THE PLANK NOVEMBER 29, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Jon Meacham is clearly an intelligent person and skilled writer, but his judgment about America and what America needs is somewhat inferior to that of my cat Lexie. Last November, he was telling us that the election affirmed the nation’s conservatism. Now he is urging Dick Cheney to run for president in 2012. It would be “good for the country,” he argues, “because Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people.”
Let’s leave aside dated comparisons to leftwing parties in Europe urging stark choices between left and right in the hope that the right would discredit itself, and let’s just talk about America. This country has functioned best when there is a widely shared worldview about Constitutional government (e.g. separation of powers), equality (e.g. safety net for those at the bottom), and America’s role in the world (e.g. important, but not imperial). Think of America under Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy, for instance. Much of our current woes – epitomized by the sheer craziness of the Republican Congress after 1994 and of George W. Bush’s two terms – is the result of the erosion of that consensus from the right, and the emergence of a frankly supra-Constitutional nationalism on the right. Cheney began his career as the rightwing of the Old Guard Republicanism of Gerald Ford, but he became sometime during the ‘90s a spear carrier for this new, dangerous right.
It amazes me that someone who has written books about American history, and presumably knows something about the subject, would assume that stark choices between left and right bring about a plausible middle-ground. Politics doesn’t work like mathematics. Having Barry Goldwater on the ticket in 1964 didn't lead to a more sensible centrist foreign policy, and George Wallace's candidacy in 1968 or 1972 didn't encourage an affirmation of civil rights. Instead, stark choices embitter and skew and polarize our politics and give credibility to notions that can only bring disaster to the country. Let Cheney enjoy the pleasures of retirement, and let the country enjoy a respite from his dreams of unitary executive and a pre-emptive imperial power.
11 comments
FDR, Ike, JFK. Everything was wonderful then. But along came the right wing, Goldwater, Reagan, Cheney, to wreck everything. Judis has apparently not noticed that also along came McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Kerry. Enjoy your reverie about how there are no Hugh Scotts around anymore. But also note that the Scoop Jacksons are missing too. Lieberman is the last of the Mohicans and the Huron on the far left never cease plotting his elimination. The "wings" now take turns running the country.
- lsernoff
November 29, 2009 at 1:06pm
-
The Scary Years: Part II
It would be just as easy to find sarcasm or mockery in Meacham's piece as any real prescription for a Republican recovery due to a Cheney return. Or am I the only person who read the following as an indictment, "No one foresaw Cheney's reemergence as a force in the politics of the 21st century until it happened.". Yeah, and there is sufficient evidence that his secrecy and deception is why "no one foresaw" and we've yet to hear what, how and why he manipulated the Bush administration. Plus, Meacham isn't clear if Cheney deserves some formal and more accountable platform to challenge Obama or if the GOP field is so weak, they're better off with the devil they know. Regarding the former, Cheney should be investigated and his accusations challenged but he doesn't need to be a candidate in order to be scrutinized for his attacks on Obama. And as miserable as the newer crop of potential candidates seem to be, 1.) The Bush-Cheney years has yet to be cited as a golden era (he'd hardly be seen as the one to "open a new chapter", 2.) The GOP needs to broaden the base but it must also break with the worst of it's past and 3.) Whether Cheney is more moderate that some on the right won't be relevant if he's as toxic to independents as I think he is. So, let's hold Cheney's feet to the fire without having to force him into the a primary. And if he possesses some formula to broaden, modernize and make the GOP a winner in 2012, strike up the band! But for the past year Cheney has only chosen to hit and run with a dismal list of complaints. At least Clinton and Gore turned a page along with charting a new course. I doubt NGO's and the climate is Cheney's thing but he needs a better hobby than twisted nostalgia. Or, maybe Meacham is a big fan of sequels?- michael
November 29, 2009 at 1:39pm
Isernoff - you know I love ya man, but your post was silly. I supported both Bush wars (which Jack Straw talked me in to) as did most Democrats, including those in DC. No one owns right and wrong on those wars and Leiberman's views were utterly mainstream in the Democratic party. Read "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks if you need some refresher data. Lieberman a liar and a demogouge. He's not loathed in his party because of his foreign policy views, which are hardly radical or even interesting. You Republicans never let inconvenient facts stand in the way of exactly why Leiberman is so hopelessly offensive and lame to Dems of all stripes. Do you really think Obama was putting himself before his country by running for President? Or that Sarah Palin is a great candidate for President (as Joe maintained)? Really? Maybe you guys are just so used to lying demogues, they don't bother you anymore? Not you Izzy! Joe Leiberman is beneath you. Obama is a center left technocrat, not a wing or an ideolouge in any sense of the word.
- WandreyCer
November 29, 2009 at 3:27pm
An important difference between lsernoff's lists of Goldwater, Reagan, Cheney and McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Kerry: Reagan served as president for 8 years, got his own vice president elected for another 4, and reigns today as the one idol before which all conservatives are willing to bow, while Cheney served for 8 years as the most powerful VP in American history. Carter, on the other hand, served only 4 years as president and was roundly rejected thereafter by his party, while Mondale served a term as VP. The conservatives on lsernoff's list dominated American politics after 1980, while no Democrat he lists won a national election after 1976. So, yeah, when patriotic Americans look at the gutter into which our Republic has been dragged, we tend to blame conservatives, because conservatives ran the country for 28 years. Yet another example of the many ways in which conservatism is more on the order of a mental defect than an ideology: the crybaby right refuses to acknowledge that they won election after election, dominated national politics and the federal government, and thus are significantly responsible for the current conditions of our nation, good and bad.
- rhubarbs
November 29, 2009 at 3:28pm
Exactly, Republicans are mavericks, outsiders, "real" Americans, etc, excluded from power by the evil Left. Suggestions that they (a) won elections, (b) constituted ruling majorities in the Congress, or (c) had the White House for decades are simply ugly partisan rhetoric.
- ironyroad
November 29, 2009 at 3:38pm
good one rhubs. It might sound crass to say it, but I am willing to lay even money that Cheney won't even be alive in 2012. The guy had 5 heart attacks and will be over the age of 70. There is not a chance in hell he could hope to survive the grind of an election campaign and I am sure his doctors know that. There are also pictures of Cheney nodding off in oval office meetings, etc. so lets drop this whole absurd notion of Cheney doing anything more strenuous than finishing dictating his memoirs, given a few crass speeches, etc. Webb, Tester, Nelson, Lincoln, etc. are all more conservative than Lieberman, and as Wandrey says no one gives a rats ass about his FP. The guy actively campaigned for McCain (not tacitly supported him, which would have been fine since the men are friends) and is now the one guy who wants to filibuster health care reform. Of course we want to eliminate him.
- blackton
November 29, 2009 at 6:05pm
Since Judis has nice things to say about Meacham, I assume he isn't delusional. Unlike the Bush-Cheney dead-enders who appear nightly on Fox News, who write for the Weekly Standard, and publish editorials in the Washington Post. Although unclear, I assume (again, based on the nice things Judis has to say about him) Meacham's point is that an Obama-Cheney election would finally put an end to the sniping from the Bush-Cheney dead-enders. Sorry Meacham, not true. For them, Democrats don't have mandates. They don't even "win" elections. Only Republicans "win" elections and have mandates. Lose the popular vote in 2000, a mandate for Republicans. Lose the House in 2006, a mandate for Republicans. Lose the House, the Senate, and the White House in 2008, a mandate for a do-over. Maybe they are delusional. But you have to admire their audacity. And Meacham for supporting them with a call for a do-over.
- raylward
November 30, 2009 at 8:27am
Exactly, blackton. Many of my favorite Democrats are actually more conservative than Lieberman. Several are less reliable on party-line votes than Joe. The difference is that Lieberman is a serial liar who has the gall to frame every promise broken, every previously stated principle betrayed, as the necessary product of his extraordinary personal righteousness. You have to dig around among 1980s TV evangelists to find prominent Americans with more hypocritical combinations of holier-than-thou attitudes and despicable character than Joe Lieberman.
- rhubarbs
November 30, 2009 at 9:51am
Rhubarb - I wish there some sort of academy award of Talkback you could get for that last post. You'd win any award around here frequently anyway, but that one hit the bullseye in a way I can only stand in awe of.
- WandreyCer
November 30, 2009 at 12:52pm
It's all about JOE, all the time. Forget any semblance of party or principle loyalty, it's cult of personality.
- desertdog
November 30, 2009 at 2:02pm
John B. Judas "Cheney for Fisherman" reviews Jon Meacham's "Why Dick Cheney Should Run in 2012" Jon Meacham is a serious guy, almost everyone agress. Fundamentally, Mr. Meachan believes America is a "center right country." I had the opportunity to chat with Mr. Meachan at the Great Hall of Cooper Union in NYC at the end of a talk given by Sam Tannenhaus about his new book, " The Death of Conservatism." Meachan moderated the Q & A session and exchanged insights with Tannenhaus. Jon Meacham is a class act. Sam Tannhaus dressed-down for his talk; Meachem, on the other hand, wore a finely tailored pinstriped suit, button-down oxford shirt, red tie and polished shoes. He presents himself as a cultured, well read, modern Southern gentleman. He noted, "Just look at the healthcare debate. The public option is dead. Perfect example that 'we are a center right country.' Meacham is probably deeply pained by Glenn, Sarah, Rush, the tea party folks---no class. Cheney is Meachan's stand in until a serious candidate emerges.
- LawrenceGulotta
December 2, 2009 at 12:15pm