I wasn't planning to address Dick's misfire, expecting instead to point you to the excellent treatment of the topic here and here. But, after engaging my conservative colleagues on a private editorial advisory board blog for a local newspaper, I have to address a couple of things.
Even though there are some interesting issues surrounding the hunting of quail raised in captivity, drinking and shooting, and the lack of firearm safety, to me the bigger story is the way the issue was handled and what it reveals about the Vice President's view of us and democracy.
Cheney's supporters that I have talked to suggest that all of this is a non-issue that is being unfairly inflated by the liberal media. Perhaps. Certainly is possible. They go on to say that Cheney is not a weak-willed politician who is poll-driven in his decision making. He is a man of principle who plows ahead regardless of the popularity of his moves. Maybe. Or, maybe he is driven by the perception that he and his cadre of fellows have received a divine millenial calling to release the world from certain brands of tyranny, and no one will be allowed to stop them, or even question their goals or methods. When you adopt a position like that, it is not a big step to believe that none of your actions should be scrutinized by the public.
Cheney's reaction to this situation has betrayed an arrogance and an insensitivity to the will of the people that is disturbing. At first he indicated that it wasn't anyone's business, then he agreed to an interview by a shadow of a journalist (Fox's Brit Hume) that served notice to all the "liberal media" that he was not interested in offering his story as news.
The whole thing just reveals the ongoing trend in this administration: Decide on your version of the truth; make sure the public is always afraid; accept no criticism; engage in no meaningful dialogue with your detractors. I've already talked about Bush's disdain for opposition. This is just another example.
Please spare me the purely partisan defenses of the guy. I am not making these remarks because he is a Republican. For instance, I found Clinton's "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" rhetoric to be shameful and devastating blow to the notion of accuracy, truth, and integrity in public life.
So anyway, that's not what I really came here to tell you. The Dickshot incident reminded me of a story.
I was 13 and a brand new hunter. Back in those days, people didn't take hunter safety or gun certification courses. Your course was getting up in the middle of the night, donning too-big tin cloth pants and coats with game bag pockets, drinking coffee for the first time (black, no cream or sugar), and learning how to act like a man. No goofing around. No petting the dog like she's a pet. It's working time.
I rode quietly on the bench seat of the pickup with stool-softening anticipation and fear roiling around in my pre-pubescent gut. I kept thinking about the Savage 20-gauge riding in back. I had shot it a few times to get used to the recoil. I knew there was something in that gun that was far more powerful than me, and I was not sure I was strong enough to conquer it.
[Okay, I'll shorten the story since I hadn't planned on the big Dick prologue.]
We met up with our hunting companion and got on our way. After a few hours we had nearly given up. All of a sudden the dog went on point. We kicked up a covey and I shot. I caught one on the wing and it went down. My first bird. We found it a few yards away, flopping around in an injured state. We circled around it to contain it. Apparently the expectation was that the dog would go in and finish it off. Not good enough for me. I was intoxicated by the juice of the hunt. The rush of bloodlust overcame me and I fired. The blast shredded the wounded bird into a bloody smear of pins and feathers. I knew immediately that I had done wrong. If I hadn't felt it in my conscience, the look of horror on all faces would have been my clue. Even the dog stopped and glanced at me, then looked around the circle, as though to say, "Where the hell did you get this kid?"
In my childish mind what I came away with was the glee that "I got a bird." Later, it began to dawn on me that I could have killed someone.
I hunted a few times after that, but eventually lost the appetite for it. Literally. I never really liked the meat I killed, so I guess it was all a little empty as an exercise.
When I heard about Cheney's incident I felt a certain empathy at first. I know the sense of shame, the fear of what could have happened. It has troubled me for years that I didn't grasp the full gravity of what I had done. Besides completely obliterating the bird, I had seriously imperiled everyone around me. My ignorance and lust almost cost a life. To those men and that dog I say I am sorry.
I guess this is what bothers me so about the VP. He came very close to killing someone because of his negligence. I don't think any fair-minded person is going to continue to blame him for that misjudgment if he quickly owns up to it and subjects himself to public scrutiny. By finessing the situation and showing disregard for inquiry, however, is to suggest that you aren't really sorry.
Shame costs something. When you are afraid to endure it, you aren't really sorry.
22 comments:
"big Dick prologue."
Hee Hee*snort*
I had a serious comment to make but I'll have to come back later.
For now I just want you to know I'm soooo much more mature than Nate. (She said, keeping her big Dick giggles to herself).
Sir,
This is Mr. Cheney. I am very, very sorry for my negligence. Please accept my humble apology.
Respectfully,
Dick Cheney
I haven't been subjected to a lot of the spin surrounding this incident, so I'm not quite sure what the big deal is.
I've looked on several websites and read news articles from Reuters and the Washington Post. Except for a conspiracy theory concerning the distance Cheney was from the victim and the criticism that they waited one whole day to break the information to the press, I can't find the scandal. It probably took a day to track down the victim's family and tell them what happened. Why should it be on TV in an instant?
I haven't found an outright apology, but I've read some quotations that clearly indicate that Cheney takes full responsibility for the incident.
I know that Brit Hume is pretty soft ball, but what more does Cheny really have to say. He knows he'll be the butt of jokes from now on... this is far worse than misspelling "potatoe." How is the public good served if he talks to every journalist in the world about the embarrassing incident?
I am just thankful that the guy that Cheney shot didn't die.
Somebody please explain.
The concern runs a bit deeper than that. First off, his wife was notified pretty much immediately, and as a matter of fact was the first to notify the press, and she just contacted a local reporter. Questions of form enter into this side of the story -- why wasn't the White House the original source of this information? She claims Cheney told her to be the source, then McClellan contradicted her on that point.
Seems like a silly point, maybe, but then again, this is only the second time in US history that a sitting veep shot someone, and the last time, it was in the era of dueling. You could argue that this is a personal issue, but really, this is the kind of thing we need to know about our leaders. If an eighty-million-dollar investigation into a president's marital infidelity is merited, then I'd argue this is fair game.
The real concern to me is the time lag, not just in contacting the press, but in dealing with the local authorities. Local law enforcement said that the Secret Service kept them from talking to Cheney at all, just to take a basic statement. Why? What's the harm in telling the cops the same story you told the press a full day later?
My guess is either (a) the story changed, or (b) he was drunk or otherwise in bad shape at the time, and didn't want any eyewitnesses reporting that.
The Brit Hume thing was partly to avoid having to answer actual tough questions and partly what Reacher said. I'd have had more respect for him if he didn't insulate himself so much. You shot a guy. Deal with the fallout.
My favorite moment, though, had to be when Whittington actually apologized to Cheney for what he went through. He essentially apologized for getting shot. And that is what I call loyalty.
What is obvious to me is that the VP and his handlers didn't want this to become public. The idea that they would leave this story to be told by the little newspaper in Texas is unfathomable when you consider the lengths that this administration has gone to control and safeguard information. My guess? He was drrrrrunk.
-Mark
The problem was not that the actual accident was such a big deal (other than Dick's a stupid hunter, as pointed out above), but that the White House created a big deal by reacting with their usual elitism, secrecy, cover-up, the inappropriate exercise of power, and their standard public relations approach - "what story are we going to feed the idiots this time?"
There should have been an immediate statement concerning the event, Dick Cheney should have immediately taken responsibility, and the cops should have been allowed an immediate investigation. Just as in the Clinton/Lewinsky saga, failure to immediately and honestly 'fess up and take responsibility always make matters worse. At the very least, it makes folks suspicious of the existence of your integrity.
And Reacher -
"Shame costs something. When you are afraid to endure it, you aren't really sorry."
Great sentences.
Hey Mr. Anonymous - it's not about Cheney apologizing. It's about owning up to what you've done and being straightforward, not throwing up all sorts of smoke and mirrors.
Here's an interesting comment I found while from someone who knows the inside of the White House press office.
"It could have and should have gone away much quicker" if Vice President Dick Cheney had handled it better, says former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "I think the White House correspondents were right on this one. They did have a legitimate beef. They should have been told about it. But I think you can be right and still go bonkers, and I think that's what happened here. I think they've just made this too big a story, too much the focus, too much the flashpoint."
Come on. A hunting ACCIDENT and an intentional marital affair in the same boat? Barring whatever the law says, isn't there an obvious moral difference here? The point that the administration is making too big a deal of it is well taken. Their PR is immature. It still boggles my mind that they don't just laugh at the idiotic reporters who are trying to make a big deal of this. It IS a big deal if the man refuses to apologize. I think both sides on this issue are just plain STUPID. The folks who are making a big deal of an accident... accidents happen everyday, and even if they didn't, they're still accidents. If he was drunk, that's a little different. But that sounds like a lot of heresay to me. Media-schmedia. And the folks (e.g. the administration) who are ignorant enough to be worried about this "accident story" just prove themselves to be paranoid fools. So everyone's just a big bunch of fools. YIPEE!!
Perhaps we've been spoiled by the abundance of Reacher's serious and engaging topics. I guess this isn't the lamest topic you could talk about... not bad for barbershop talk... akin to the weather. In a couple of months, few people will remember this, and nobody will care.
Sure, there is a moral difference between an affair and an accident, but if you read closely you'll see that the accident is not my focus. I am interested in the potential cover-up for gross (drunken) negligence and the arrogant disregard for public opinion. I would argue that if you screw a country, it's pretty much the moral equivalent to screwing (or accepting oral sex from) an intern. In fact, using a utilitarian calculus, it might be worse.
What's wrong with an illicit affair? At the very least someone is used in such a manner that they become a means to an end rather than an end unto themselves. It's not the exchange of bodily fluids. The act doesn't hurt anyone. What's wrong with Cheney's behavior? Granted, it was allegedly an accident, but someone WAS hurt, and it was compounded by his interference in the law enforcement process and the subsequent operation of a free press. The problem is that the public was flagrantly disregarded (a pattern) as important. Sort of like we were his whore, and he felt free to just pay his fee and slam the door in our faces.
My issue is this: It's the same manner of rhetoric used in public policymaking. We don't allow UN weapons inspectors and the world community to police a situation, we just engage in horrific accidents (whoops, no WMD), then angrily defy anyone who would hold us to account, or simply retreating to undisclosed locations where no member of the Fourth Estate can bother us. It's all rather impolite...immoral even.
To treat it as a humorous news sidebar is to pop another hit of soma, adding our tacit support to the rhetoric of abuse. Battered public syndrome.
...and I thought I was going to make it through this thread without feeling compelled to comment.
I have no interest in defending Cheney or prosecuting Clinton in this little character-trial, but I think the damage done by Clinton's filandering is hugely underestimated by the Reacher.
If the affair took place in a vacuum... two complete nobody's in a back alley somewhere... then the Reacher would be accurate in his damage assessment. But what we had instead was the CEO of the United States abusing his power and position to satisfy his urges, at the expense of the intern, the integrity of the Oval Office, his marriage, and the role-model status that the President is expected to maintain.
In the course of this comparison, we should note that BOTH events were covered up. Clinton's cover-up lasted much, much longer, then he lied about it, and then he lied about lying about it. Even his cover-up was worse than Cheney's. And then if you compare the transgressions themselves to each other... well, there really is no comparison.
Do you seriously think my point is to set up a Clinton-Cheney morality cook-off?
I introduced Clinton into the mix to calm anyone who might be tempted to think this was all about partisan politics. But, then the sex police weigh in and divert our attention to the ranking of sins, as though if one is worse than the other, we can just ignore the lesser of the two.
I am not going to get out my morality slide rule and start the righteousness calculations. My interest is not in determining the depth of each man's iniquity. Size doesn't matter.
But I'm prepared to accept your assertion: dick was worse than Dick. At least as far as Coreman is defining "transgression."
Now, let's look at the bigger issue surrounding the transgressions. I will argue that Clinton's propensity to slime and disingenuousness was a personal flaw that damaged the integrity of truth in the world. Clinton championed a dangerous brand of charm and deflection that reduces the likelihood of accepting personal responsibility. Bad man. I get it.
Cheney's recent events are just part of a larger program of rhetoric that reveal an ironic disregard for democracy while pursuing the spread of democracy by force. Cheney champions a dangerous brand of arrogance that justifies aggression.
Understand, please, I'm past the Oval Office and quail hunt, I'm talking about a cold war spirit of defiance and anger that is seen as moral strength by supporters.
Clinton taught a lot of us to avoid responsibility until you run out of options. Cheney is teaching a lot of us that once you certify yourself as right you don't have to have dialogue or humility anymore; you can just retreat to an undisclosed location and wait for the body count to rise.
Reacher,
If your perceptions of the situation are accurate, then your accusations are merited. If the man was indeed intoxicated, he should suffer the consequences of his negligence. If he was drunk, i have to concur that this was far more than an accident! If this was the case, then this accident was just as offensive as someone driving under the influence. Both were incredibly irresponsible and potentially lethal. For that, he deserves not only criticism, but punishment, just as does every person who drives while impaired by a substance. Lives are at stake. But if there's no proof that he was intoxicated (and there's an obvious difference between him having a beer or glass of wine and being intoxicated), then it is all indeed a bunch of hogwash. Nevertheless, accusations were made, and he should have engaged them with humility and honesty, apparently traits which are oft absent from the administration.
Of course, lies are the name of the political game. Conservatives and liberals both hate me because i hate democratic politics in general. Politics can't function without either lies or authoritarianism. It never has, in the history of the earth, and it never will. "Public opinion" or "the right to know" is an idealistic load of BS. We are fooling ourselves if we think that every American citizen has the right to know every little detail of the workings of the Federal government. The press endangers our nation daily by its incessant obsession of putting everyone in the know. It is democracy run amuck. Democracy itself is a lofty ideal, but one which never has and never will be ultimately productive at bringing peace and justice to this earth. Fukuyama was dead wrong. The last great idea is the Kingdom of God. And it has already begun. It's called the Church.
Peace will not come until Christ returns. I say leave politics to the secular world altogether. Forget about it. Let political injustice happen. Let it run rampant in the political sphere. Disassociate yourselves from it completely. Ignore it. But don't stop there. Focus your energies individually and as part of your local, national and global faith community to transform lives by the power of Christ. We could cover a lot more ground if we focused our energies to that end.
If anyone is tempted to be offended because these ideals infringe upon their line of work, please try to be as objective as possible when you chastise me for my convictions. I'm prepared for chaste, but i would really appreciate thoughtful rebuke rather than defensive reactions.
Grace.
I would obviously disagree with the complete retreat from the political world, not because it holds our salvation but because we need to engage all aspects of life as lovers of mercy and justice. Cultural isolationism is not the answer.
As for Fukuyama - the apologist for neoconservatismv - I too think he was wrong. Interestingly, his forthcoming book (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html) claims that Cheney and Co. were wrong also.
I was frankly a little worried that I might come across as practicing Comparative Morality.
The only thing that provoked a response from me was a seeming wave of the hand that President Clinton received from the Reacher regarding the Lewinsky scandal. Without even referencing Cheney, I felt like we needed to take a more serious look at the actual damage done by our former commander-in-chief. The Reacher's more recent comment helped me to believe that he really does grasp the implications of it.
Although I tend to vote Republican (Beloved... do you not even believe in voting???) I have to admit that I have no fondness for Dick Cheney at all. If I went out to dinner with George W., Cheney, and Clinton, I would probably end up ignoring Cheney, having a few laughs with George and Bill, and then chatting happily with Bill late into the night. This is because a) I would probably find him more the most interesting of the three, and b) the other two would be in bed by 10:00 sharp.
Now would if we could put our current and former presidents together...let's see... George Clinton!
Now there's a dinner date!
Reacher, when are you going to publish a book of short stories?
I always find it fascinating to see where these winding things are going to lead.
And as far as hanging out with presidents, I would have to choose Clinton as well.
I can see us now: It's late. Our ties are loosened, our sleeves are rolled up, and our cue sticks in hand. I spot two young ladies across the bar and elbow Bill in the ribs.
He looks over and says, "Looks like somebody got out of school early today."
Then I say, "You got me six, Billy boy?"
"Gotcha covered."
We slam back our shots, hitch our pants up, and go work our stuff.
Romantic image, eh ladies?
I have always said I would like to have Clinton and Bush as my next-door neighbors. Bush would be good for coaching my kids' little league teams, sharing tools, and neighborhood watch. Clinton would be good for intelligent conversation and good times, but I've have to keep an eye on my wife when he was around.
Jenn, you wanna be my agent? I hear you're studying Chomsky. That's positively scandalous, unless it's the linguistic stuff. Check our his political writings. Whew.
Reacher,
Have you read much of the work of Stanley Hauerwas, Michael Budde or Robert Brimlow? If so, how seriously have you considered their theology? (In other words, have you heard them out on their claims) I am certainly open to being persuaded to re-enter the realm of engaging the political world, though wincingly. But it's going to take a lot more than humanistic idealism to do it. I wish i could say that Jesus was a humanist, but since Jesus was/is God from eternity to eternity, i can't say that i do. I don't pretend to understand the paradox of a Holy and yet loving God. But i do know that, according to the Old Testament scriptures, God did and commanded a great many "inhumane" things, according to modern humanist standards. His installment of divine monarchy... you might call it theocracy, although it probably differs from the current connotation of theocracy shared within The Reach.
The problem for me lies in the concepts of surrender and allegiance. It's clear that we can't pledge allegiance to two opposing entities. Really, we can only pledge allegiance to Christ, which can be evidenced in our partnerships, memberships, citizenships and associations, but often is not, in the case of politics. Your bumper sticker (before it was abridged) was correct, and should inform this perspective. No party is God's party, no nation is God's nation (ANYMORE) although in some countries i would be murdered for this belief. Therefore we cannot pledge allegiance to any governing body whatsoever, except that which God has instituted. The only "governing body" that still exists today that He HAS instituted is that of the Church, and even then, the disagreement as to who, what and how that is is of epic proportion. Of course, you might say that you pledge allegiance to democracy, except that there is no way to substantiate democracy as a God-ordained form of government. In fact, democracy was birthed out of rebellion against the established government, which scripture does speak against. The problem with democracy is that "we the people" decide who governs us and how they will govern us, and so we leave no room for the sovereignty of God. The ancient truth that "all authority has been established by God" no longer holds true, because "authority" in the democratic sense is established by the people. Some interpret this through their own self-centered lens to mean that "God uses 'we the people' to elect 'His man' for the job" such has been the argument of the religio-political Right. But that's not what the scripture is referring to. It's referring to the rise and fall of "kingdoms" and kings. That's where true divine providence was evidenced (or, according to critical scholars, "interpreted").
Somewhere along the line, sinful humanity decided that God's providence over kingship wasn't good enough, and so they started scheming up more egalitarian ways of government. They stopped trusting God and waiting patiently for Him amidst injustice, and took matters into their own hands. And what we have today is the product of that.
You might say, "It is what it is. Deal with it." And i may just have to. I mean, i do sort of have to. But Jesus didn't get involved in politics. Politics wasn't on his radar screen. In other words, he ignored it. He didn't challenge it and try to make it better. He didn't train folks to be political leaders or activists. He trained them to be a community who embodied love and truth, and who carried that love and truth to the ends of the earth.
Coreman,
I voted last election because my wife made me. She adamantly disagrees with my conclusions, along with 99.9% of the rest of America. I understand completely. Please feel free to point out my hypocrisy, as i am somewhat involved in local politics, although if i was thoroughly convinced of my position, i would abstain from all politics whatsoever. The truth is, i am not completely convinced of my position, and so i will not defend it to the death. I am seeking for truth on the matter, and thus far in my search, the evidence weighs most heavily in favor of my current stance. But i am not arrogant enough to think that i am somehow smarter than the other 99.9%, and so i am open to rebuke and correction.
Bring it on.
When i said "bring it on", don't think i meant it in a junior high fist fight sort of way. I meant that this is an issue of utmost importance and relevance to each of us, myself included, and i want to wrestle with it. Granted, that doesn't mean that any of you would like to wrestle with it, and Reacher, this is your blog and you can take it the direction you want.
If anyone is interested in dialoguing with me on the integration, segregation or information of faith and politics, maybe i'll write my own blog about it and invite you to join me. Worst case, you could email me (click on my name to go to my profile) and we could discuss it that way.
I know this is a subject Sojourners is obviously passionate about (it's their main thrust), so i'm going to see what kind of dialogue i can engage with them.
Being burnt out on politics AND possessing a theological/philosophical framework that currently negates the possibility of the Christian engaging in politics isn't a recipe for paradigm shift at the moment, but my hope is that you all can be catalysts of cognitive dissonance for me. And that's going to take my effort as well as your effort in presenting arguments and facts that i haven't explored before.
Grace.
Post a Comment