Obama 'Commander-in-Chief' on Fox?
Since Bush was elevated by the Supreme Court in 2000, we've heard Fox Cable News (a failed conspiracy of media billionaire Rupert Murdoch to move the US public to the far right) refer to George W. Bush ad infinitum as 'commander-in-chief.'
In fact, Bush was just the president; the Constitution did not envisage that there would be a standing army, and 'commander-in-chief' is a subsidiary, occasional function of the president, not a title. There is something deeply fascist about calling the civilian president the CINC all the time. But at least they should be consistent.
Aside from Sean Hannity complaining that Obama will be commander-in-chief, we haven't heard so much of that epithet applied to the new president.
So how about, it Fox Cable News? Are we going to hear that "Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama ordered US troops in Afghanistan to find terrorist mastermind Usamah Bin Laden today?' Will that sentence be broadcast by the unfair and unbalanced network?
Or are only some presidents commanders-in-chief?
Maybe some people are part-time patriots?
If Fox won't use this diction, shouldn't we send them emails complaining about the inconsistency? If they call a Euro-American president "Commander-in-Chief" and not an African-American one, wouldn't that be a form of racism?
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/17/2008 12:42:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
who cares Prof?
Obama doesn't care what he's called, that's why he's made it this far. He's the first black President of the USA..the good folks at FOX can go suck a million lemons.
The fare-unbalanced network.
Dr. Cole,
Under Art. II, the President is only Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy. He is not "commander-in-chief" of the country. So he's not my commander-in-chief (that title belong to my wife.)
Can we be spared liberals wanting to now adopt this "big man" mantra--again (you all did it last with FDR)? We've seen how the Presidency corrupted the Right (which went from its skepticism of the Executive and insistence on the Constitutional balance of powers under Clinton to blind subservience to Bush.) We need relief from this pseudo-dictatorship, not a "progressive" version of it.
And I certainly hope this line "If they call a Euro-American president "Commander-in-Chief" and not an African-American one, wouldn't that be a form of racism? " is a gag. Or are we to look forward to four years of racial grievance rather than four years of sober, realistic governance? (Which is at least what this right-winger voted for when he voted for Obama.)
Professor Cole,
Scholars in Journalism, Communication, & Media studies should be carefully studying the discourse and coverage of the Fox News network. I wouldn't have the stomach for it (and I'm in another field anyway).
There's a great communications professor over at Penn State who monitors the representation of American Indians in mainstream media. Impressive research.
Shouldn't someone out there be conducting a careful & scrupulous analysis of Fox's rhetorical strategies?
I remember there being a Republican talking point around the beginning of the Iraq war. It was something like, "it doesn't matter if you like him, he's the commander-in-chief so you have to support him". They were calling anyone who disagreed with the President "unpatriotic".
I don't expect them to apply the same standards with Obama.
I think Bill said everything worth saying about this. If having an member of the party they like in the Presidency is what it took to get them to address the office properly, then so be it. Let's not drag them backwards.
The conciousness to be raised is that the President is only Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the US. He is the President of the United States. The end.
Professor Cole,
I respect to no end your intellect and accomplishments, but the racism charge is out of line. The fact that Obama is black is not what makes FNC viewers/anchors/producers upset. It is the fact that he isn't a proto-fascist nutjob. If Obama were a republican, culturally conservative hawk, he'd be "Commander in Chief" all day long.
I think folks are missing the point. I strongly suspect that Prof. Cole was not advocating that Obama be referred to as CinC but pointing to the hypocrisy inherent in those such as FOX constantly referring to Bush by that title while avoiding it in the case of Obama.
Reminds me how the term Emperor is derived. It nowadays means a powerful monarch, but was originally derived from "Imperator", which means something very similar to "Commander-In-Chief". This was one of several titles Augustus gave himself in lieue of actually proclaiming himself King.
I sure hope Obama ends the practice of the President saluting military personnel. I'm not positive because I haven't researched it (I wish someone would), but I'm pretty sure the practice began with Reagan (I guess it was the actor in him). I don't recall seeing Nixon or Carter doing it when getting into Marine One, etc. But after Reagan... everyone did it. Bush Sr. loved to get himself all gussied up in some quasi-military outfit (to look less like a wimp), and who can forget W.'s "Mission Accomplished" flight suit (complete with a little extra padding)? I remember wincing the first time I saw Clinton do it.
I don't think even Eisenhower ever saluted while President. Ike knew that the whole point is that a CIVILIAN is Commander-in-Chief, and he, like the Founding Fathers, knew his Roman history and knew the dangers inherent when generals become political leaders.
Symbols like this matter. Let's not turn our civilian leaders into military men. Soldiers and sailors salute, and it is an honor that should be reserved for them. Presidents shouldn't add it to their trappings of office because they think it makes them look more "Presidential." It doesn't. It just makes them look like tinhorn Emperors.
I appreciate Resolver's point, but, unfortunately, the practice has developed to the point now that the marines hold their salute until the President returns it (failing to do, probably of ignorance, caused a minor embarrassment for Clinton.) I suspect Obama will do so because (1) the marines will come to attention and salute, requiring a response; and (2) a failure to do so would turn into red meat cannon fodder for the radio talk nutcases who pass for conservatives these days.
Post a Comment
<< Home