driving me crazy!!!!

For at least the last 5 years, the press and the administration have been driving me nuts about this little miniscule detail.

The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. He is NOT the commander-in-chief of the United States.

The military has a commander-in-chief. The nation has an employee. Both are the President of the United States.

Under our system of government, the head of state PRESIDES over a government by the will of the people. Our head of state does not command the nation. Nations where the head of state is the commander may be republics, but they ain't democracies. What they are is military dictatorships. In November, we're not electing a new commander; we're electing a new employee.

If you look at this as semantics, it's a small thing. But to those of us who serve or have served in the military, it is NOT a small thing. People in uniform understand that we are instruments of foreign policy, and that it isn't appropriate for us, while in uniform, to criticize our commander-in-chief or his foreign policy. But for normal citizens, it is our DUTY to criticize the president and the administration. That's how we participate in democracy. Calling the president "the commander-in-chief" of the nation during a war tends to curtail our willingness to perform our duty.

What's the difference? Well, when you criticize an employee, you do it with tact and respect, and you hope that this criticism might evoke a change in his performance. When you criticize the head of a military dictatorship, you are called a traitor, your patriotism is questioned, and your life may be in danger as a result.

I'm not hanging this on the present administration. The press seemingly knows even less about civics and government than do administration spokesmen -- not to mention the people who run the campaigns of all the presidential hopefuls.

End of rant.

 

well, let me pick a nit right back at you. The political scientist in ME tells me that, to be a republic, the base requirement is that there is no hereditary leader. That's how most of the dictatorships in the world have been able/and continue to be able to call themselves republics.

You are correct in pointing out that the president is both the head of state AND the head of government -- as opposed to say, England, where the head of state is the Queen, and the head of government is the PM. However, it is the head of Government under England's cabinet system that leads the military. The Queen is "colonel-in-chief" of a regiment or two, but being head of state doesn't get her any war-making position.

Finally, the root word of "democracy" is "demos" which means roughly "of the people." Democratically elected means "elected by the people." As opposed to heads of state of other republics who may be elected by the legislature, by warlords, or by the guy he saw when he shaved that morning.

God, Andy; we're such nerds.