7th September 2024
Back in the halcyon days of that golden age of when politics seemed kind of normal, there was no greater illiberal pantomime villain than Vice President Richard Cheney.
(Of course, halcyon days and golden ages never existed, for that is a trick of our memories and histories.)
*
Richard Cheney was – and perhaps still is – a believer in something that is called ‘unitary executive theory’. This is a bundle of ideas that even has its own Wikipedia page:
In effect: the doctrine is about there being few limits – or at least few meaningful limits – to the sheer executive power of the United States presidency – and vice presidency.
(Note the word ‘executive’ there – it does not necessarily mean trespassing on legislative and judicial powers, though it does mean limiting the scope of legislative and judicial powers.)
There are even academic articles about Richard Cheney and this approach:
Richard Cheney is about as far from being a liberal constitutionalist as one can imagine, at least in terms of theory and principle.
But.
Yesterday came the astonishing news, initially through his daughter (the brave and estimable) Elizabeth Cheney, that the former Vice President is not supporting the former President Donald Trump in the latter’s attempt at re-election and will instead be voting for Democtratic candidate (and current Vice President) Kamala Harris.
This has now been confirmed directly from Richard Cheney himself:
*
Of course: there is a distinction between what one does with power and how one gets that power.
One can believe in the widest executive powers for a President (and Vice President) once elected, but still (genuinely) believe in a democratic process so as to obtain those powers. Indeed, there is a conceptual connection in that the wide executive powers are (somehow) justified by the democratic mandate.
And if you look carefully at Richard Cheney’s reported remarks, his objection is primarily to Trump’s abuse of the election process, and not to the abuses of presidential power itself.
In effect: yes you can have those wide powers, but you need to obtain them properly.
*
Yet, this is still quite the turn-up.
Once upon a time, liberals worried about the wide powers of a Vice President Cheney – and of a President Bush.
And now, in turn, illiberals like Vice President Cheney are worried about the undemocratic pretensions of a President Trump.
This is an interesting and significant development.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
We are certainly living in interesting times.
It has always been a topic for debate in first year politics classes: can a democracy democratically turn into an autocracy? If enough people vote for a Trump (or a 1930’s dictator) does that entitle the victor to ‘fulfil the wishes of the people’ by not giving them any more pesky elections? I’m not a constitutional (or any other kind of) lawyer but I’ve long supposed that if Parliament voted to suspend democratic procedures (as it did in the Second World War for example) then it would be perfectly able to do so.
While the USA has a written Constitution which would make such measures harder, the ultimate guardianship of that constitution is in the hands of a Supreme Court that is appointed by the President. If he appoints enough members that are willing to give him extra-constitutional rights, does he have those rights? (I’d be interested to know if the role of Commander in Chief of the military forces imposes reciprocal duties on said forces to limit the actions of their commander.)
We can hope that Trump will not get more than the 45% of the voting population that will enable his opponent to win unchallengeably, but until we know for sure, it is certainly interesting times.
Justice Oliver W Holmes dissenting in Gitlow v. New York (1925) on free speech matters in the context of the communist threat:
“If, in the long run, the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way.”
With Brandenburg’s imminent lawless action test replacing Schenk’s clear and present danger, this has become accepted jurisprudence. It’s the same principle here, I think. If the democratic process is transparently engaged in such a way that the outcome is dictatorship, we should consider that process legimate. The Supreme Court may beg to differ, but by that time the horse has bolted.
At the end of the day, unenforceable rights are worthless.
Regardless of what a Constitution (codified or otherwise) may say, with enough political will, and sufficient control of the levers of power, a leader can do whatever the hell they like (until the population rises up, or their shenanigans get them wiped out by war)
This is the point of Project 2025; Consolidation of ultimate power in the Presidency (in the case of P25 that’s to usher in a Christian Nationalist theocracy, but the playbook would work just as well to establish a Tech Bro Oligarchy or a Communist state). I’d be willing to bet $10 that Cheney is entirely on board with that premise, as long as he (or people who he agrees with) have the autocracy.
Two thoughts come to mind regarding Dick Cheney.
First, there was a good 1956 book by JFK and his ghostwriter-speechwriter Sorensen, on Dad’s shelves back in our diaspora days in Canada (though I never went further than to dip into it), called _Profiles in Courage_. A take-away lesson from this book is that there is not only such a thing as courage in combat, but also courage in politics.
Second, there is a sentence from John Henry Cardinal Newman: “To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.” We of course cannot achieve perfection in this life, but we do have to work toward it, trying in our necessarily groping way to be the people we were meant to be.
(posted as an Estonian commentator
with 1987-1988 USA work experience,
now living at the edge of the Tartu Observatory dark-sky campus
in Nõo Rural Municipality)
Usually my thinking would be that if Dick Cheney supports an idea it must be a bad thing.
I wonder whether this rather negative endorsement is a good or bad thing for the Harris campaign? I suppose they could use it to attack Trump. Along the lines of “Even Dick Cheney will not support him”.
I know that you are being polite and correct David BUT – nobody in the US will know who you are talking about. They are, and always have been and will be, Liz and Dick. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Mags.
It seems unlikely that the neocon Dick Cheney has had some Damascene moment given his political history especially post 9/11.
This is the opportunist behind George Bush Jr’s push to invade Iraq on the back of a lie and in pursuit of his and his colleagues’ “Project for the New American Century” an idea not very far removed from the warped ideology behind Trump’s MAGA movement, but still very much alive among like-minded right-wing think tankers
It’s hard to imagine the likelihood of Trump’s movement succeeding in moving that agenda forward one iota even if he were to be elected, more likely the reverse.
If, in the event Dick hasn’t been rubbing shoulders with St Paul of late, we shouldn’t be too surprised if we see some other neocon stalwarts raise their heads above the parapet in the coming weeks
I would argue that the democratic process can confer no powers beyond those that reasonably could have been foreseen by the Electors,
GWB and GHWB both voted for Hilary in 2016. It doesn’t surprise me when neo-conservatives reject Trump. Neocons are about as far from alt-right white nationalist Tea Party politics as you can be and still call yourself conservative.
It saddens and infuriates me though when old school Republicans still in office or seeking office continue to put party interests above their duty.
Cheney going after Trump is the unspeakable in pursuit of the unspeakable.
Jon Stewart put it even more succinctly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtHn59wqdBc
(from 3:12)
This was an interesting take on former VP’s position. I thought in this I recognised a consistent theme of acting in self interest – sure family is important above all … and father’s always protect daughters.