"The Irony of American History"

 

So, as I say, I'm watching "VICE" on Netflix.

The thesis of the film is that Cheney adopted the "Unitary Executive" theory, an idea he is introduced to in the film by Antonin Scalia (before the latter is on the Supreme Court).  The basic idea is, as the movie explains the theory, that if the president does it, it's legal. The corollary to this idea is that the VP, who has a role in the executive but also in the Senate, is therefore a creature of both and neither, and like the POTUS, cannot legitimately be overseen by the Legislative branch (or the executive branch, either. Because the moment the latter looks at him, he’s a creature of the former; and Vice versa. As neat a piece of sophistry as can be imagined.).

All because "Unitary executive theory."  All the real power is in the POTUS, (or by derivation, or something, the VPOTUS).  And this allowed Cheney, with the help of Shrub pushing all the work of the POTUS toward Cheney because Shrub was the "idea guy,” to assume near-dictatorial power. Or something.  

Anyway, it allowed Cheney to plot the invasion of Iraq, stovepipe intelligence so he was the decision maker, authorize torture and anything else he felt necessary to defend the republic (his basic excuse for this, in the film, is the same authority given to the diktator in Rome, who had all power to defend the empire in times of crisis.  The crucial distintion being that power was authorized by the Senate, and withdrawn by the Senate when the crisis had ended.  Until it got to Julius Caesar, who "Cheneyed" the Roman Senate, one might say.  Cheney had the power because he said so. Oh, and the double super secret unified executive theory, which he never explains to anyone; he just acts on it. Anyway.....).

Per the film, Cheney tore up the 4th Amendment (one of Yoo's first acts was to write a memo authorizing the government to examine all e-mails, phone call content, etc., etc., etc.  Because....well, 9/ll, basically.) Then there was torture, and whatever it took to bring off the invasion of Iraq (in the film this happens because Pentagon contracted focus groups are confused about what "Al Qaida" is, and this tells Cheney and Rumsfeld & Co. they need a country to attack, not a name.).  Cheney, in other words, decides that in order to preserve the Constitution and the rule of law, he must destroy them.  As if it were all just a village in Vietnam (and oh, yeah, the film harkens back to Cheney's days as an aide to Rumsfeld, where Cheney learns Nixon has authorized the bombing of Cambodia, without any Congressional action or approval.  When he protests, Rumsfeld laughs off Cheney's naïveté.)

So Cheney champions the theory that the President is in charge, and Congress' real job is to pay the bills (i.e, authorize the money).  Which works out fine for Cheney because...he's the one in charge.

Jump ahead a couple of Presidents, and his daughter is now fighting to protect the Constitution Cheney literally ran roughshod over.  She wants to protect it, not from her father, but from the logical outcome of his theory:  former President Donald Trump.  Seems the problem with the "unitary executive theory" is that it's all power and glory and saving Americans until the "wrong" President is in office.  Also turns out that "wrong President" wasn't a Democrat, but a Republican.  A Republican who wasn't quite in the mold of Dick Cheney, unfortunately for the theory and the country. And by that I mean one who didn't say the quiet part out loud.  At one point in the movie, when Cheney is Reagan's chief of staff and Rumsfeld is back in D.C. (having been previously exiled under Nixon to Europe), Cheney counsels Rumsfeld that the "soft approach" is now the order of the day.  He goes on to display, especially as Vice, that the "soft approach" is far more aggressive, and effective, than Rumsfeld's former bluster and bombast.  He doesn't, in other words, ever say the quiet part out loud. He hardly says anything out loud. He just ruthlessly seizes power. Pretty much where Trump learned it. Pretty much the pattern for subsequent GOP office holders.

Another irony: toward the end of the film Rumsfeld calls Cheney as the Bush Administration circles the drain. Cheney tells Rumsfeld to resign: whether that’s from Bush or Cheney is left hanging. Before the conversation ends, Rumsfeld asks: “Do you think they’ll prosecute us?” 

So Cheney's daughter, who is as devoted to her father's legacy as she is to Constitutional order and the rule of law, is now the knight in shining armor of some, and the savior of the Constitution and the Republic.  A republic and a constitution her father honored in the trampling, not in the keeping.  And his "unitary executive theory" is one Trump very much tried to adhere to; although in his case we say he wanted to be a dictator and an emperor, because he was no better at navigating the power in D.C. than W was; but also because Mike Pence was no Dick Cheney. But Trump was just Cheney living out loud.

History abounds with such ironies.  And the justification for the vaunted "checks and balances" is proven again.  Because it is a government of laws, not of women or men.  And the problem with the unitary executive theory is that it very much matters who is in the executive, and what they do with that unitary power they supposedly have. 

I suppose we're lucky to have witnessed the logical outcome of that theory already.  If we understand we're witnessing it.  I don't think we will, anytime soon. The next step is to realize Scalia never really was that clever.  He just had a glib tongue; and quite often, that's all it takes.

That's the sum of the rise of the conservatives to power, something else limned in the movie alongside the career of Dick Cheney.  Power flows from money and the promotion of ideas; which don't really have to be all that good, so long as they're acceptable.  And so long as you keep the quiet part, quiet.  Or have a glib tongue, and can convince people you must be "smart."

Funnily enough, the Romans understood that, too.  Aristotle's "Rhetoric" is a completely amoral guide to persuading people to your point of view, however unustified that view is.  But he wasn't much interested in being smart; he was Greek enough to still honor wisdom more. The Romans understood that, and turned wisdom into a tool rather than a pursuit, and rhetoric into a very dark art.  But they knew what they were doing.  The Romans honored knowledge above wisdom, results above ideas. For them, rhetoric was a tool for achieving results. But at least they understood that.

We still think people who know those arts must be smart; because they sure sound like it. Wisdom is for dottering old fools.  Being smart, is what gets things done.  And getting things done is all that matters, in this still post-Roman world.

Ironies abound.  These lessons will, too.  And I'm pretty sure we'll go on not learning them.

Benjamin Ginsberg explained how the Trump campaign in 2020 had mistreated the monster that the Bush campaign had created in 2000. https://t.co/0ceqkoZEuZ

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) June 13, 2022

Just making the connections....