THE PLANK AUGUST 16, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Far be it from me to get in the way of anybody ridiculing Stephen Hayes for his worshipful treatment of Dick Cheney, as Chris does below. But I think Hayes might actually have a shred of a point when he argues that Cheney's "low poll numbers are the result of his low profile."
Okay, Cheney's low poll numbers aren't the result of his low profile. I think the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, his shooting a guy in the face, and the pivotal role he's played in pretty much every major screw-up of this administration deserve the lion's share of the blame for his sorry approval ratings. But the fact that we hardly ever see Cheney probably does compound the fallout from the myriad substantive matters that make him evil incarnate. Because, in the department of appearances, Cheney does actually come across fairly well in the forums that Hayes mentions in his WSJ op-ed: debates and one-on-one interviews like those done on "Meet the Press."
Nick Lemann got at this six years ago, in a profile of Cheney in the New Yorker, when he wrote:
Cheney was facing me, an even look on his face. His legs were crossed in the Western-male manner, with the ankle of one leg resting on the knee of the other. His voice was deep, low, and clear--strong but not loud. The way the lower-right corner of his mouth pulls downward when he speaks connotes an ordinary man's matter-of-fact pessimism--or, in rare flashes, when it pulls upward, an urge to mirth so deeply suppressed that it could never make it all the way to the surface, only near. Afterward, when I listened to our conversation on tape, I was struck by how strong the theme of peril to the United States had been--struck because, as Cheney was talking, my main sensation had been one of immense reassurance. His presence had an effect like that of being hooked up to an intravenous line that delivers a powerful timed dosage of serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Everything felt kind of evened out, no highs, no lows. He wasn't going to be flaky or half-baked, he wasn't going to let his emotions distort his views, and he certainly wasn't going to be soft or naive. But whenever he suggested something that, coming from somebody with a more animated manner, might be taken to indicate a swashbuckling inclination, like that "very robust intelligence capability," his rocklike manner made it sound like the very least we could do, unless we wanted to be foolhardy.
Now, granted, Lemann wrote all this before 9/11--which drove Cheney off the deep end. And even Cheney's "deep, low, and clear--strong but not loud" voice couldn't camouflage the lunacy of lines like the insurgency in Iraq being "in the last throes." (Actually, come to think of it, maybe Lemann is really embarrassed by the above passage and wishes it didn't live forever in Nexis.) But I do think Cheney could well benefit from a round of media appearances--because, while his views may be crazy and alarmist, his public presentation of them isn't. Who knows, a Cheney "charm" offensive might even get his approval ratings into the mid-30s. At this point, what does he have to lose?
P.S. Reading about Cheney's "rocklike manner," it occurred to me that when Hollywood turns Hayes's book into a blockbuster movie, Michael Chiklis should get the title role.
--Jason Zengerle
7 comments
His voice might be even, but the constant dyspeptic look on his face doesn't wear well. Frankly, he looks like a man in desperate need of an enema. As to him keeping a low profile, hasn't he been a regular fixture on Limbaugh (radio being more suitable for him) and that hasn't helped him at all. He just doesn't have anymore credibility.
- blackton
August 16, 2007 at 1:36pm
there's something to this. i recall when cheney debated edwards in '04, walking away with the distinct impression that grandpa dick had things "under control."
- cubana5000
August 16, 2007 at 2:19pm
Even if increasing Cheney's viz would improve HIS approval ratings (maybe to 25 percent), making Cheney the spokesperson for a cause (as Hayes proposes) would undoubtedly make THAT CAUSE'S popularity decline.
- jsb39
August 16, 2007 at 2:25pm
Cheney is going to come out in favor of mothers, apple pie, and killing cute puppies. No, wait ... not killing the puppies. I mean, it's not like he's under oath. Seriously though, I do think a lot Cheney's negatives come from the fact that he's so secretive. Surely he could put forth a little effort to make himself appear less the reclusive evil genius.
- ratnerstar
August 16, 2007 at 3:01pm
Zengerle's post reminds me of the rule in golf, that the best shot you ever make is immediately followed by your worst. First an Orr, then a Zengerle.
Not to be outdone by Orr's excerpting the risible Hayes, Zengerle finds an even more risible Cheney fanboy in Lehmann. But, God love him, Zengerle, for reasons that pass logic, uses Lehmann's fawning tribute to demonstrate that Orr goes too far in his Cheney smackdown, that there actually is redeeming social value to be found in the existence of a Dick Cheney.
Bush is just inept. Cheney is evil. That pulled-down side of his mouth isn't "an ordinary man's matter-of-fact pessimism" but an extraordinarily malevolent man's sneer, a "Fuck youself!" sneer. There's also Lehman's uninformed (borne of NYC provincialism) characterization of Cheney's leg cross as "Western male manner". Of course, Cheney's leg-crossing style is ubiquitous.
The explanation of low percentage approval because of low visibility is indeed absurd, and that Zengerle subscribes to it, by even just a "shred of a point," indicates a rather common obtuseness.
First, anyone with the perception of a gnat understands that Bush is Cheney's sock puppet, that Cheney is the de facto president. Cheney is to George II what Richelieu was to Louis XIII. And as every eminence grise knows, the more powerful you are, the more shadow-bound you must stay.
Second, Cheney is making himself scarce because he is so unpopular; he's not so unpopular because he's scarce. Of course, such a phenomenon is not unheard of. Queen Victoria's low numbers, at one point in her reign, were due to her self-imposed seclusion after Albert's death, when her subjects grew displeased at her neglect of them. Somehow I don't think this is Cheney's problem. Cheney has no doubt slithered back under his wet rock he uses for for whenever something bad or awkward happens. For this reptilian contriver, such maneuvering is natural instinct.
- jm_rice
August 16, 2007 at 5:00pm
This probably doesn't factor into most people's assessments of Cheney because they don't know about it, but one of the functions of cabinet meetings is to allow the principals to air their ideas and vet each other. In the Bush administration, this is generally what happens, with one exception. Cheney's ideas remain bottled up during the meeting, thus remaining unvetted, then Cheney personally delivers them to Bush who then accepts them even without the vetting. While the public might be unaware of this specific item, they can sense what Cheney used to believe when he was in the Ford administration: that when policies are allowed to escape the vetting process and go directly to adoption, it can only lead to disaster. What more proof do we need than the results of Cheney doing what he prevented others from doing over 30 years ago?
- sighthnd
August 17, 2007 at 10:18am
probably about as palpable as Wieseltier's "suavity"...
- MrCookie1
August 17, 2007 at 11:01am