By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:04:59 +0000

Jack – I’m not sure how much to blame on the commander in chief functions. Certainly we’ve seen instances, such as after 9-11, where the C-in-C functions loomed large in the public’s perception of presidential power. But even within this policy realm I think it is too easy to overstate the President’s real influence. Consider the McChrystal comments, and Obama’s choice to expand the war in Afghanistan. In one respect, of course, these (firing McChrystal, expanding the war) were Obama’s choices. But McChrystal’s comment reflect a military sentiment that suggests they had taken the measure of the president, and found him wanting. Obama’s expansion of the war, meanwhile, was based on information and options provided to him by his military commanders, and the success of the policies he has chosen will depend on their effectiveness in implementing them. More generally, I’m not sure there really is a huge difference in the president’s powers in national security versus other policy areas. There may be some difference in isolated cases, but on the whole, I tend to believe the difference is overstated. But this is an issue that deserves longer treatment than I can give in the comments section.

By: Jack Goodman

Jack Goodman — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:36:20 +0000

Matt, do you think much of the public’s misconception about the President’s power comes from his “commander in chief” responsibilities. That power is very different from the bureaucratic powers he shares with Congress.

Comments on: The Perils of Government By Remote Control

By: Matthew Dickinson

By: Jack Goodman