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)

  • Really? This is the point of Sojourners? Blog entries from a purely liberal standpoint to tear down politicians?
  • mscynthia
    I've always wanted to lock up Rice and Cheny in the same room for a month and bug the room with microphones.
    Keep talking Mr. Cheney. Blab to all.
    Then we will finally know what the last 8 years was all about.
  • Wonder
    Blue Dog Coalition.

    Google it.
  • lysager
    Reading most of the contentious commentary really helps me. It helps me to pray "Thy Kingdom Come, Thy will Be Done, On Earth as in Heaven". Most of the bickering here, on talk radio, and other venues begins to take on all the charm of freeway noise. The solution to the problems in America and the world are not political ones. They are indeed the matters of the heart and spirit.
  • justice_seeker
    You guys are certainly not afraid to duke it out on here. But that's what I appreciate about this place.

    "This article says more about SOJO than it does Cheney."

    Sure it's a post allowed by SOJO, but granted it was written by an individual who has their own opinions.

    Whether we agree with this article or not, we need to welcome the prophetic who speak out against those who decieve. Jesus loves all of mankind everyone, but did not fail to rebuke the pharisees of their hypocrisy. I believe that Hendricks is doing just that, here.
  • WaveTossed
    "The problem with Ron Paul is that he won't make the necessary compromises to govern properly, which is why his campaigns go nowhere despite fervent support. He actually first gained attention because from the start he opposed the war in Iraq on principle, not because of the waste in troops and money."

    This is because Rep. Paul is a person of principle.

    "BTW, I was not referring to Ron Paul in that post -- it was Paul Quillman, who had also posted on this thread."

    Ooops! <embarassed grin>
  • cpd
    I don't know if someone else commented on this or not (I can't get all the comments to show) but this line from the article is baffling:

    "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."

    I think those votes are clearly an attempt to serve Americans by calling us to live to a higher standard. Not a higher standard of living but of personal responsibility. All the people the author mentions (old folks, poor, children, etc) should be helped by the church, not the government.
  • BuckeyeDon
    Well, we wouldn't be discussing Cheney's 20-year-old voting record at all if he hadn't been in our faces with his criticisms of Obama, true? Obrey Hendricks wasn't motivated to write a "hit piece" on George W. Bush, for example, because the former president is behaving graciously, and not like an attack dog.

    You can decide whether you think this is a Christian sentiment, but I believe that Cheney is well deserving of whatever he gets in the way of verbal counterassaults. We must counter him because his criticisms are poison--it's not for the sake of the nation that Cheney speaks.
  • Finally -- someone here who's talking sense. As I said, they used principles for their own aggrandizement -- and, ironically, eventually lost it all in the process. I confess to being gratified when Bill Clinton called Gingrich's bluff on a balanced budget and put an end to that "revolution."
  • The problem with Ron Paul is that he won't make the necessary compromises to govern properly, which is why his campaigns go nowhere despite fervent support. He actually first gained attention because from the start he opposed the war in Iraq on principle, not because of the waste in troops and money.

    BTW, I was not referring to Ron Paul in that post -- it was Paul Quillman, who had also posted on this thread.
  • WaveTossed
    "Hammerud says 'We're going bankrupt because of our phony compassion.'

    "Are you serious? You really think helping the laeast of those among us is what is destroying our economy?"

    For myself, the difference here is voluntarily helping the least of those among us. My church has joined in with other neighborhood churches in working on a project. Not only do we give out aid: food, clothing, sometimes money aid, to those who need it. But we also offer counseling, discussion groups, and other means of helping people help themselves. We don't get government aid for our programs.

    When big government tries to "help" the poor, they have huge bureaucratic programs that insult the poor rather than helping them out. Have you ever had to apply for food stamps? Or for that matter, Unemployment benefits? I've had to deal with both programs in the past. You will see what I mean.
  • WaveTossed
    Believe me, Ron Paul has been soundly castigated by just about all of the big-government "conservatives." I saw Ron Paul on Rachel Maddow's show recently. I'm sure that the Neo-Cons and religious right types are having a field day with Rep. Paul's appearances on the Rachel Maddow show. After all, they would say, "Maddow is not only a <gasp! choke! horrors!> liberal, she is a [fill in anti-Gay slur of your choice here] -- she is openly Lesbian.

    Rep. Paul doesn't care about these peoples' opinions of him, and he never has. Ron Paul recently reported (on the Maddow show) that Newt Gringrich asked for his support for Gringrich's ideas. Rep. Paul politely declined -- he wants no part of what Gringrich stands for.
  • WaveTossed
    "you've got hatred issues"

    Could we please leave the personal comments out from here? And instead have a reasoned discussion of ideas? Thanks!
  • WaveTossed
    The problem is that Cheney is NOT a conservative when it comes to concepts such as reducing the size of government and reducing government intervention in peoples' lives. Cheney is firmly in the Neo-Conservative camp. This is a tendency founded by Irving and William Kristol and they believe that big government isn't so bad as long as it is enforcing (their ideas of) "conservative principles." The Kristols also believe in invading foreign countries with the idea of "spreading freedom," even if the citizens of these countries have no interest in having "freedom" spread upon them. Cheney even believes that practicing torture fits in with "spreading freedom."
  • WaveTossed
    Xfree9, I've learned in the past few years that there are three basic types of "conservatives." There are Neo-Conservatives. This tendency was started by the ideas of Irving and William Kristol. They decided that big government really wasn't so bad as long as big government was there to uphold their ideas of "conservative principles." The Neo-cons also want to "spread freedom" i.e. invade various foreign countries such as Iraq. They also believe that government's role is to legislate private behavior in line with what they see as "moral." Which would mean that they oppose states' rights when it comes to the rights of states to make drugs legal or else legalize Gay marriage. In these cases, they want the Federal government to over-ride states' rights.

    Then there are the "Paleo-Conservatives." These are people such as Pat Buchanan, who oppose foreign entanglements. However, they also depend upon government control of free-trade, such as putting up tariffs on foreign goods. They also have a tendency to believe that government can legislate "morality."

    Then we have Libertarians (you and I). In many ways, we are political "orphans." We don't quite fit in either the "conservative" or "liberal" camps. Libertarians believe in small government and civil liberties and want government to stay out of our personal lives. We also believe in free trade with less (or no) restrictions.
  • WaveTossed
    Unfortunately, Cheney has twisted and violated the role of government. The Founders wanted restraints on the government. Cheney wants big, overriding intrusive government that invades foreign countries without reason, wire-taps Americans without warrants, holds people without being charged. True conservatives (such as Goldwater) are undoubtedly rolling in their graves at Cheney's perversion of American government.
  • Zapata_Vive
    Yes, it happened nearly 20 years ago, when he was in congress -- since then he's been running Haliburton and involved in the world of "business", add to that the campaign+ 2 terms as vice president and there's your 20 years -- Of course he didn't vote in the house for 20 years -- he couldn't.

    Besides what's this 20 years ago limit? Should Adolf Eichman have gotten off after 20 years? The people killed under his orders are just as dead today as those killed under Cheney's.
  • neuro_nurse
    I agree
  • LoonLover
    What a biased, selective, partisan article! It totally glosses over the expansive government vs. limited government and federal v. state philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives that impact the voting record of any member of Congress, including former congressman and Vice President Dick Cheney. The article totally ignores many other factors at play in the various pieces of legislation bulleted in the article, erroneously implying that each piece of legislation was nothing more than a choice between a moral/caring position v. an immoral/uncaring position. Most/all of the pieces of legislation cited were far more complicated than a mere choice between being caring or being callous toward people in need.

    Furthermore, rather than provide a careful analysis of issues and actions based on a full range of Christian principles, the thrust of this article is much more personal and hateful. It does exactly what Jesus warns us not to do: judge a person's soul, intentions and motivations (in this case, Vice President Cheney).

    Finally, the clear implication of this article is that any political leader who opposes or seeks to limit any federal spending program wherein someone may benefit in some way (at other taxpayers' expense), is (like Cheney) guilty of "startling but consistent contempt" for the American people. Really?

    Articles like this give credence to the perception that Sojourners is more committed to a leftist partisan agenda than to a charitable, Christ-like social agenda.
  • wordherder62
    The problem you talk about is the "sideline conservatives." They never run for office, they never do any public service and they whine about how the people they voted for have "stolen" conservatism. No, it wasn't stolen. It was freely given away to people who clearly only desired power. Newt Gingrich is the poster child here after promising America a new way of doing business when a Republican majority was elected to Congress he immediately set about to increase the power of himself personally and that of his part in general with a vicious campaign against anybody who dared to question his efforts in Congress--attacks that were personal and rarely based on the arguments being made. It was a new way of doing business--one so vicious you'd have to go back to the early years of the Republic to replicate it.

    The evangelicals in America were sold a different bill of goods and it is every bit as vicious in that there has been nothing Bibilical about the past administraiton and its policies. But they were told the same thing that the sideliners were told: "Hey, you've got to vote for us because we're all you've got." Well, no, the truth is the sideliners and evangelicals should have long ago simply withdrawn their support for this bunch of neer-do-wells so they would have dried up and gone away.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


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