Is Not Your Commander In Chief"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") expanded upon a pet-peeve.

Money quote(s):

"(S)ince the September 11th attacks, and probably before then although I can’t say I noticed it quite as much, there has been a tendency to refer to the President as “our” Commander in Chief, or for civilians to say that the President is their Commander in Chief. In reality, of course, the Constitution merely states that the President “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” "

The president wears several "hats," as it were. He's indeed the commander in chief; he also embodies a number of "chief executive" roles, as well as some having legislative or judicial aspects. Oh, and chief diplomat as well.

"This idea of the President as “Commander in Chief of America” is at the center of what has been called the Imperial Presidency. As Gene Healy noted in his excellent book The Cult of the Presidency, the Presidency we know today bears almost no resemblance to the institution the Founding Fathers created when they drafted Article II of the Constitution. For roughly the first 100 years of the Republic, Presidents kept to the limited role that the Constitution gave them. There were exceptions, of course. Most notably revolving around military crises, wars, or similar circumstances. Abraham Lincoln greatly expanded the powers of his office during the Civil War but so did Presidents such as James Polk and Andrew Jackson. Even that great beacon of limited government Thomas Jefferson used the opportunity of the Louisiana Purchase to exceed the powers of his office. For the most part, though, America’s 19th Century Presidents held to the limited role that is set forth in Article II, which is probably why they aren’t remembered very well by history." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Nice historical recapitulation.

"Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Woodrow Wilson to FDR went far beyond anything resembling Constitutional boundaries to achieve their goals, and they were aided and abetted in that effort by a compliant Supreme Court and a Congress that lacked the courage to stand up for it’s own Constitutional prerogatives. Then, when World War Two ended and the Cold War began, the powers of the Presidency began to grow exponentially.

Throughout this period, the one common theme regardless of who sat in the Oval Office was the manner in which the Presidency itself became more and more entangled with a military air. Where previous Presidents were open and available to the public, the President today goes from the White House to Marine One to Air Force One, all the while encased in the tightest security bubble of any person in the world."

Much of this is the inevitable result of the world wars and subsequent Cold War. Some of it has less to do with presidential egos (or showmanship) than with the egos of presidential staff.

"(T)here’s the question of whether it’s really appropriate for a President to return the salute of a military officer. Since he is a civilian, there’s a fairly good argument that it not only isn’t necessary for the President to return a salute, but that it’s inappropriate."

Recent changes of military courtesy as regards veterans not in uniform being allowed (it was never specifically forbidden, apparently) to render the hand salute for the U.S. flag or for the playing of the National Anthem make this less of a stretch, to my mind. At least in those instances where the person rendering the hand salute is himself (or herself) a veteran. Which is nice.

As for us Foreign Service folks, when abroad the only non-military/naval person at an embassy who should be saluted is an ambassador. Presumably, the ambassador would then return the salute. I've heard of presidents (and ambassadors) being criticized for not returning a salute, of the "what?-are-they-too-good-for-it?" variety. So it's not like you can win but for losing.

In some places, local embassy guard forces (Monrovia, I'm looking at you!) salute all American staff entering the embassy, which is, on the one hand, simply another form of "sniper check" and on the other hand a veritable cloud bank of disinformation. To a degree, having to return such a salute tickles the former-NCO side of CAA; what really made my day was how the local thugs, er, "special police" (these were the Charles Taylor days) would also snap to attention and salute us as well.

"In any case, along with the Imperial Presidency, is seems that we’ve also developed a Militaristic Presidency. The fact that such a view of a President’s proper role makes it easier for them to commit American forces to dubious missions raises the question of whether we’ve gone way too far in cloaking the Presidency with an air of authority (t)hat is wholly inappropriate.

There’s another danger in the idea that the President is “our Commander in Chief.” If the man, or woman, in the White House is just “the President,” then disagreeing with and criticizing them isn’t much different than disagreeing with any other politician. Accept the idea that they are your “Commander in Chief,” though, and all of a sudden the subtle idea that they are their to give all of us orders that must be obeyed gets introduced into the mix." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

And that's just wrong. For those of us who're just-plain-citizens, i.e., voters, the president works for us, not the other way around.

"(D)o we really want to start introducing into our political culture the idea that the relationship between citizen and President is in anyway similar than, say, the relationship between a Pfc. and their commanding officer?

So, let’s stop this nonsense that the President is our Commander in Chief, because unless you happen to be uniform at the moment he isn’t."

1/2