advertisement
RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Dick Cheney’s Contempt for Americans

by Obery Hendricks 05-20-2009

Dick Cheney is a strange creature. For public consumption he is the cool, principled champion of the American people willing to take hard public stands on their behalf. Even when he does not explicitly voice it, Cheney’s every public pronouncement bears the pious implication that the reason – the only reason – for his actions in the public sphere is this: that he is possessed of a servant’s concern to do what is best for the American people. Despite his outward calm and cool, however, it is clear that Dick Cheney has a smoldering contempt for the everyday Americans whose public interests he claims to serve.

I’m not just talking about the disdainful “So?” he let slip when told that most Americans oppose his ill-conceived war in Iraq. I’m not just talking about the backroom deals he hatched in the White House that lined the pockets of his Halliburton cronies at the expense of thousands of American lives and huge chunks of the treasure of the rest of us. I’m not even talking about his latest attempts to defend the indefensible. What I am talking about is something that even the loudest claims of executive privilege cannot hide, a chronicle set down in black and white by Cheney’s own hand, an accounting of his decisions and actions that reveals what those who benefit from his machinations would rather the American people not see: the real Dick Cheney. I am speaking of Cheney’s voting record as Wyoming’s congressman from 1979 to 1989. Below is a representative sampling of that record. Read it and weep.

While a member of the U. S. House of Representatives as the at-large congressman of Wyoming, Richard B. Cheney:

  • Repeatedly voted against programs designed to provide assistance to displaced workers.
  • Voted against legislation requiring factory owners to notify employees before closing their plants.
  • Cast 10 separate votes against funding nutrition programs for children, including one vote opposing a move to protect food programs for women and infants from budget cuts.
  • Repeatedly voted against maintaining funding for Head Start programs.
  • Voted against a measure that granted time off for federal employees to care for sick family members.
  • Voted against the Hunger Relief Act, which expanded eligibility for the federal food stamp program.
  • Voted against providing mortgage assistance for low income home buyers.
  • Opposed college student aid programs contained in the Higher Education Act.
  • During the recession of the early 1980s, voted to block extension of unemployment benefits, including a provision that would provide health insurance for unemployed workers and their families.
  • Voted against the Equal Rights Amendment.
  • Voted for Ronald Reagan’s veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act.
  • Voted to limit Social Security cost-of-living adjustments for retired Americans living on fixed incomes.
  • Was one of only eight members of the House to vote against renewing the Older Americans Act, which provided nutritional and other support services for elderly Americans. (If Cheney’s opposition had succeeded, the entire nutritional program would have effectively been shut down).
  • Voted against limiting out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare recipients, most of whom were senior citizens. His votes were so consistently counter to the interests of the elderly that a Cox News Service headline declared, “Senior Groups Call Cheney’s Voting Record a Disaster.”
  • Not only did Cheney’s votes tend toward unfairness on domestic issues, he actually voted against sanctioning South Africa’s apartheid regime for its repressive policies. He was also a vocal opponent of Nelson Mandela’s release from prison.

From any angle Dick Cheney’s congressional voting record presents a clear window into who he is and has been throughout his public life. Rather than one possessed of a servant’s concern for the American people, he is a man apparently possessed by a startling but consistent contempt for senior citizens, for poor and needy Americans and their children, for desperate workers stripped of their only source of income, and for everyday Americans struggling to educate their children, put food on their tables, and maintain decent homes – in other words, for almost all of those he claims to serve. Cheney’s callous dismissal of the sufferings of others goes far to explain his willingness to sanction the torture of human beings without the least hesitation. Indeed, it may well explain how he could deceive our nation into sending our young into a terrible war based on assertions that he almost certainly knew to be false.

Thus, although he presents himself as a principled champion of the American people, Dick Cheney’s record is in no way the record of a public servant; indeed, he has shown no sign that he cares enough for the real needs and aspirations of the American people to serve us. What is clear, however, is this: Because of his demonstrated contempt for the common folk of this nation, Dick Cheney’s campaign to exonerate his shameful role in the destructive policies of the last eight years deserves not the ear of the American people, but our outrage  — no matter how many flags he drapes himself in.

Obery M. Hendricks, Jr. is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at New York Theological Seminary and the author of The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Nature of Jesus’ Teachings and How They Have Been Corrupted (Doubleday, 2006).

Categories: Faith and Politics
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • Lord_Voldemort
    Agree or disagree -- and there's a rationale for each of these votes based on the long-established conservative understanding of the role of government -- the fact is everything that Hendricks gripes about here happened at least 20 years ago.

    LV
  • The point is that he would have done the same today.
  • Well, it is ironic that Cheney was part of a "conservative" administration and guided its unconservative policies. Government got bigger and more influential and oppressive under Bush/Cheney. Kinda betrays conservativism, if you ask me.
  • Not in the least. Modern conservatism, as it has played itself out, always -- and I mean from the very start -- used "principles" only as a means to achieve absolute power; however, that became obvious only about six years ago. It in practice was never opposed to "big government" but used it to push people around; it would and could have never remained in power any other way. Keep in mind that it began with the Cold War, which even at its height proved to be little more than a dangerous game of "chicken." In fact, by that definition it could be argued that the Bush/Cheney administration represented the most "conservative" in history.
  • Dude, you've got hatred issues. Seriously. All you do is criticize the right and nitpick some minor comment in almost every one of mine.

    Most conservatives I know, and those I've heard on the radio and on TV, have been for the past few years and are now still complaining about how the so-called "conservatives" in power betrayed real conservatism. If you're talking about conservatives who were in power (aka "Republicans" in the last decade), then you're right. But in general, the populace of conservatives are pretty libertarian, wanting limited government power. Religious Right was not part of that bloc, of course, so spare me your comment adding them to the mix.
  • neuro_nurse
    With all due respect, I think the word 'hate' gets used very carelessly by participants in this blog.

    All of us express anger, but expressions of anger are not necessarily indicative of hatred.
  • I think you're right. I just perceive a big sense of bitterness based on what he writes and replies. Hatred may not have been the best word.
  • neuro_nurse
    The last 8 years left a very bad taste in a lot of people's mouths - including mine.
  • jeffp
    I think the word hate fits here.
  • neuro_nurse
    Personally, I resent being told how I feel, so if you want to know who, if anyone, BlueDeacon hates, I suggest that you ask him.
  • BlueDeacon is never wrong, so he wouldn't admit hate or bitterness. He's prophetic, so he'll only see inside your life and tell you all that's wrong with you, and your position. But i wouldn't expect him to admit much of his own flaws.
  • neuro_nurse
    Yes well, you and I have sparred a few rounds before too.

    The most vocal of us, myself included, are incredibly stubborn and, as calledme stated below, passionate.

    Criticism is fair but, as far as I’m concerned, attributing hatred to another person is not.
  • Criticism is fair but, as far as I’m concerned, attributing hatred to another person is not.

    Yes. I've already conceded "hatred" was a poorly used term. Honestly, I have seen the conversing between you and me less "sparring" as time has gone on. Not sure if you feel or observe the same. I can't say the same about BlueDeacon. I've never noticed an admission of being wrong or inaccurate.
  • neuro_nurse
    “I have seen the conversing between you and me less "sparring" as time has gone on.”

    Oh, I have profound objections to many of the things you write, but I try to keep our interactions light and fun. (insert emotion here)
  • jeffp
    Criticism is fair but, as far as I’m concerned, attributing hatred to another person is not.

    Interesting, is it fair to attribute contempt to another person.
  • neuro_nurse
    "is it fair to attribute contempt to another person"

    No.
  • jeffp
    My point exactly.

    This article says more about SOJO than it does Cheney.
  • neuro_nurse
    I agree
  • Anothernonymous
    "I know that there are people who do not love their fellow men, and I hate people like that."

    - Tom Lehrer, "That Was the Year That Was"
  • I respond that you clearly know very, very little about the background and history of modern conservatism. The truth be told, those "true conservatives" began complaining seriously only when Bush's poll ratings went down the drain due to his own mismanagement; beforehand, and especially after 9/11, they were praising him to high heaven. So, as far as I'm concerned, you can add hypocrisy to the charges I've already made. (In my view, the only person on that side of the political fence with any integrity is Ron Paul.)

    And it's not at all true that the "religious right" wasn't part of that bloc -- heck, that's were I first heard of it, on "The 700 Club" and Christian radio. Indeed, I didn't realize just how secular the movement actually was until the 1990s. Oh, and the first person I heard use the word "socialist" in that context? A seminary student whose politics are to the right of Jerry Falwell!
  • I've said it before, but you see things as you want to see them. The Left is always on the right (correct) side of history, the right is always on the wrong side of history. The right is racist, evil, hateful, etc. etc. blah blah blah

    Dude, GET OVER IT! Why do you feel this incessant need to constantly point out all the flaws in the opposing side politically? What about the log in your own eye? Nobody's perfect, yet you write as if your views on political history are flawless.

    Funny you bash libertarians often, yet praise Ron Paul for his integrity.
  • The Left is always on the right (correct) side of history, the right is always on the wrong side of history.

    I have consistently said nothing about the "left" because, as I've pointed out, in this country it has little real pull. But you've come under the mistaken impression that if it isn't "right," it must be "left." That's the very polarization I've referred to earlier, and it doesn't help the discussion.

    Why do you feel this incessant need to constantly point out all the flaws in the opposing side politically?

    BECAUSE THEY WON'T DO IT THEMSELVES! Everyone else does!

    And, FWIW, many of these people are fellow believers in Christ, so that not only makes me look stupid for being associated with them but, ultimately, also taints the message of the Gospel.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertisement
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008