An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Dick Cheney’s Shrug
After the torrent of words over the arrogance of America’s self-selected, unelected Vice President, a former Republican colleague and friend boils it all down to one word in today’s Washington Post.
Ex-Congressman Mickey Edwards explains what changed his mind about defending Cheney, his “all-too-revealing conversation this week with ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz. On Wednesday, reminded of the public’s disapproval of the war in Iraq, now five years old, the vice president shrugged off that fact (and thus, the people themselves) with a one-word answer: ‘So?’”
Into that one word is compressed more than seven years of secrecy, usurping of power and stealing traditional American freedoms.
MORE.
16 Responses to “Dick Cheney’s Shrug”
I am so baffled that a significant fraction of Americans are not alarmed by Cheney's contempt for the American process.
And I am so proud that a significant fraction of Americans ARE alarmed.
Cheney has never seen himself as a representative of the American people. Once the election was over he saw a huge mandate despite the narrowness of both victories. Even if 99% opposed his actions it would make no difference to him, as he represents the ownership class
. He was the prime proponent of the “unitary executive” which is so undemocratic that it isn't funny, as it ignores the representative branch– the Congress.
I should add that it would be interesting to see if he had the same comment if he were running for prez in '08. Most of his unresponsive attitude can be traced to the fact that he's a lame duck VP, on the verge of retiring from government service to live the kind of ultra-wealthy lifestyle that most of us only dream of. No need to hide his true feelings from anyone.
Rubbish!
Point One: “America's self-selected, unelected Vice-President”
The Vice-Presidency is an elected constitutional office. One may argue about 2000, but Bush-Cheney were (except in the minds of rabid conspiracy theorists) elected in 2004. Bush cannot fire Cheney. Whether Robert Stein likes it or not, the Vice-President was elected!
Point Two: Mickey Edwards is typical of the only Republicans ever permitted op-eds in the NYT or the WaPo (i.e., Repubs who attack other Repubs…remember that little scandal a couple of years back when the NYT was exposed for shopping an Op-ed thesis around among senior Repubs attacking Bush, wanting someone to effectively put their name to it, with editors and reporters to “assist” in the writing).
Cheney is making a good point. Edwards is annoyed that Cheney shrugged off the polls on Iraq. Yet, contra Edwards (who implies Americans have always been against the war in Iraq) a few years ago most Americans were in favor according to the polls.
If we want a republic run by polls, one might as well toss out representative government altogether.
Periclean Athens was such a state. After Pericles died, public opinion in the assembly ran the state and the war with Sparta. A general lost a battle. The public opinion turned against him and he was executed. Then…d'oh…the public of Athens realized they had just killed their best general.
America is a republic because the founding fathers looked at systems of government that succeeded. Athens was a democracy that failed spectacularly. Rome was a republic that succeeded in its long twilight struggle with Carthage because its checks and balances held the extremes of public opinion under control. Hence, America is a republic and not a democracy.
Cheney was right.
Hmmm…how popular was the Civil Rights Act in public opinion in the American South in the mid-1960s?
I recall almost the entire Democratic Southern delegation in Congress (“Dixiecrats”)voted against it…and it only passed with the support of northern Republicans.
Since African-Americans were a minority in the South, I would imagine most polls in the region would have shown a majority of public opinion disapproving of acknowledging the civil rights of those “uppity Negroes”. Certainly this was reflected in the voting on the Civil Rights Act.
The monstrous arrogance of those Yankees and Republicans violating the democratic rights of Americans in the South.
Before I am misinterpreted, I should add I believe the Civil Rights Act was an entirely good thing (if Obama can be misinterpreted, so can I
.
My point being: it is VERY important that elected representatives go against public opinion when they believe the American public is wrong.
The classic example: FDR in the run-up to WWII. If his machinations had been public knowledge, he would have faced certain impeachment. He knew — but the American public refused, according to every public opinion poll, to accept — that war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was coming, and it was necessary.
FDR would have shrugged too when confronted with opposing opinion polls. Far more charmingly than Darth Cheney, and covertly and never in public (he was far more Machiavellian than Cheney) but he would most certainly have shrugged.
You make a compelling case for leaders ignoring polls that may reflect ignorant or anti progressive voters. But to me this Iraq mess has been as well vetted as most public issues ever have and still most of the voters, for more than several years, would prefer their money and political capital spent otherwise. There is a logic extreme beyond which ignoring the public is no longer leadership but rather cruel self indulgence.
If Cheney (and Bush) really was concerned about the US winning in Iraq, why can't the US provide the necessary armor, etc. for our troops?
If Cheney (and Bush) really was concerned about winning the war on terror, then why did Cheney (and Bush) decide to give up the pursuit of bin Laden (who is a sworn enemy of the US, who DID attack us and calls for further attacks on us)? Then the Bushies attack Iraq which was castrated militarily and posed no threat to us.
It's one thing for a leader to fight the right fight even against public opinion. It's another thing for a leader to lie to us and support a war that doesn't benefit us and in fact is bleeding our military and treasury.
Furthermore why does the Bush administration say that we don't torture, but then it turns out that we do and that Bush can give the authorization to torture in the future? Our leaders are not honorable men nor do they care about the vast majority of Americans. All they want to do is give each other their no-bid contracts and protect their friends.
Frankly, I don't know how much more evidence the American people would need to understand how much contempt Cheney (and Bush) hold for the concept and spirit of democracy. Clearly it isn't something that concerns them.
The gross error Cheney and Bush have made in executing the war (and so much else) , IMO, is the disdain they have shown for the people of the US, while allegedly acting in their interests.
It is correct to say that a governemnt can not rule by following popularity polls, but neither can it rule successfully over the long term by ignoring and antagonizing the citizenry. I would argue that even a dictatorrship could survive and thrive if the populace felt that their concerns and complaitnts were heard and seriously considered in the decison making of the rulers.
A shrug is the perfect symbol for this administration, and it's totally counterproductive. The best way to produce a backlash is to treat citizen concerns with disdain and antagonism.
The ultimate self interest of the US is its survival. It can't survive as a nation at war with itself, and a shrug is the best way to ensure that the internal wars will intensify. The best way to produce risky countermeasures is to disregard their underlying causes, or to call opponents un-American.
Certainly, trying to destroy the checks and balances cited in passionate defense of Cheney does not serve to optimize the survival chances of this republic.
.
Komrad Marlow – How do you explain Billy Kristol at NYT? Edwards seems to be similar to the libertarian Republicans like Barr and Fein. They also make the same claims at paleo and libertarian conservative sites and magazines.
Leadership is the ability to bring the public along to your point of view, if you know you are in the right. FDR possessed this in spades.
Neither Cheney or Bush has ever mastered this ability, preferring to try to control opinion inside and outside their administration by punishing those who disagree or who can't put a positive spin on events.
I think the point krit made deserves repeating: I hope the next Vice President will have some further political ambitions of his/her own.
Elections have consequences.
His response wasn't just him saying he knows better than the american people. He actually doesn't even care. The gall so simly say “So?” when asked that qustions staggers me. Nor does Cheney apparently know what he's doing unless you count giving his former company enough no bids contracts to raise their stock price 22x since 2002. Energy to foreign policy has been a disaster, so when a public official like blows off public opinion it makes me mad. FDR and Civil Rights may have gone against public opinion, but they were born out and actually needed to be done. Cheney is just an ex-CEO fat cat padding nest and that of every donor he's ever had. Disgusting that he was ever let back into washington.
When was the last time a veep for a 2 term president wasn't even considered for the nomination? I know what you're thinking. So?
I love this Jeff Danziger 'toon on Cheney's “So”. It's spot on!
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20080…
When Cheney said: “So?” I cheered, even as it was being spun by the “ordinary ministers of the media”.
The day our elected officials take their marching orders from the wishes of the unwashed masses, it'll be time for me to move somewhere more hospitable.
The vast majority of people can't even find Iraq on a map, and our elected officials are supposed to defer to them with regard to our foreign policy? Hogwash.