I feel saddened (actually just mystified) at the accepted notion that the president is elected as commander-in-chief of the country. Somehow the sages of journalism have interpreted, as a result of some extracurricular activities of various presidents over the years, that because the term CIC is present in Article 2 and since the president’s duties fall under this same article, the president is automatically CIC of us all.
Perhaps they should read the lines more carefully(or maybe I should) where this nomenclature is used in Article II, then refer to Article I and the powers of congress and the possibilities of an army or a navy. And, having read these lines it should be clear that he is NOT elected commander in chief, be he George Washington or Donald Trump. He is elected president.
But I don’t think that would matter to these “sages” nor most of their audience (many or most who should not be allowed to vote in any event). Anyone who had pulled himself so far from the explicit (and few) words in the Constitution is not going to be bothered by such trivialities as congress may or may not provide for an army or navy. And, at least in the case of an army it is supposedly restricted to funding for two-year clips (I offer a gigantic guffaw). And the militia is supposedly called up as a repellent in emergency invasions, at which point the president becomes, at least for a while, the CIC of that body of troops.
I get the feeling that people who toss the phrase around as if they have great respect for it just have some special joy in its use as if they would love to proudly “salute” when the president strolled by as if viewing Washington at Yorktown following the British Surrender; that they see this master of the military, especially if a member of their party, as an icon of courage leading us as MacArthur did back to the Philippines. And, like some South American dictator, he will stand on the balcony of the White House (the people’s house, of course) and wave a sword and free the world, because he is also, you surely understand, The Leader of the Free World (whatever that means)!
The news these days comes largely from television and the internet with a cast of reporter-journalists-entertainers, whatever, who perform (and perform is what they mostly do) like high school teenagers and gabble to report, “journalize,” on various big screens or websites. Just as they garble language (“less people,” “the president, he,” “if I would have,”…) they pervert the definition of the republic and its rules and creations and babble that definition with a litany of “sort of” and “continue on,” punctuations to extend mostly dull remarks.
After an election, “the country has just elected a new commander in chief,” we hear from these journalists, and pause to think that these recitalists probably get an overly fat paycheck that would put a Grammy winner to shame. As stated above, it did not elect any such thing, but no one will ever get the bastion Babes and white-collar Bubbas to understand, I fear. They have been corrupted, academically, by a national educational system that has given us a national capital of fools since before April 1 was “invented.”
It is no wonder that the full (or last full one) measure of understanding of the few words underwriting the 1787 document of union were bastardized during and after the massive cleavage slashed in blood between James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln—neither commander-in-chief of “the country.”
With the propensity for “national” holidays I believe those clowns in Washington should establish “April 1” such status. In honor of the press and its army of journalists, of course.
The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily those of the Abbeville Institute.
Dr. McClanahan says journalists are the dumbest people, and I agree with him 100%. I will add they are the laziest too. Twenty + years ago I was working in D.C. During a period of a few months I had to go over to the E. Barrett Pettyman Courthouse several times per week to obtain documents on a case I was working on. During this same time a case was being tried of some politically connected person who had gotten caught breaking the law. It was the latest ‘scandal du jour’ by a SWAMP member and being covered by one of the cable alphabet news agencies. Waiting outside the courthouse was a reporter and his cameraman, just sitting in foldup lawn furniture. They were waiting for the official to come out and give them updates. They waited for hours, doing nothing, for the official to come out and give them an ‘update’ on the trial. The reporter would then repeat what he was told during his 30 second sound bite ‘report’. They did this all day, everyday during a pretty lengthy trial – a couple of months as I recall. Hanging out, doing NOTHING, all day for weeks and weeks. I would have truly lost my mind! The unimaginable BOREDOM. The reporter was well known but I can’t recall his name. I can still see his face though. Only a completely lazy person could do that ‘job’, JMO of course.
PS: I misspelled. It should be Prettyman. My typing skills need improvement.
I don’t doubt your experience with such individuals. I don’t have such experience. But I have had some encounters with some who could not grasp some the most basics of rational thought. And I’m just an old man who dabbles in writing in my sunset years. It really is amazing; like you’re dealing with a junior high school child.
And I also saw on Dr. McClanahan’s You-Tube channel where he remarked that Journalists are of the low I.Q. bunch.
I grew up with a guy whose daddy was a political writer with the Clarion Ledger over in Mississippi. He was an intelligent and well-read man. As were most of his associates. Times have definitely changed.
Thanks for the reply, Paul. I should have qualified my comment with “modern day journalists”. I too can recall intelligent journalists from decades past. Thanks for getting me straight.
Best regards,
Jim
Beware of the use of superlatives!!!