No one is running for Generalissimo

I've about had it with the phrase "Commander-in-Chief."
Every day, the political noise machines of all parties tell us who they think would be a better Commander-in-Chief.

I've got news for them: We're electing a President, not a C-in-C.

The title belongs to the office of president as a means to retain civilian control of the armed forces, not because he--or she--is supposed to lead those forces. Symbolically, yes, but not in many other ways. Congress, in fact, is tasked with their regulation. The President is just the Secretary of Defense's supervisor.

For this "President-as-war-leader" meme, we have to thank, as with many destructive political and social contructs of late, George W. Bush, who struts around playing dress-up in military-style uniforms at every opportunity. He's "The Commander Guy." He delights in the trappings of war and it's infecting public discourse when it should be causing disgust. Worship of the military is what the other guys do--the ones we raise armies to fight, remember? And worshipping generals is much worse than worshipping soldiers.

Try for a moment to evision Franklin Roosevelt in a uniform. Tough to do, isn't it? How about Lincoln? Wilson? Not likely.

The office of President has never been about militarism. We don't elect many generals, you'll notice. And it used to be that we expected the uniforms to disappear when they ran for office. He's supposed to control the armies, not run them. Not, ever, be a part of them.

George Washington would be appalled.

So, enough with the "Commander-in-Chief" already. Let's ask ourselves who would be a better "Head of State" or something--if the word "President" is too much for people.

The current President already reminds me too much of Benito Mussolini. I'd like the fascist militarism to stop with him, thanks.

Steve "Don't even get me started on calling it 'the Homeland'." James