Why Dick Cheney Is Wrong About A Totalitarian Presidency

‘Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither, and lose both,’ said Ben Franklin. Why Dick Cheney Is Wrong About A Totalitarian PresidencyBy Cliff Montgomery – June 18th, 2007A traditional weakness of elections is the obvious uncertainty of what will be the most important issues over the next four to eight years, and hence what qualities the country may need to find in a candidate.But on some occasions the questions are simply more clear than at others.Take for instance the announcement of the Bush/Cheney Republican ticket in 2000. When George W. Bush picked Dick Cheney as his running mate–tellingly, the first political choice he was to make which effected all Americans–even the corporate media found it easy to demand some real answers from this vice presidential candidate on his questionable political record.For one thing, why was his voting record while in Congress so bizarre? Why did he say no to sanctions against South Africa’s apartheid regime in the 1980s? And why, in heavens’ name, did he actually vote against re-authorizing the Older Americans Act?But all missed the central issue: How would Dick Cheney handle executive power, especially in the possible advent of war?Another missed question: Just how much power would the rather inexperienced George W. Bush hand over to Cheney if their ticket somehow won the election?One Supreme Court election and one questionable popular election in Ohio gave us the eight-year nightmare to that question.So the power of the vice-presidency may well undergo an unparalleled level of scrutiny during the 2008 presidential elections.Cheney’s influence on the Bush presidency–his role in the lies which produced the fruitless nation-building of Iraq, his influence on such liberty-crushing policies as spying on ordinary Americans and the torture of practically everyone else, and his totalitarian view of executive power–has been so pervasive that his role in this White House isn’t even seriously debated anymore.The fact that Cheney’s fingerprints taint almost all the most despised aspects of Bush’s tenure says much about the man, and even more about the power now enjoyed by this ordinarily overlooked office.Thanks to Cheney, future vice presidential candidates will almost have to field real questions about their views; and the new batch of presidential nominees will be all but forced to declare what powers their vice presidents would and would not possess.Craig Fuller, former chief of staff to Bush Sr. when he was vice president in the 1980s, told Congressional Quarterly magazine that “regardless of how people feel about Vice President Cheney, the role of the vice president, and the selection of the vice president, is going to receive a lot more attention next year.””It’s going to be unavoidable–and I think that’s a good thing,” added Fuller, now an executive vice president of APCO Worldwide, one of those international lobbying firms which help the wealthy buy politicians.Most vice presidency experts feel Cheney’s successor will attempt a continuation of his basic practices, as well as further the integration of the presidential and vice presidential staffs that has obviously benefitted Cheney. For example, Cheney’s chief of staff also has been declared an assistant to the president.Louis Fisher, a constitutional law specialist serving at the Library of Congress and author of “The Politics of Executive Privilege,” told Congressional Quarterly that Congress has a few oversight tools when a vice president assumes so much power. For one thing, Congress controls the funds for his staff; it may therefore limit the size of that staff if it looks as if the vice president is becoming too powerful for America’s good, says Fisher.But there’s only one flaw in Fisher’s statement: the public needs to know how overblown those activities are getting before they can do anything about it. Cheney has been allowed to keep the size of both his staff and office budget fairly secret, apparently under this administration’s catch-all for absolute power, “executive privilege” during a time of war.From what can be gathered, the best estimates put the vice president’s current staff at about 80 employees. But the vice president works to keep Americans from knowing enough to hold him accountable for anything he might do in our name, right or wrong. And that’s the problem.It reveals the essential mistake of the Bush Administration, and Dick Cheney in particular: a failure to realize that the rights and freedoms of every American are our greatest strengths during a time of war, not our greatest weaknesses. Cheney’s further presumption that career politicians must hold total executive power for America’s “security” thus reminds us of Benjamin Franklin’s brilliant retort to such false reasoning:”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither, and lose both.”Like what you’re reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of thee-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!