The Editor’s Desk

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Rush Limbaugh was on the phone. Ten days before Christmas, Dick Cheney was at his desk in the West Wing, talking about the past and the future with the dean of conservative radio hosts. After asking the vice president what he was most proud of, Limbaugh wondered whether Cheney thought Barack Obama would give back the powers asserted during the Bush-Cheney era. "Well, my guess is, once they get here and they're faced with the same problems we deal with every day, that they will appreciate some of the things we've put in place," Cheney replied. "We did not exceed our constitutional authority, as some have suggested, but we—the president believes, I believe very deeply, in a strong executive, and I think that's essential in this day and age. And I think the Obama administration is not likely to cede that authority back to the Congress. I think they'll find that given [the] challenge they face, they'll need all the authority they can muster."

To his fans (a small but devoted bunch) Dick Cheney is a bulwark against the forces of darkness. To his foes (and they are legion), he is darkness. Assessing Cheney's role in expanding executive power sheds light on perennial issues in American life. How much liberty should we surrender in the service of security? How powerful should the executive branch be? Where is the line between proper secrecy in the pursuit of the national interest and the creation of an unaccountable shadow government?

Inarguably, the years of George W. Bush were shaped by the vice president's vision of unilateral executive power, a vision that by many accounts discouraged debate and dissent within the administration. Most significant, Cheney's absolutist sense that what was being done, particularly in Iraq, was in the best interest of the country was linked to a habit of mind that did not take on contrary facts. The Bush-Cheney administration was defending America. If America did not get it—or if America thought that perhaps, just perhaps, things were not going so well on the ground in Iraq after the toppling of Saddam—then that was America's problem, and stronger men, men like Cheney and Bush, would see it through, brushing aside the doubters as defeatists.

Facebook

That said, to rehash the case against Cheney at this late hour in the life of the Bush administration would be the rough equivalent of pornography—briefly engaging, perhaps, but utterly predictable and finally repetitive. As Stuart Taylor Jr. and Evan Thomas explore in this week's cover, the urgent question now is whether President Obama will hew to that dogma or whether, confronted with the realities of office, he will begin to see virtue in the antiterror apparatus Cheney helped Bush create. Obama need look only to his hero Abraham Lincoln to find justification for doing things he might have once thought undoable. There are moments, Lincoln argued during the Civil War, when "measures otherwise unconstitutional might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation."

The world looks different from the president's chair in the Oval Office. I asked a wise former diplomatic official what he made of the likelihood that Obama might find himself taking positions on executive power he would have resisted on the campaign trail. "There won't be a complete rollback from what they inherit," said the former official, who asked to remain anonymous in order to be candid. "When people get in and get read into the intelligence, I suspect they will find that the Bush administration was extreme, but not entirely wrong."

© 2009

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution

Using emotion to convince people to change.

Heaven Can Wait
Heaven Can Wait

A new book promises proof of eternal life.

The World's Biggest Foods
The World's Biggest Foods

Monster edibles from around America.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Berserker @ 01/17/2009 7:17:41 PM

    I would expect that time will prove this point of view more true than false. The difficulty will be with Mr. Obama surviving the disappointment of legions of his supporters who believed every word he uttered during his campaign. He was elected because many, many people believed his promises. There no longer exists a majority of realists who understand that politicians lie and that there is no such thing as a free lunch. One of the reasons that we used to insist that anyone running for President had a track record of some substance before considering him eligible was just because of the lies that predominate in campaigns: a track record gives you some clue as to which lies are likely to turn into action. And that experience gives us a sense of the reality that will result when the person is elected. Here, the majority bought into the age old plea of "Trust Me." I believe Mr. Obama to be a good person, but only time will tell if we won the gamble of electing him President...it was certainly an act of faith in a politician...something that has not had good odds in the past.

  • Posted By: rajbag1975 @ 01/14/2009 1:06:35 AM

    The way US has been spending more than producing over the years, and its believe that it leads to more prosperity as well as help fighting depression is something which may be illusive. While spending as a Keynesian tool may have the popular so called multiplier effect, but its impact may be felt significantly only for a short term, and it seems to compromise on the long-term interest of the American economy. Take the case when Fed made available cheap loans to boost consumption. This made Americans import more, making their currency less competitive vis-à-vis exporting countries. If the same loans could have been utilized in investment in long-term economic projects, it would have given Americans a solid base, and the so called recession in America as well its adverse global impact would not have had arose in the first place.

    Money makes money. This has been the point of strength for USA for decades. If now relative underdogs like China and India are growing, USA should have grown more. But thanks to its culture of spending more than producing, it is gradually losing its economic superiority.

    One reason why spending stimulus package worked so well post 1929 depression may be that significant products that were consumed then were produced within USA itself, leading to rise in its production numbers. But today, American consumers will be consuming products made outside USA in larger proportion, making the gains of stimulus package spiraling over to exporting countries at the cost of making US currency weaker, and thereby compromising on its economic prowess.

    After all, one needs a powerful self fulfilling source of energy to make that organ viable. Spending more energy than producing will make it shallow. If energy comes from borrowing from other organs, you lose your competitive strength against the lender. I am sure policy makers in USA have in their agenda to maintain that economic dominance, which over the years has made it a superpower in true form.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now