I am a great fan of Bryan Garner's "Usage Tip of the Day," and I look forward to his daily emails. As readers know, however, I sometimes disagree with him. Today, for example, I am not sure that he is right in the following:
not in a position to. This phrase is often wordy for cannot, can’t, could not, or the like—e.g.: “Granted, we’re talking about hockey players, who, unlike their basketball and football counterparts, usually are not in a position to [read can’t] reap immediate financial rewards if they leave early.” Michael Hunt, “Bound by a Common Goal,” Milwaukee J. Sentinel, 27 Mar. 1997, Sports §, at 1.
Isn't there an obvious distinction between "not in a position to" and "can't," given the possibly broader meaning of the latter? In Garner's example, hockey players are "not in a position" to reap rewards because of the particular structure of the NHL. In other words, "not in a position" denotes the operation of particular external circumstances. Saying that they "can't" reap immediate rewards could also apply to physical inability, legal prohibition, or even emotional reluctance. Moreover, "not in a position" implies transience, because positions may change, while "can't" suggests permanence. If you can't do it, you can't do it. It seems to me, therefore, that "not in a position" provides a more precise meaning, and is not just a wordy replacement.
But maybe, as an academic, I am not in a position to appreciate Garner's point.
Some work in deontic and alethic logic is not on your side – in more than one way – here.
Further, "can't" doesn't necessarily entail or suggest permanence. He can't (mustn't) drive until he gets his license. You can't take Physics II unless you've taken Physics I or obtain the professor's permission.