Defining What They're Not

1. “Our” Commander-In-Chief

You’ll often hear the President referred to as ‘our commander-in-chief’ by his supporters. But Gary Wills reminds us that “the president is not ‘our’ commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.” If you’re wondering why the Constitution draws a bright line between military discipline and civic discourse, ask a Tibetan or Burmese how totalitarianism is working out for them.

As for a test, consider how a candidate might react to this real-life scenario: On the morning of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush’s chief of staff whispered into his ear that "a second plane [has] hit the second tower. America is under attack." Unsure or unable to act, the President sat frozen for almost seven minutes. With stunning clarity, we saw the weight of our nation instantly placed on the shoulders of our leader. But deprived of the opportunity to be prepped, handled and choreographed, the man we had elected President was revealed to be unequal to the task. Perhaps this time, the voters will pay a bit more heed to a candidate’s depth, composure, and thoughtfulness. And a bit less on how good he looks in a flight suit.

2. A Pundit

From the Sanskrit word pandita, meaning a learned man or teacher, the word’s English definition has evolved into a pejorative description of someone who is paid to opine through the mass media. But our modern definition does injustice to the word’s original meaning, so I suggest that anyone:

1) Whose statements are calculated to engage the passions of his audience, rather than their ability to reason;

2) Who continues to pontificate on that which his previous conclusions have been repeatedly and conclusively been proven wrong;

3) Who draws an imaginary line, places his opponents on the opposite side, and proceeds to find absolutely no common ground with them;

4) Whose views on any given topic can be predicted before he opens his mouth;

isn’t a pundit.