Dick Cheney Practically Destroyed The GOP, But Still Won’t Go Away
Gallup has now released new numbers from its much-discussed GOP leadership poll that illustrate as starkly as you could want why some Republicans are deeply frustrated with Dick Cheney’s ongoing torture tour and his general refusal to go away.
The poll tells the big story of the GOP in recent years. Its favorability rating has dropped by almost half since 2001 — a plight one can blame on Cheney as much as anyone. Click to enlarge:
After 9/11, the GOP’s favorability rating stood in the low 60s. Since then it has steadily fallen, with a brief uptick in the wake of Bush’s 2004 reelection, to a low of 34% today.
Cheney, of course, is the less popular member of the duo who brought the party to its knees. He aggressively pushed the policies that squandered all the goodwill the GOP enjoyed (see Iraq, Hasty Invasion Of) and led to last year’s rout. Yet far from withdrawing from public life, according to Gallup’s numbers yesterday, Cheney is seen as a leading GOP voice.
Even more galling to GOPers (see this interview with Mark Sanford), his media tour isn’t even about helping the current GOP. It’s narrowly focused on salvaging his own reputation by defending policies he championed that aren’t even operative or relevant anymore.
The larger story here — absurd, cringe-worthy, funny and sad all at once — is that the guy who did as much as anyone to practically destroy the GOP just won’t let the party move on.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
“policies…that aren’t even…relevant anymore”?
Au contraire. I believe discussion of US torture policy is highly relevant to the issue of who we are as a nation.
Nan — I just mean in the sense that they won’t be employed. The debate isn’t over WHETHER to employ these policies, just over whether they worked in the past. So the debate won’t have a material impact on current policy. It’s only about Dick’s legacy.
“It’s only about Dick’s legacy”
OK, let’s take this one on. I presume you are thinking ‘legacy’ as it might evolve in future historical accounts? There’s little to suggest that Cheney gives much of a damn regarding what contemporary Americans (or others outside of America) think about him. If he wished to endear himself in public opinion then he’d be aligning himself with Powell rather than Limbaugh, for example.
.
But it is unclear to me how he might expect his present activities in the media to impress or positively influence political or military historians. The only plausible take as regards this specific matter, it seems to me, is that he is attempting to influence the contemporary American media narrative in what is essentially a marketing strategy quite consistent with what Norquist (and others with a similar goal or mindset) set about to achieve in their rewriting of Reagan’s tenure and role in American and world affairs.
.
But there are two ways in which such would seem highly unsatisfying, if one were concerned with one’s own legacy. First, it is highly localized (not many Canadian or Dutch historians have been influenced by Fox or Cato or AEI marketing initiatives designed to pump Ronald up as a well-tanned Jesus figure, and it’s entirely questionable whether many US historians have been influenced either, outside of the rightwing community). Second, where such a ‘legacy’ is, as with Reagan, so padded with deceptions and outright falsehoods, it seems rather like the value of being congratulated for something you’ve only pretended to do.
.
The more coherent or sensible portrait here is that Cheney is more worried about the maintenance of an ideological direction that he and others like him have worked to set America on. If one looks at the company of gentlemen and ladies who are signatories of the PNAC, one doesn’t see figures who appear to care very much about public or historical opinion EXCEPT where that might have a consequence to the future influence of their ideology in American life. This is the neoconservative core and Cheney sits in the middle of it all as it is expressed in the gears of how that ideology has been put into actual application in America.
fair points, Bernie. I suppose Cheney is trying to keep the country on a certain ideological track. But the point is, that isn’t going to happen. My point is that the only real impact his torture tour can have in the real world is on his reputation and legacy. It can’t impact anything else in a meaningful way.
quick slightly related ps…
Matt Yglesias has a really significant piece up on the sophistication of the propaganda techniques which are being deployed presently, in this case, by one of my least favorite humans, Frank Gaffney. Be prepared to be startled.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/the-bad-news-about-correcting-myths.php
Greg – Apparently I am a tad less optimistic than you. We’ve just seen Europe swing over to the right on the simple phenomena of a poor economy and anti-immigrant sentiments. There are a number of very possible futures here which would likely set the same tendencies into another gear. Much of the institutional framework that the right has set up over the last few decades remains in place (just count the Gaffney-style pundits on our tv each night) and that is now augmented by a significant portion of the population which has been, by design, predisposed to the worst populist ideas and urges.
.
Given that nothing too extraordinary happens, I think the US will head in the direction you presume. But even if that is the case, we are now seeing the strange fruit that’s been ripening under the fear and hate-mongering which has been a fundamental strategy of the people and institutions who truly do not believe in democracy (explicit in neoconservative theory and writings and evident if you drive a forklift in Walmart’s basements) and who are not well served, they believe, by a well-educated and knowledgeable electorate.
Rant over.
Greg, I’m not sure you’re right that Cheney’s tour can only have a meaningful influence on his legacy. It seems to me that there’s a very bitter struggle going on here in which this whole set of neo-con deadenders is trying to maintain their influence over as many people as possible. This could end up affecting what gets done on health care, in our international policy, and on just about everything else. These are highly skilled, single-minded infighters. Roll the clock back to 2000 and ask anybody if public opinion was ripe for the kinds of horrible policy decisions that followed in the Bush Cheney administration. These guys are still very dangerous.
And, Bernie, those are valid concerns.
Bernie – ask the Poles & the former East Germans, the Hungarians etc what they think of Reagan. History, in general, is looked at through rose tinted glasses.. look at FDR’s legacy, Kennedy’s, Ike’s etc.
No one cares about Cheney. Unless a VP goes on to become President – they are generally forgotten in time. see: Mondale, Gore… who the heck was Gerald Ford’s VP after Rockefeller? Who was LBJ’s VP? etc.
After about 4-5 years – no one cares. Cheney will fade too.
I think it is healthy to have debate over the great issues of the day. However – I really worry that there is very little debate – and simple party line aherence.
It’s not about his legacy. It’s about avoiding indictment and conviction. So yes now he cares about “public sentiment”.
Im looking forward to the trials.
It is obvious to me, a writer, why Cheney is doing this. It is simple. HE IS SHOPPING A BOOK PROPOSAL AROUND. If he generates a great deal of heat and comment, his profit will be immediate — a larger advance on his book. If he lays low and makes no waves, publishers will be significantly less interested in his memoir.
Brenda – Your marketing point is rational except that Cheney has hundreds of millions of dollars.
Unfortunately – Bernie’s point is the most salient. Cheney (and -absurdly – his daughter) are continually nudging public opinion back in the direction of his sociopathically paranoid 9/12 mindset. And as anybody who watched the Joan Walsh-Liz Cheney debate on the
Campbell Brown Show could tell you: it’s working, due largely to the still Republican-programmed Washington machine.
whospeaksforyou.com
Don’t know about statistics, but the favorable / unfavorable graphs look like mirror images of each other. Is this correct?
This measure is a straight up zero sum game?
Observer has it right. He’s not just fighting for his legacy or ideology, he knows he broke numerous laws and is trying to scare off indictment. Sadly, with Obama’s record on this topic so far it may be working. Thank goodness for Sen. Whitehouse and a few others.
Dick clearly doesn’t give a damn what he does to the GOP in the process, but he has lied repeatedly in this attempt to save himself. All that has accomplished is to keep the issue alive and to more strongly repudiate his
illegal actions and attempts to justify it.
It’s about the money (it’s always about the money). If he stays in the public eye, his memoirs will sell more. It bears repeating: it’s about the money.
observer’s right. he’s trying to make sure it stays politically impossible to indict him.
I vote for the idea that Cheney’s primary goal is to stay out of jail.
And in light of his statements that his policies made us safer, consider that the Republicans are now essentially admitting that Cheney’s policies on behavior formerly known as torture have made us less safe by being a recruiting tool for the terrorists. They are now opposing the release of the torture photos on the grounds that they are terrorist recruiting tools.
Dick Cheney just keeps popping up everywhere. Walt Handelsman of Newsday has a great cartoon about that this week: http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/opinion/walthandelsman/blog/2009/06/look_whos_backagain.html
I have seen some crappy posts but this one really impresses me. Good work.