by Projbalance » November 23rd 2004 5:43 pm
The army and secret service do a job, and they do it regardless of whether or not they are inspired by the person they protect. The position of commander in chief my be to issue orders, but I would hardly cal the president a man who leads in battle. He makes hard decisions, but he doesnt share the danger with the troops. In my way of viewing things that doesnt make him a leader. The president can issue executive orders, but it doesnt give him absolute power. And there is a generous amount of executive priveledge, but it does not put him above reproach. The president can make policy, but he cannot make law. And there is no order a president can sign that cannot be repealed. Leadership is a quality of a person, not an aspect of an elected position.
I am simply saying that the use of the word leader instead of president seems markedly intentional. If the word president had been used it would not inspire the same debate because the word president does not carry the same emotional weight as leader.
Maybe it was unintentional, done without an understanding of what it would feel like to see the word "leader" used, but to me it just conjures up images that are just uncomfortable to associate with the country I live in. I fear that if we get too comfortable referring to our president as "Our Leader" that it will change the public perception that the government is supposed to work for us, therefore we lead it, not vice versa.