Thanks, Mr. Blumenthal. I recommended your article to dailykos readers, and many of them had favorable responses. The American public seems to be waking up to Cheney's M.O. I see that his approval ratings are down to around 19% lately. About time. No need to answer this letter, letter writers. I am gone.

...sure sucks, huh?

What a waste of a life.

Wow!

Who knew?

Who knew Cheney had such a strong motivation to be perverse?

The psychology behind it is a story in and of itself no doubt. But thanks for putting the facts out there Sidney. Without them someone might attempt to describe his career as something less than subversive.

In fact, attempts to claim circumstances have forced his behavior are what he probably counts on most.

Please, keep up the good work.....and if you get a chance shoot us a quick story on how Chalabi has once again reared his ugly head.

Thanks!

Sidney Blumenthal does a nice job constructing a narrative arc around Cheney's career that seems plausible. Some of the letters I've read seem to walk blithely past the central contention, which is that Cheney et al have a certain view of political power, and how to concentrate and wield that power to the advantage of their particular agenda. It's not so much that Cheney is an evil genius, or Rove or Rumsfeld for that matter. It's simply that within a system of government such as ours (slow, deliberate, prone to direction shifts after elections, etc.), strong and ruthless ideologues can and will find ways to work behind the scenes, to resume their interrupted agendas, and, better, put systems in place that are not subject to the political fortunes of popular elections.

In short, what is portrayed is a lack of faith, which, in many respects, mirrors that of evangelical Christians who, in seeking to institutionalize their faith in our laws, seem to evince nothing so much as their lack of faith that God will take care of everything in his final accounting. Cheneyites, let's call them, don't believe that our representative democracy will adequately address the challenges and opportunies before it. They've sought to create a shadow government immune to the caprice of the ballot box. I think this is why the two constituencies are natural allies. They each, in their own ways, are compelled to be agents of destinies deemed more important than existing institutions or etiquettes.

I don't think most Democrats are falling back on the "evil genius hypothesis" so much as confounded by it. Why can we see these guys for what they are, but neither the MSM nor (until lately) a majority of voters can? Some tactics, belatedly, are being appropriated, like permanent local party organization. Crafting a coherent dialogue to counter the Cheneyite demeanor of the White House has so far proved elusive. We're told it's forthcoming. It is with those Democratic elites that I'm angry, the so-called campaign pros, and the candidates, who bear responsibility for selecting and sticking with them.

But so far, a party united with certain wedge issues based on deep beliefs and a more cynical, realpolitik view of politics has outmaneuvered a party that is more like a herd of cats than anything else. Perhaps it's a sign of a deeper malaise: a real lack of core self-identity that could be, in turn, reduced to easily repeatable sound bites. And if you don't have a core identity (I've read several write, "I vote Democratic for woman's rights," rather than, "I'm a progressive because I believe in economic interventionism," or "a coherent compact regarding social justice and economic security" ... I think Democrats all largely support each other's cause within the cause, but don't really know what to call what it is they stand for on the big stage) you don't have brand identity. That's what it means when Kerry's detractors said "We don't know what he stands for," or, more recently, "They criticize, but what plan do they have?" Dean was popular because he had a clear, strong message and style that resonated with disaffected progressives. But what the Left itself stands for at this moment in history is the real question in play.

Those clearly motivated by God's judgment or dark forces (that necessitate extraordinary countermeasures the US as a whole is too "weak" to sanction) have a lot simpler narrative to act and articulate than does the Left. And a lot more motivation to subordinate "naive" conceptions of government. The cautionary tale Blumenthal delivers is simply a description of the true opponent, its intent, focus, and animus.

Why don't conservatives in the back of their minds worry about the fact that while they cede the presidency so much power, someday it will be a Democrat in the White House who will benefit?

Kohoutek made an interesting connection between the preference for a strong father figure for evangelicals and the Cheney-ites' preference for a powerful executive. But what dumbfounds me is how come it's the Cheney (libertarian) wing of the republican party that seems to be pushing so strongly for such a powerful state.

And does it make any sense that we hear republicans rally against the evil of progressive politics and the so-called "nanny state" when the conservative attitude about government policy seems to be one of "because I said so" and ""father" knows best"?

To call Cheney psychotic is to relieve him of any blame. He knows what he is doing. He has made tens of millions of dollars from the Iraq war. He used the power of government to craft energy policy that will personally enrich him even further. To be sure, there is a disturbing component to his personality. He always seems to be around when tens of thousands of people are being killed. Whether or not this is simply a side effect of his personal enrichment or some darker force is open to debate. He built a bunker underneath his house, I don't think he's completely stable.

"But what dumbfounds me is how come it's the Cheney (libertarian) wing of the republican party that seems to be pushing so strongly for such a powerful state."

It's the business side that's pushing that. Cheney's a money guy.

They want a strong executive for the same reason they like strong CEOs: control, power, and money. They're not interested in democracy or justice--they want control. With a strong executive and control of the legislature business gets whatever it wants.

The current right-wing assault on the judiciary is the money's attack on the last remaining branch they don't control. The courts are the only place business can still lose.