Prompted by this thread about Winston Churchill, I started wondering why we never see the President of the United States in a cool military-style uniform. I know there’s a tradition about keeping civilian control over the military, so the President might not want to wear a uniform, but does one exist?
The freakin’ Surgeon General can wear a cool uniform whenever he/she wants, but the closest thing I ever saw for the Commander in Chief was Lyndon Johnson wearing fatigues once on a trip to Vietnam and G.W. Bush’s flight suit.
There’s no uniform for the President, and wearing one while in office would probably be seen as highly improper due to the tradition of civilian control that you mentioned. However, lots of Presidents, including the current one, are former military guys, so are probably entitled to wear their old uniforms on special occasions if they really wanted to. But it would definitely raise eyebrows if they did it while in office.
The president is not in the military, therefore no uniform. Commander in Chief is not a rank, it is a position. The military is set up so that they answer to civilian authority. For example the top three rungs on the army chain of command are Secretary of the Army, SECDEF and POTUS. All three are civilians and have no rank in the military that they control.
A slight hijack, please? I always thought the Constitution prohibited military officers from serving as US Senators or Representatives. However, I looked through the Constitution on Wikipedia and couldn’t find any reference! Was I mistaken, or just not looking in the right place?
Several have been members of the guard or reserve. I don’t know if there are any currently. The military does not allow moonlighting so an active member of the military could not hold another fulltime job in politics or anywhere else.
The civilian service secretaries are actually not in the military chain of command, but they do oversee the day-to-day management of their departments. The chain of command runs from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the regional combatant commanders (formerly known as CINCs, as in CINCPAC or CINCSAC, but changed in 2002 to make clear that there’s only one commander-in-chief: the President).
And no, there’s no spiffy military uniform for the President. As noted above, this underlines the importance of civilian control of the military. I remember reading about child sending Woodrow Wilson a drawing of the President in military uniform. Wilson sent back a nice letter saying, in essence, “Thanks, but I wouldn’t and couldn’t wear a uniform - that’s not what our country is about.”
The Surgeon General has an official uniform, should they choose to wear it, because the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is a uniformed service organized under the Surgeon General. There is also an NOAA Commissioned Corps (formerly the US Coast and Geodetic Survey). Both of these services wear uniforms similar to naval uniforms, and contain only commissioned officers - no enlisted ranks. The other uniformed services of the United States are the five Armed Forces.
'Course I can’t refrain from pointing out that it probably came as a surprise to W that there is no uniform that he can wear because on the day before he was first innaugurated, he said, “In 24 hours I have the highest honor, and that’s to become the commander in chief of the greatest nation in the world.” He apparently thought we had some sort of martial law going on, or maybe that he just ran the whole thing as the commander and chief and he could have some sort of cool uniform, too.
I’m not sure that’s true. I know of two people who were hired as GS-12s, and began working as such prior to their retirement from active duty. Technically, they were on terminal leave, but nonetheless, collecting two paychecks from the gov’t. Also, I work with at least one civilian SAR controller who is also a reservist. When she drills, she’s collecting two paychecks as well.
I certainly won’t speak for the DOD sevices, but the USCG most definitely does allow moonlighting. The only taboos are jobs that: a. interfere with duties; b. are dangerous; or c. jobs that create a conflict of interest issue.
It would seem that there might be technical exceptions. However, the two people spoken of were actually being paid for past employment while they were on terminal leave. That is, the leave that they had accumulated was what was being paid, not their services at the time they were on terminal leave.
The other case is slightly different. It seems to me that when you go on reserve duty you are put on paid leave (or is it unpaid?). You aren’t actually being paid for your regular job plus reserve duty. I think that if you are called for an extended period of active duty, your regular paycheck stops.
Right, the ban is on holding ANY other F/T post in the government simultaneously with holding the elective office.
As to the POTUS, think of it: the Head of State & Government in charge of the world’s current military & economic hegemon does not wear even so much as a chain or sash of office or even get addressed as “Excellency”. He dresses and is addressed just as “Mr. President”. And no matter if the office is held by a decorated veteran like Bush I, ocassional weekend warrior like Bush II or full-time civilian like Clinton, when he says “do this” the most star-studded top-o-the-Academy battle-tested General has to salute smartly and say “Yes, SIR”.
I like that very much.
Now, Johnson could wear fatigues when visiting 'Nam and W can wear a flight suit when on an airplane, well, because those are practical and sensible work clothes for the operational environment (whether it’s practical and sensible for a President to be in that operational environment is a separate issue). They would not however be able to wear any sort of real officer’s insignia on it. As mentioned in the Churchill thread, Sir Winston could wear his uniforms because the way the British sytem works out, he simultaneously held appointments that entitled him to do so – and he wore the correct uniforms of those appointments.
