The Cheney Project
This is Charlie Savage. I’m writing this from my office at the Boston Globe bureau in downtown Washington. I just started a five-week leave of absence to travel around the country talking about my new book, Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy. For the next week, I will be guest-blogging for this book salon about the Bush administration’s efforts to expand presidential power, and about the book, which aims to be a comprehensive account of this extraordinary project to reshape American government.
I get asked a lot about how I got onto this topic. It goes back to 2003, when I began covering Guantanamo and the broader debate about detention and interrogation policy in the war on terrorism.
In 2005, I closely followed the fight over the McCain torture ban in Congress. We all thought the story was over when Bush signed the bill into law, but then the president issued a signing statement telling interrogators that he could authorize them to ignore the law. I wrote about that. Two months later, Bush did the same thing with new oversight provisions in the Patriot Act, and I wrote about that signing statement too. Those two stories got a huge response, and so after that my bureau chief relieved me of daily reporting responsibilities for a month to go find and decipher all the other signing statements Bush had issued since taking office.
The signing statements turned out to be kind of a roadmap to the full implications of the Bush administration’s very broad view of executive power – the White House was claiming that a president was free to ignore laws that had nothing to do with national-security, and was expressing that view at a breathtaking scope: Bush had challenged more laws that all previous presidents combined. This revelation was coming out at the same time the public was learning about the warrantless wiretapping program, in which the White House bypassed a 1978 law. It also came on the heels of the Roberts and Alito nominations, in which Bush had installed two veteran executive branch legal warriors on the Supreme Court who brought with them a history of pushing for maximal presidential powers.
I kept digging more and learned that this agenda of concentrating more unchecked power in the White House was primarily coming out of Vice President Cheney’s office -- and, on a day to day level, that it was the handiwork of Cheney’s longtime aide David Addington. I also learned that it long predated 9/11, even though the war on terrorism was the justification most often offered for the push. Following the vice president's own advice to reporters interested in the warrantless wiretapping program, I dug up a copy of Cheney's old 1987 Iran-Contra report, blew the dust from its cover, and discovered that he had articulated a vision of nearly limitless commander-in-chief power two decades earlier.
The full sweep and implications of the administration’s project came into sharp focus for me. Like many reporters, I had been focused in on a close-up of one or two controversies, but had been missing the broader context. Now, the camera had zoomed way out to bring the full panorama into view. Suddenly, what the Bush administration had been doing across a huge range of issues made much more sense – not just the 9/11-related controversies, but Cheney’s fight to keep his energy task force papers a secret, the attacks on open-government laws such as FOIA and the Presidential Records Act, the use of executive orders instead of legislation to push the faith-based initiative, the decision to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without consulting the Senate, the choices for Supreme Court nominations, unprecedented efforts to impose greater White House control over Justice Department lawyers and other executive branch bureaucrats, and many other things. These disparate controversies were all connected. The administration, from its very beginning, had set out to set precedents and take actions that would permanently expand presidential power for the long-term, even when such tactics brought them extra short-term difficulties. A quiet but sweeping constitutional revolution was well underway.
I kept asking the question why. What was driving Dick Cheney and the other “presidentialists” who were so relentlessly and systematically pushing this agenda, about which they had said nothing to voters when campaigning for the office? Where was this coming from? This question took me to Ann Arbor, Michigan, to the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, where the National Archives houses a bookcase full of documents in gray boxes titled “RICHARD CHENEY FILES.” From that pile of memos, written when a 33-year-old Cheney had become the youngest White House chief of staff in history, the answers emerged. Day upon day in the Ford White House, after Watergate and Vietnam had brought Nixon’s “imperial presidency” crashing down, Dick Cheney had confronted a Congress that was determined to re-impose constitutional controls on White House power. He was outraged. It felt like a siege – a siege that would weaken the commander-in-chief, and hence America. He and those who felt like him, abandoning the traditional conservative suspicion of concentrated government power, would spend the next 30 years working to roll back the changes of the 1970s and restore presidential power to the inflated levels it had briefly reached under Nixon.
It was clear that the signing statements story, as amazing as it was, was in fact just the proverbial tip of the iceberg – one tactic among many toward achieving a hidden agenda 30 years in the making. To explain what has happened to executive power over the last seven years, and where all this came from, I needed to write a book. It is one thing to report, in an 800-word newspaper story, that the administration has expanded secrecy and tightened its control over the flow of information to Congress and the public, and it is another thing to demonstrate how this has happened on a dramatic scale by taking a full chapter to examine dozens upon dozens of ways that this has happened, a steady accumulation that is staggering when piled atop one another. It is one thing to report that the Bush legal team advanced a controversial view of executive power, and it is another to tell the full story of players such as John Yoo, Jack Goldsmith, Alberto Gonzales, and David Addington, in narrative form, and to take the time to explain to non-lawyers in plain English what their theories are all about. It is one thing to give a headline, and another to tell a story.
The working title of the book was “The Cheney Project.” The title changed, but the final book closely follows that framework. The book leave gave me the time to gather and organize an enormous amount of additional research and interviews to demonstrate what has been happening. Early responses have been flattering. The San Francisco Chronicle called the book “a masterful work of investigative journalism” and the conservative columnist George F. Will described the book as “meticulous reporting and lucid explanations of audacious theories invented to justify novel presidential powers.”
One final opening thought: I want to emphasize that I do not think that presidential power is a partisan issue. Although we are having this discussion in the context of a Republican administration, we have had Democratic presidents in the past and we will have them again in the future. These future Democratic presidents will be able to invoke the same novel powers that the Bush administration has pioneered in order to unilaterally impose their own agendas. Thus, preserving the Founders’ system of checks and balances is in the long-term interest of all Americans, regardless of their party affiliation or policy preferences. Despite its aggressive title, it was very important to me in writing this book to maintain a detached tone in “Takeover” and to let the facts quietly speak for themselves. I knew I had succeeded when well-known conservatives such as George Will, Richard Epstein, Mickey Edwards, and others endorsed the book, along with John Dean, Larry Tribe, Harold Koh, and Norman Ornstein.
Whatever your politics, I hope that you, too, find the book both enjoyable to read and valuable as a guide to understanding better what has been happening beneath the headlines in recent years – and its implications for the future of American democracy.
Thank you for discovering and writing this story. It is likely to be the story of the 21st century even in 2099. Iraq, Iran, oil are just distractions to divert attention away their true target of conquest: the United States.
You know, it is not that they want to change things that bothers me. After all, the founders/framers put provisions in place for making changes to the Constitution. I would have been willing to listen to their proposals. What bothers me is the underhanded way they are going about changing things. That and especially starting a war for cover. The arrogance; the contempt for representative government is astounding.
This really should be the central issue of the 2008 Election.
September 10, 2007 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a GREAT book. Going to have to order that right away....
Where does Rove fit into any of this?
September 10, 2007 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed - this is actually more important than recent outrages - even back to the 2000 election and Iraq war, because the Supreme Court justices recently chosen will be around decades from now and future autocrats will point out Bush's actions as legitimate - probably because the new Democratic congress hasn't chosen to impeach him for such audacious over reach.
September 10, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
While you argue above that the theory of the unitary executive is not inherently partisan, it's nearly impossible not to see it as connected in a fundamental way to partisan or ideological allegiances. I certainly don't see anyone on the progressive side of the spectrum arguing for this bizarre theory.
I hope you at least get into the issue of why this view might seem so attractive to some Conservatives, especially since those extraordinary powers would apply to Democratic as well as Republican Presidents.
September 10, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only one body can counter executive power, Congress. A good way is to legislate more intrusive intelligence oversight. The "if it's secret, it's legal" of CIA operations directorate spawned Nixon's "if the President does it, then it is not illegal." Conversely, the existence of deniable covert operations capability invites impossible demands by the executive, which generate casualties and atrocities and connects us intimately to criminal activities.
Any restoration of FISA control on surveillance will be ignored in practice unless someone gets the book thrown at him, i.e. the President.
Currently, covert operations are more the province of the Pentagon, although with the help of CIA paramilitary agents. Ironically, the analysis and intelligence-gathering sections of CIA have been utterly ignored or simply bulldozed by Cheney. Likely this is because he never trusted them after they missed the actual nuclear program under Saddam in the 80s. That Cheney could discount the factor of weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq, yielding actual information instead of supposition, doesn't argue for his good sense.
Tim Weiner quoted Addington, on FISA: "One more bomb and we'll be done with this obnoxious court."
September 10, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The book sounds intriguing, and I am looking forward to reading it.
Another poster (franklyo, above) pointed out that "I certainly don't see anyone on the progressive side of the spectrum arguing for this bizarre theory." While I agree, there are many "progressives" who are not arguing very strenuously against it.
I think this points up one of the biggest dilemmas for progressives in this time in history. Let's imagine that a progressive Democrat wins the presidency in 2008. Is it better for him or her to muster the full power of the presidency to try to reverse the disastrous policies of the Bush administration, even if that means acting imperially? Or is it better for him or her to try (obviously with the help of Congress) to re-institutionalize appropriate checks and balances, even if that means mounting perhaps a less effective campaign to reverse those policies?
The answer to the dilemma, or part of it, anyway has to be a more empowered Congress and to replace in the Courts those judges and justices who have enabled this imperial presidency. But aside from that, I'm not sure which horn of the dilemma is sharper or more destructive.
September 10, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like the policies that led to the vast differences that now exist between CEOs of major corporations and their employees, in terms of salaries and compensations, there has been a concerted effort to aid and accelerate the shift of power into the hands of the few. By misdirection, deception, and outright theft, these elitists are working to trivialize and disenfranchise American citizens and the small but distinct voices we have through our votes.
With the increase of powers held by the executive branch, those citizens who are of political persuasions not represented in the White House will feel more disenfranchised and powerless. I believe this is not what the founding fathers intended. And clearly, as evidenced today, it is not healthy for the United States.
September 10, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Emma Zahn said: "Iraq, Iran, oil are just distractions to divert attention away their true target of conquest: the United States." But I think she misses the point. It's not just the United States. The reality of energy economics is that if you control oil now in the 21st century, you control the political scene. In that context the attack on Iraq can be seen as a play for a significant part of the world's remaining oil reserves. And the formulation of energy policy by oil interests can be seen as hedging to keep oil as the principle source of energy and thereby the key piece on the board. So, Emma, we're not kust talking about playing for control of the US; that's small potatoes for these guys. Think bigger; they aspire to use US economic and military power to control world energy markets and make themselves a whole sh*tload of money. That's what it's all about. They will subvert our government to do it. They don't care about the Constitution except as it serves their purpose.
September 10, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two questions:
1. Did any of the legal scholars with whom you spoke suggest any ways in which the issue of signing statements can be brought before the Supreme Court?
2. Do you really believe, despite the events of the past 25+ years, this statement:
I have always thought that your journalistic style tended to avoid the fuzzyheadedness common of many mainstream media reporters. However, this remark suggests a complete lack of familiarity with the rise of the conservative right-wing Republicans who are responsible for abdicating all concern for good governance, concerns that would constrain any possible Democratic leader, and empowering Bush and Cheney to such a degree that they were able to implement the radical agenda about which you write, at the price of their own loss of power as members of Congress. (Obviously a horrible long-term strategy, as Congressional GOP leaders like DeLay and Frist ended up leaving behind both a weakened Congress and a weakened Republican party.)
Very disappointing to see you suggest something that, while undoubtedly true in theory, as Democratic presidents could choose to pursue such ends, is unlikely in the extreme in reality, given the Democratic Party's disdain for such practices. While Democratic politicians are constrained by their ideology from pursuing such policies (and yes, I know that President Clinton issued a smaller number of less sweeping signing statements), the current GOP is empowered by its ideology to seek such centralized power. If you remain unconvinced, you should read some of John Dean's current writings on this topic.
September 10, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ned brings up an important point. We have a chance to restore the Constitution to its previous condition, but NONE of the presidential candidates has made restoration a campaign theme. Very few of the Congress have commented on the situation. One can only assume that each looks at the new accumulation of presidential powers as something to be coveted, not corrected. And that scares me.
September 10, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I told everyone who would listen that Cheney et al would do this once they had power, but nobody would listen to me. In fact, if I mentioned it online, I usually was called a conspiracy theorist and told that it couldn't happen because of all our checks and balances. Well, it has happened; and if you think they are done, you are wrong. This is just the start of it.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0206/020206c1.htm
****In related news, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded a contract last month worth up to $385 million to Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, to build emergency detention and processing facilities for illegal immigrants.
Under the contract, the company will build facilities that can help the DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau "in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs," according to a company statement.****
I wonder what those "new programs" might be? And I wonder what type of "emergency" would lead to an "emergency influx of immigrants?"
It's coming, folks, so I hope you're ready. I'm trying to get into grad school and move to Canada.
September 10, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Save your disappointment for our Democratic leadership. Don't assume that the disdain you refer to is genuine. Given the lack of backbone in Congress re: torture, illegal surveillance, suspension of habeas corpus, and war powers, it is completely naive of you to depend on the Democratic Party to protect the Constitution and restore the system of checks and balances. The GOP simply had more audacity in seizing unitary power, and the Democratic leadership seems to be waiting for elections so they can exercise the newfound executive powers to their own purposes, regardless of propriety.
September 10, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The president should take it to the people and make his/her case. The people should then work hard to get their representatives to support the move back from the ledge. The American people are uninformed, but not stupid. If the president points out the negative changes and asks for their help in returning things to normal, I think people will get behind him/her.
September 10, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly the American people have been "used" by politicians, especially Cheney. But many Americans ask to be used. They view politics as a religion and their favorite presidential candidate as their savior. Forgetting that America is designed to be a democracy where the people rule, they put all their hopes in the one person who will deliver them from evil. What will Candidate X do once in office? is kind of like giving in to signing statements, giving the President the prerogative do do whatever, and just hoping that it's something we like. Not supposed to be that way!
The US Constitution gives the President only one substantive power, to command the military. The Congress, representing the people, have all the rest. We need to find better ways to influence congress and to support them (as they must support us!) against an out-of-control unitary executive. It ain't right, and it isn't all Cheney's fault. He certainly brought it to full flower, though, and thanks for chronicling it.
September 10, 2007 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just ordered the book which sounds very interesting. I recently read a theory that imperialism has been inching its way into American governance due to the vacuum of the post cold war era and the stand against communism.
Did you find a difference before and after the cold war ground to a halt?
Thanks.
September 10, 2007 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wondered if in your research you'd run across writings by Dorothy Thomson? I know very little about her, and don't recall even hearing her name before today, but apparently she was quite the crusader in the years leading up to WWII, and even after. Peter Kurth did a biography of her, and I'm now intrigued enough to go dig up a copy, as it's out of print. She was the real person upon which "Woman of the Year," starring Kathryn Hepburn, was based.
In reading some of her quotes about how republican, representative government is overthrown from within, it's actually chilling to realize that some of the same forces are at work now as were on the march in the 30s.
See a brief bio at: http://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/thompson-dorothy.cfm
and other info by the biographer at: http://www.peterkurth.com/A%20DOROTHY%20THOMPSON%20SAMPLER.htm
http://www.peterkurth.com/AMERICAN%20CASSANDRA.htm
A couple of samples:
September 10, 2007 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, when Elizabeth Edwards has answered the question on her husband's behalf: "Under John, the constitution returns."
Link.
September 10, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great to see you posting here on this subject and many thanks for being a pioneer on this topic.
How do we restore the separation of powers? Given the compliant nature of congress, and the lack of political incentive for them to take on the executive branch, can we expect the courts (in theory anyway) to be a venue for relief? Who would have standing to challenge, for example, a signing statement?
September 10, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
...future Democratic presidents will be able to invoke the same novel powers that the Bush administration has pioneered in order to unilaterally impose their own agendas...
Hmmmm. While, yes, I can see how it might be easier for future presidents to use the same expanded executive powers that Cheney and Bush have used, I'm not at all sure it follows that future presidents will have the same powers.
First, it's unclear to me that the powers that Cheney and Bush have claimed and acted on are legal. I'm not sure we know enough about what they've done to determine if what they have done is legal. Theoretically, I guess their actions might be legal but, based on the fairly small slice of information that is known about their actions, say, ignoring FISA courts, it looks like at least some of what they have done is clearly illegal. It seems likely that an active congress or a straight up DoJ would have taken actions to stop certain expansions of power. If someone ends up getting prosecuted for using expanded powers, future presidents may hesitate to do what Bush and Cheney have done.
Second, assuming that Bush and Cheney will get away with expanding powers and real (not illegal) precedents have been set, it's still not clear that future presidents will automatically have those powers. In addition to expanded congressional oversight, I just can't see future Republicans standing idly around while future Dems use expanded powers. It seems more likely that the GOP would put enormous efforts into stopping, say, Pres. Clinton from running unchecked domestic surveillance or using the DoJ to harass GOP candidates during elections.
September 10, 2007 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Or one may also assume, using the K.I.S.S. principle, that it's not the most sexy of issues to run a campaign on. But, that is no excuse not for the candidate(s) to include this issue in their agendas.
As you point out about Ned's comment, and I fully agree, it is of utmost importance "...to restore the Constitution to its previous condition."
Personally speaking, I'm sworn to uphold it, and I take this oath very seriously and let it be known to others who are sworn that I expect them to follow the Constitution to the nth degree.
~OGD~
September 10, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Charlie,
Great accomplishment on documenting both the power grab and the proof of long term desire to do so by Cheney and his team.
However I don't by the trauma argument you are giving- "he was abused during the Ford administration by Congress and so now that he's all grown up he's acting out". Cheney is not one to gather power in order to give it away to a successor. Why work so hard for a future Office Holder? Can any republican, especially a Bush/Cheneyite type republican stomach giving the kind of power they are accumulating to McCain or Guilliani, let alone Clinton or Obama?
That's the real conundrum here. What is really the plan? What is really behind it?
You show us that it is really happening, something the rest of the media was not acknowledging before you did, but what we all really need to know is: Why?
September 10, 2007 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the Democratic leadership seems to be waiting for elections so they can exercise the newfound executive powers to their own purposes, regardless of propriety."
I think you're full of it. Point to one instance where a Democratic candidate for president is arguing in favor of a policy that would greatly enhance the power of the presidential office.
As some posters have suggested, this is not a nonpartisan issue. The modern Republican Party seeks consolidation of wealth in the hands of a very few, and social control through intimidation and physical force. The modern Democratic Party advocates redistributionist economic policies, and social control through subsidization of specific constituencies (or it did, until Bill Clinton blurred the lines between Democrats and Republicans). This is why authoritarians make up the vast majority of the Republicans, and are only found on the fringes of the Democrats.
And to argue that Cheney honestly felt the Presidency must be strengthened after Watergate only begs the question as to why he felt an unfettered chief executive was good for the country. And the answer is, of course, that Cheney is an extreme authoritarian himself. The weak president and separation of powers laid out in our Constitution is anathema to a vicious, power hungry wannabe tyrant like Cheney. It only gets in the way of doing the bidding of the monied interests that Cheney feels have a right to exclusive control of our politics.
I know that Savage has to provide his "everybody does it" caveats to maintain his legitimacy in Official Punditdom. But this anti-democratic lust for complete control of government has been a uniquely Republican trait over the last fifty years of our history.
September 10, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Just for you paDem:
You may find the following quite interesting:
Chapter 6 - Totalitaria and its Dictatorship | From Joost A. M. Meerloo's The Rape of the Mind
~OGD~
September 10, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on your introduction here, I'm very much looking foward to reading Takeover. I've often had the feeling, watching this administration's power grab unfold, that we were once again (as with Iran-Contra) paying the price for not having put a stake through the heart of the imperial presidency after Watergate.
And for those who question your judgment in pointing out that this not a partisan issue, please remember this folks: While it is true that the repeated return of the imperial presidency the last 30 years or so is largely the work of the conservative movement, its foundations were laid in decades prior, by Cold War Democrats and Republicans alike. By 1968, when the last wholehearted Cold War Democrat left the presidency, plenty of Constitutional red lines had already been crossed.
The thought of LBJ brings up what is for me a key question. For despite what I just said about this not being a partisan issue in principle, there is an aspect of the matter that entails a special difficulty for propressives.
On the one hand, it seems clear that no amount of statutory tinkering will be able to slay this beast. Nothing short of a Constitutional change aimed specifically at checking the president's ability to inflate the commander-in-chief powers into a de facto elected dictatorship will do.
But on the other hand, it's a well-known fact of political life that our system already has an abundance of veto points, which serve very effectively indeed to stiffle domestic legislation, even when such legislation has the support of stable popular majorities. This is surely one reason the social insurance state is so underdeveloped here, relative to other "advanced capitalist democracies".
It seems then that we have the worst of both worlds, from a progrssive point of view: a systematic bias against policy changes that favor the interests of the majority, along with a presidency that is able to do more or less as it wishes, provided it grounds its initiatives in claims of national security.
So here is my question: How can we permanently check the power of the imperial presidency, while simultaneously increasing the prospects for majoritarian domestic policies?
I think all progressives should strongly welcome the allied efforts of sincere conservatives in accomplishing the first part of this work (it's a sparsely-populated corner of the political scene these days but let's not, for that reason, spurn whatever help it is willing to give). But I doubt we will have much help from that quarter with the second part of the work, the impetus for which will therefore have to come from us.
As a historical matter, and perhaps partly due to the special role of the presidency in our system, the U.S. welfare and warfare states advanced, to a degree, hand-in-hand. Can we break this dependency? Is there a set of achievable institutional changes that will help promote the former, while retarding the latter?
September 10, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It also came on the heels of the Roberts and Alito nominations, in which Bush had installed two veteran executive branch legal warriors on the Supreme Court who brought with them a history of pushing for maximal presidential powers.
I am not sure about this.
It is highly unlikely Roberts and Alito will rule for maximal presidential powers when a Democrat is president. More likely scenario is that they will be highly partisan like Scalia, ruling in favor of presidential powers when a republican is in the WH and stripping a president of powers when a Democrat is in the WH.
Remember Bush v Gore.
This is what makes them so dangerous. They will make rulings based on politics.
September 10, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are assuming that there will be an election
in 2008. I feel that nothing would please W
and the "mayberry Machiavellis" than to declare
martial law and suspend the constitution
"temporarily". Bye bye bill of rights, Hello
George Orwell.
September 10, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
it is of utmost importance "...to restore the Constitution to its previous condition."
We cannot unbreak the teacup. Unless impeachment or criminal action ensues against this administration's gross violations of Constitutional and traditional protocol, there will never be any disincentive for a future Bush or Cheney to repeat or expand on the incursions for which these people have set precedent.
September 10, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
As Charlie Savage has recently become, I have been a Cheney/Rumsfeld watcher since their days of horning their way into the Ford administration. On that mysterious tale alone one could most likely write a whole book. But it is great to see that Charlie has set his sights on the master behind the puppet. A copy of his book is on order.
Reading through this entire thread, I couldn't help but notice quite a few members in this thread wondering why Cheney has been doing what he's done.
If you really wish to get to the bottom of all his crap, the vehicle provided by the Constitution to do so is located here.
To me, the protection of the Constitution of the United States of America, and most importantly OUR Bill of Rights trumps all!
And for those sitting fat and happy in Congress on both sides of the aisle: Get off your asses and do your jobs, or prepare to get the hell out of the way!
~OGD~
September 10, 2007 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's difficult to make it a campaign theme without opening oneself to accusations of weakness. It's like saying that terrorism is largely a matter of diplomacy and law-enforcement; it's arguably true but all the opposition has to do is turn up the volume on the War On Terror and the argument is melted away. Reinstate FISA? Reaffirm Habeus Corpus? Decommission gitmo? Raise the "threat level" to blinking red and support will shrink quickly.
This is why I don't expect candidates to go near this stuff. There is a significant fraction of the Democrat's natural constituency (e.g. many red state blue-collar workers) who are highly sensitive to the "weak on terror" meme. It's not that they're stupid, it's all they see on the tee-vee.
Reversing our slide to authoritarianism-lite will be impossible until we figure out a better way to oppose the Politics of Fear.
September 10, 2007 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Thanks ...
That's exactly why I have this posted so conspicuously in another thread.
You're singing to the choir, with me.
~OGD~
September 10, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...1968, when the last wholehearted Cold War Democrat left the presidency..."Actually, Jimmy Carter and Brezinski did a pretty good job of Cold Warrioring after the Soviets went into Afghanistan.
September 10, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I imagine that Cheney felt that Rovian type unethical behavior would result in permanent Republican control.Tom
September 10, 2007 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
ridenm, the Dem leadership in Congress is not going to exercise executive power if a Dem gets elected president, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they won't allow a Dem president to do whatever that person wants like the GOP-led Congress did with Bush/Cheney.
Lack of legislative backbone in the current situation is far different, and practically the opposite, from a president exercising extreme executive power under any sort of unitary executive theory.
September 10, 2007 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to act in a purely partisan way on some of these issues as a member of the court just due to the timing and how long it takes for these cases to reach the court. That's why it seems more likely that they will in fact rule in favor of more executive authority, regardless of who is president.
September 10, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, but, as you say: "...after the Soviets went into Afghanistan..." Hence the qualification "wholehearted".
When the Carter presidency began, popular revulsion over Watergate was still strong -- in fact, his election, and what you might call his official style, was partly a reflection of that revulsion.
And subsequently, when nostalgia for the imperial presidency took hold, Carter never quite caught up to it. It took a Reagan to scratch that itch.
September 10, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It’s true that Democrats may be less obliged to corporate influences (in some cases) and less likely to use dictatorial authority to the extent that Republicans would. It may be wielded more as a blunt instrument with conservatives but serves the moneyed and powerful interests under liberals or conservatives.
What is being missed, though, is that regardless of who is in the WH, power concentrated in the executive is beneficial to the elite. Congress, unlike the pres, is more answerable to constituents, the lowly people, and power in the diverse and populous congress is infinitely more difficult to corrupt and manipulate. Besides, even if a Democratic president had different interest groups to look after, the system would still be out of balance and would likely not achieve productive ends.
The constitution only generally lays out the powers of the branches, so much of what they actually do, their authority, is set by precedent and tradition. Someone stretches the boundaries of their powers and are allowed to do it, and it becomes part of their authority over time. In other words, even seemingly extreme or illegal powers like warrantless spying are justified (WOT) and executed. If it is not challenged, it becomes a legitimate use of power.
P.S. Thank you, Mr. Savage, for doing your job and doing it so well ae a time when many journalists seem mute on government activities.
September 10, 2007 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey OGD, it's not always just about you, ya know! (:^} Maybe I was preachin' to the Swingle Singers, too.
September 10, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thru all the notes and stories and comments I've read here and elsewhere on this Administration's all-out effort to expand presidential powers, I haven't seen much on what seems to me to be one obvious answer to why they've gone to all this trouble, especially if a Democrat were to win the 2008 election: What if their ultimate intention is to not relinquish the presidency after all? All their effort makes ultimate sense then.
September 10, 2007 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shoulda read closer before I typed my first comments; I see now that lots of you have posited on this same point. Apologies to you all.
September 10, 2007 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not uniquely. Lyndon Johnson pioneered quite a few aspects of the Imperial Presidency, although Richard Nixon certainly brought them to a higher level.
Peace,
Paul
September 10, 2007 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look no further than the floor statement given by Hillary Clinton when she signed the AUMF. The AUMF gave the President carteblanche authority to wage war without the consent of Congress, in total violation of the separation of powers and Congresses' constitutionally power to authorize war. Additionally, she has stated on several occasions that she felt the President should have the authority to execerise military power without needing to go to Congress. Needless to say her views are shaped by WJClinton's presidency and the entire 'wag the dog' fiasco, where Congress did not back his making a counterattack when our embassies were bombed in Africa by Al-Q.
Hillary Clinton beleives wholeheartedly in unitary executive power and she will exercise that authority to the hilt.
Additionally recall, HRClinton was the first person to hold secrecy meetings when she did the healtch care reform in the 90's, she refused to allow coverage of the meetings and went to court and lost. Cheney took a page out of HRClinton's book when he withheld what went on in those energy meetings. So make no mistake about what Hillary would do.
Hillary also told us during the last debate that Presidents need not to discuss foreign policy strategy with the American public, she felt that it was unwise to do so. If you recall the response to this clearly autocratic imperialistic response was 'so it is alright to think it but just not to tell the public what you are thinking' Hillary has made several statements which can be interepreted as her being a presidential powermonger and one who would greatly enhance the power of the Presidency over Congress.
In some ways her rise to the Presidency will be shaped along the same lines as Nixon, in having served in a former administration and having to run against an 'upstart' when she views herself as being entitled to the Presidency and is set on doing whatever it takes politically to achieve that goal. She is just as ambitious and power mad as Nixon and will have no problem using unitary power to achieve her goals. After all, she has already had the temerity to tell Americans that 'lobbyists are Americans, too'.
September 11, 2007 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
On why would Dick Cheney want maximum Executive branch power knowing the precedents would be available for future Democratic presidents...
If you're Dick Cheney you want maximum latitude to use the military. Notwithstanding the Constitution and War Powers Act, this leaves you with many options:
*beneath the radar screen provoke the country you want to attack;
*find or create some other pretext
*claim you already have sufficient legal authority for a specific military action
*do what you want to, knowing a Democratic Congress will never call you on it, for fear of being labeled soft on defense and fighting the bad guys. With right-wing media blasting away and the fear factor on your side, enough Congressional Democrats are sure to look the other way.
What are you most worried about?
Some policy the Democrats might enact which might result in a substantial tilting of the political balance in favor of Democrats for a long time. What might that be? Oh, I don't know, maybe UHC. There is no way to get that done without going through Congress. All you need is 34 votes in the Senate to block that. That shouldn't be too difficult.
September 11, 2007 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have Senate Democrats who voted to approve the 2002 AUMF and they apparently come down to trusting the President that all diplomatic options would be exhausted. The question, for me, has always been the reason they would put such trust into the leader of the opposition party--cooked intelligence aside.
I think the answer is in Clinton's efforts in the Balkans. Although arguing at the time that the War Powers restrictions did NOT apply to the CIC and our military was committed to the intervention, Clinton did submit a resolution on the last day of the War Powers Act. This was defeated in the house; later, an emergency funding bill was submitted and approved (giving quasi-approval of the military action).
Clinton exhausted diplomacy, committed our military, and then submitted authorization. Bush got pre-authorization before diplomacy was exhausted and then committed our military.
Leaving aside if the intervention was a success, I would argue that both actions show an acceptance that the CIC can exercise military intervention disregarding the War Powers Act and undercuts the idea of Congress authorizing military action before it is taken.
There certainly doesn't seem to be an "imminent threat" against America in either action. But both show a disregard of Congress' viewpoint when it comes to the CIC committing our military. Aren't we seeing that today as Congress attempts to rein in the President's military venture in Iraq?
September 11, 2007 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, but this is not a revelation.
The measures that this administration has taken to dismantle and rebuild to their design the operational structures of government is huge. This is guided not just by Cheney but others such as David Addington, Wolfowitz, Feith and a whole string of Nixonian disciples.
And this is actually broader still than you infer. The goal is to populate as many high level government jobs and elect in whatever way possible as many persons as possible who share in the ideological notion of a very highly centralized government structure with all power at the center (the oval office) that emanates out like the spokes of a wheel.
Envision that wheel in your mind and then envision another picture of three equal branches. These two organizational concepts could hardly be more different.
At the center of the wheel is a virtual black hole of power that we cannot veer into. However, if we examine the things our government does, the legislation it creates, the policies it pursues etc, we can know a lot about it.
One thing we can infer without question is this is not a structure that is amenable to the democratic form. A second thing we can infer is the character of the power currently occupying the center is only about power. A third thing we know is Americans, in feeling the nation is on the wrong track, are sensing their loss of control of their own lives which is a reflection of this balck hole taking power from each of us. We work harder and harder but go nowhere because the centralized power of this black hole holds each of us and the nation back by sucking our energy (the product of our lives) into itself. By its very nature it sucks everything in and releases nothing.
We know the composition of this black hole. It is the institutionalization of government and business into what is, for all practical purposes, a single entity. Money is power and that is what is at the center. It is the blackhole that feeds itself voraciously at our expense.
Multi-billion dollar mergers, one after another, is merely the black hole feeding itself. It takes our lives, that of our children, our money and gives nothing in return. And you need only look at the now decades long losses of working class Americans to know this is exactly what is occurring.
Just ask yourself who are the ultimate losers in the current real estate meltdown. And then examine how often that result has repeated itself in so many ways in the last thirty years. The wealth of individual working class Americans has been in decline for a long time and it remains unchecked. Working class Americans have been made to shoulder one financial fiasco after another for as long as I can remember.
Iraq is no less a manifestation of this than any other. Iraqi oil is the pot of gold being targeted by the black hole. Proven, but largely undeveloped Iraqi oil reserves are second only to that of the Saudis with the strong possibility of unexplored areas of western Iraq holding even more. Legislation in the Iraqi parliament sponsored by the Bush administration is preposterously generous to U.S. oil interests. That oil is a principle reason why Iraq is unable to get its act together. The real struggle in Iraq is about the oil and that is precisely why the struggle is so intense. The wealth that will accrue to the winners of the contest is immense.
Working class Americans are financing that struggle and will ultimately pay a second time to buy the very oil that we shed our blood to obtain. This is the ultimate double-dip being orchestrated by the black hole in Washington.
And finally, to add insult to injury, the products we produce that are then sold by agents of the black hole and that we buy are governed by product puchase agreements that we have to agree to which fall just a hair short of completely relieving producers of any liability whatsoever for those products. This is merely an abuse of our legal system to assure that agents of the black hole can't lose. This is like Las Vegas where the institutionalization of government and business all but assures that the house will always win. And in this regard the Bush administration has worked diligently to strip consumers of protections which is merely another facet of the black hole sucking in resources.
I could talk about this all day. The pattern is undeniable. Just look around. If Americans don't wake up to this and break down the doors of our representatives in Washington and demand a change, we are sunk. It is that simple. Government must be legally and thoroughly isolated from the business sector. Frankly, I don't think that can happen. Not without some form of a financial 'big bang'. And however that may manifest itself, it won't be pleasant. The general rise of global tensions is a precursor to this.
I am very confident of one thing. Our world will be a very different place at the end of this century. And right now very few people, and certainly nobody who is in charge, is even remotely considering or has a grasp of where our present track will take us. In many ways, and as remarkable as it may seem, we have barely progressed beyond 15th century superstitions and find ourselves regressing into a scheme of governance that mimics that of feudal times. The scheme is now global in proportion but it is essentially the same. Just as corporations have continued to merge, nations will merge, at least in a geographically based economic framework sense, that defines the feudal kingdoms and will likely compete at cross purposes for the forseeable future. OPEC nations, the EU, North Amercia, the Pacific Rim, China, Russia, Central and South America are all feudal groups. To the degree that they don't always interoperate peacefully, such as is presently developing, will dictate what the end of the century looks like.
The administration policy of military preemption will fuel development of ever more cunningly destructive weapons and take us in an undesirable direction. This policy of preemption is an extreme departure from the U.S. historical position and significantly elevates the risk of a global conflict. Cheney and his cabal of neocons are at the center of this controversial strategy. The voters need to soundly comdemn this strategy when they go to the polls in 2008. This is truly our last best chance to change directions before it becomes impossible to alter our course. The Bush administration has laid the groundwork for failure of epic proportion. It remains to be seen if Americans properly understand that or not. I'm pessimistic. We have too many Americans who are fat, dumb and happy and who are totally clueless. Ask them about this stuff. I have and continue to do so and the responses are thoroughly depressing.
9/11 happened because we had lousy security. But even more fundamentally than that we have lost an appreciation for what it means to be free and what it actually takes to remain so. It is by no means a passive endeavor. As individuals, ceding even the smallest bit of control of our lives to any government is a mistake. Yet it happens every day and we aren't even aware of its occurrence.
September 11, 2007 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It has been suggested that because we have a presidential system of government and because we have been at war (hot or cold) since 1941, the office of the president has taken on more and more power eroding our system of checks and balances so vital to the republic.
We should all be very afraid. Once a government, especially one influenced by ideologues, adopts a policy and implements it, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it. In such an environment reason becomes a heresy and must be silenced.
It's not difficult to conclude from the undue length of the present campaign for president, the constant, relentless coverage of the candidates that whoever sits in the WH in '09 will seem a figure larger than life.
We must stand now when the president enters the room. How long will it be before we must genuflect.
September 11, 2007 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
I don't have to stand for anyone. And Silly as it Seems... I'd venture to say that the rest of the nation can genuflect all it wishes but my ashes will be dust in the wind before I do...
~OGD~
September 11, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was afraid if anyone challenged my assertion, they would bring up Hillary. As I'm fond of repating, she almost doesn't count, because she really is more of a 1970's Republican.
In any event, point well taken, and as if any true progressive needed it, yet another reason not to vote for her until she's running against a contemporary, insanely reactionary brand of Republican. Rudy,I'm talking to you.
September 11, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent!! your post deserves a ten. You should send this in as an op-ed to the major newspapers across the nation.
September 14, 2007 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink