AFTER CHENEY. Don't miss, over at LGM, Rob's thoughts on Dick Cheney's power and bureaucratic effectiveness as documented so amply this week in The Washington Post's justly-praised series. "He's a bastard, but within the narrow confines of negotiating and navigating government bureaucracy, he's a magnificent bastard," writes Rob. "Perhaps inevitably, it occurs to me to wonder 'what if he were our bastard?'"
Rob ends up answering his own question with a "no," and does a good job distilling the basic unavoidable problems a Cheneyesque approach to governance and policy-making entails regardless of the person's substantive and ideological beliefs. From a slightly different angle -- not so much regarding Cheney's specific bureaucratic approach as regarding his unprecedentedly outsized and ideologically hard-edged role as a partner-in-power of the president -- Alex Rossmiller recently argued on our site that liberals should in fact want a Dick Cheney of their own as vice president.
Certainly a question that hasn't gotten enough attention is what Cheney's lasting effect on the the vice presidency will turn out to have been in the presidential administrations to come -- how transformative and paradigm-shifting his tenure really is, what factors might contribute to or mitigate the office's continued growth in power, etc.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)