Dick Cheney: Why Democrats Love Him

Bob: "... Cheney believes that the only thing that will bring the party back is to stand firmly on its fundamental principles.... "

Bard:  Hmmm.....I'm pondering the meaning.  'Fundamental' as in 'basic', or 'fundamental' as in Palinesque fundamentalism?  Due to the recent election in November and all the controversy around Sarah Palin, I think Cheney's fundamentalism is viewed askance by the majority.  Add to that his support of a polarizing figure like that hypocrite Rush Limbaugh, and it makes Cheney a figure for pity and derision.  The Republican Party has more to offer than Limbaugh and Cheney, thank the good Lord.  They need to ignore those two and concentrate on their hopefuls like Jindal, etc.

Bob:   For those of us who leant toward the Democrat viewpoint, we could not be more pleased with Cheney.  He keeps the Republicans split and focused on the past, not the future.  As long as he remains as a prominent spokes person for the Republican Party, the Bush administration policies will be front and center in voters’ minds.  Moderate Republicans would like those policies to be a distant memory by the time we get to the next election.

Bard: Here's what I dislike about your above statement....it shows that you are entrained with the Democrat demogogy and are not truly a liberal free-thinker at heart. To me that means to can call yourself a liberal only in terms of what's contained within the confines of the party ideology.  Sad, that.  What this country needs is less party politics and more mature, independent thinkers - otherwise, it just becomes the same old, tired inbred arguments and solutions. 

Hello Bard .... Thanks for your comment.

Hey, I do agree with the first part of your comment.  I do believe that Republicans will throw off Cheney and even Limbaugh soon and begin to climb back into truely viable national party again.  You noted that Cheney's fundamentalism is viewed negatively by the majority of Republicans.  I really don't doubt that, but then I wonder who will call him out on it.  Those who don't like what he is saying seem to be running scared of him and Limbaugh.  Perhaps they will get over it soon.  

Now I'd also like to know just what you think a truly liberal free-thinker would be like.  Do you see yourself as one?  I do proudly admit to having a liberal bias.  Nevertheless, I respect (but often disagree with) the conservative point of view you often express.  Right now the only ones expressing a liberal view point are the democrats.  There are, however, a number of reasonably moderate to liberal Republicans whom I respect.  Olympia Snow, who was my Senator when I taught at the U. of Maine and her colleague Susan Collins but they don't seem to get to say much in their party these days.  I have some respect for Arlin Spector, who the Republican Party drove out to join the Democrats.  The people I disrespect are close minded ideologues in either party: Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer (Democrats) Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, Dick Cheney, John Boehner, to mention a few Republicans.  

I wrote about Cheney, because he seems to be the one, along with Limbaugh, that speaks for Republicnas right now.  He's the one who is talking and no one in the party will step up and say, "Get over it Dick.  The party needs to move forward."  What I wrote about is what I see happening.  It is my viewpoint, admittedly with a bias toward liberal-thinking Democrats.  [By the way presenting a point of view is what I think a blog is supposed to do] Cheney's talking and Democrats are loving it.  It is up to Republicans to get past him.    

No, I don't see myself as liberal. 

However, I have some issues where I split my views.  For example, I am pro-life for myself but like a liberal, I respect each person's individual choice in that regard and I would vote pro-choice.  Would you call me a conservative because I believe in God, but a liberal because I don't believe in christianity as it is expressed today, and I don't believe that christianity is the ultimate true religion (there is none) and that government has no business codifying christianity into law?

You would call me a conservative because I don't want to legalize marijuana. That fits your stereotype.  I think you believe in bureaucracy's ability to meet the individual's needs and I know for a fact that it doesn't work 'on the ground' at the grassroots level.

I believe marriage is between two consenting adult individuals, and I really don't give a d*mn about their gender orientation. Does that make me a conservative or a liberal?

Let's look at the locus of control and responsibility within America's two major political parties. With the Republicans, the locus of control seems to operate on two fronts: corporations (big business) and within the individual. At least it WAS this way until the Republicans attracted too many christian fundamentalists; that can and MUST change or they will not survive as an effective party.  With Democrats,the locus of control is more Big Brotherish - it's aligned more closely with proliferating and invasive governmental control and lends itself more strongly to a herd mentality.  This is very obvious in Anderson. I find it amusing that self-styled liberals adhere so closely to the party line, but it only goes to prove my point about herd mentality. Then again, maybe that means I've confused liberalness with true independence. It's obvious the two are not really synonymous.

By the way, it is my intent to give you a window into Bard here, and it is NOT my intent to disrespect you or anyone regardless of party or bias.

You and others make a mistake when you assume Cheney and Limbaugh speak for grassroots Republicans. As a former professor of communication, you are aware of the media's role as gatekeeper.  You are also aware of media's trend toward sensationalizing and focusing on dissention.  Who was it, after all, who set up Cheney and Limbaugh to be the de facto talking heads of the Republican Party?  It wasn't the Republican Caucus. It was the media itself. It's because the media can rely on Cheney and Limbaugh to kick a little sand into people's eyes, and thereby attract attention to their outlet.  Therefore the Republicans' main problem isn't Limbaugh or Cheney - it's the media itself.  According to the Christian Science Monitor: "The media love the new Cheney, who doesn’t mince words."   The Republicans have to find someone to serve as a counterpoint to those nimrods, and fast.

On the other hand, Cheney has managed to put Nancy Pelosi on the hotseat regarding the waterboarding issue which has left her steaming, and I'm pleased about that.  It reveals a smidgeon of her duplicity.  Cheney's defense of some former administration policy laid the groundwork for Obama's reversal on the release of detainee photos showing alleged abuse.  It shows he has some traction.

By the way, while the purpose of a blog is to represent the blogger's point of view, in a forum such as this it is understood that the poster (blogger) invites any and all responses whether they agree with his view or not.  Is that not correct?  Those who do not wish a countering response would probably find Blogger.com more to their liking so they can moderate whatever responses they may get. That is not meant as a suggestion to you, but as a explanation of my presumption to disagree.

In the last analysis, I agree that Cheney and Limbaugh are nightmares for the Republicans.  I sure hope they wake up and smell the coffee and find new voices to express their platform in a way which appeals to a wider audience. If there is anything worse than a two-party system, it's a one-party system.

On a side note......

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican has some correlation with your locus of control.  By that I mean whether you believe you're in control of your destiny and are ultimately responsible for your life, or whether you believe you're at the mercy of external forces which force you into your present circumstances and you're therefore not responsible for where you are and what you're doing...the control resides outside of you.  Republicans tend to feel they're in the driver's seat and Democrats tend to feel they're just going along for the ride.  I'm speaking in glittering generalities here, and individual Dems and Reps may feel quite the opposite.

I found a blog about this which made me laugh, and I'd like to share it with you:

"In Humans Relations class, we studied a concept called “Locus of Control.” This is how people view their own destiny, whether external or internal forces have the most control. People with an External Locus of Control feel that they have very little control over their lives, and that external forces play the biggest part in determining their success or failure in life. Those with an Internal Locus of Control feel that they are in control of their own future, and that their success in life is determined by their own choices and hard work.

"Too many of us are “externalizers” sitting around waiting for something to happen that will improve our lives. I hear people saying things like, “Sen. Obama is giving me hope” and “Sen. Obama is going to fix everything.” Those who rely on government to solve their daily problems in life are waiting for nothing to happen – they are waiting on zilch. Government is broken. Government doesn’t serve the people. Government creates nothing - it only takes from one group and gives to another. The government is a worm hole for money, a big, fat empty fiduciary ZERO. Throwing money at a zero only equals more zero, and only Chuck Norris can divide by zero.

"In your own life, think about how government serves you. The police, for example, rarely if ever prevent crime. They show up afterwards and take statements, draw chalk lines, fill out reports, and hopefully make arrests. But it is usually after the fact. Preventing crime is nearly impossible; each of us would need our own personal policeman to follow us around 24/7 and keep us out of trouble.

"How about firemen? Do they prevent fires, or are they usually stuck putting them out? There isn’t much you can do about lightning, bad wiring, or determined arsonists. About all you can do as a fireman is get there as fast as possible to minimize the damage.

"How about your doctor? Can they prevent disease? Nope. They can give a person guidelines to live by, but when a person chooses to be unhealthy, and they can’t afford to have a personal chef, trainer, and life coach follow them around, then a doctor can only be there after the fact to minimize pain and suffering.

"So why do people sit around waiting for the federal government to improve their lives? What can the feds do in Twin Falls that would have an impact on your day-to-day lives? I say very little, if anything. Sitting around waiting for the savior Obama to come along and make things better for you is just wasting time. You are waiting for nothing. You are waiting for a big, bloated, broken-legged blind lifeguard to rescue you while you sit around wishing you were starring in Baywatch."

There's more and I enjoyed the read. See "Waiting on Nothing: 

http://www.magicvalley.com/blogs/political/conservative_corner/index.php?m=10&y=08&d=06&entry=entry081006-100155 

I'm not a Republican.  I will never be a Republican.  Or a Democrat.  But while I was looking up the above information, I found some research by the Pew Charitable Trust that indicates the following:

"Republicans Have been Happier for Years"

According to Pew, here are some of the differences between Republicans and Democrats which might account for the gap:

1. Republicans have more money.

2. Republicans have more friends.

3. Republicans are more religious.

4. Republicans are healthier.

5. Republicans are more likely to be married.

6. Republicans like their communities better.

7. Republicans like their jobs better.

8 Republicans are more satisfied with family life.

9. Republicans have fewer financial worries (this poll was in OCTOBER!!)

10. Republicans are more likely to think they'll live better than their parents did.

11. Republicans are more likely to believe in an internal locus of control (my life is under my control) as opposed to having an external locus of control (life is a matter of chance or luck).

12. Republicans have more of what they value in life (and no, this doesn't mean money -  this is life satisfaction).

"We still don't know if being a Republican makes you happy, or if being happy makes you a Republican or if some other variables lead to being both happy and Republican.  But if Republicans can be happy in spite of the current polls and economy, it's likely that there is something big going on here." 

Source:   http://laurafreberg.com/blog/?p=352

*********************************************************** 

 In a recent entry, Jaime Napier and John Jost published a series of experiments that conclude that conservatives are happier than liberals, not just in the United States, but in nine other nations as well .

The Conservative Brain?

The difference in happiness remains after controlling for demographic variables. The authors argue that the main variable accounting for this discrepancy is that conservatives are less bothered by the inequality they see around them than liberals. As financial inequality grew from 1974 to 2004, so did the “happiness gap.” The authors argue that conservatives’ ability to rationalize the status quo as “fair” protects them from the unhappiness experienced by the liberals.

Somehow, this paper just doesn’t seem connected to the work on happiness by Ed Diener (who is quite liberal and an apparently very happy man) and others in the positive psychology field. You can take a version of Diener’s happiness measure here. This literature focuses on social relationships, quality of work, progress towards goals, spirituality, and self esteem. Nowhere in my reading do I see “how do I feel about the social inequality around me” as a major variable in personal happiness.

So why do I think conservatives are happier than liberals? Perhaps one clue comes from Jack and Jeanne Block (2006), who looked at characteristics of their preschoolers who later affiliated with either conservatism or liberalism [2]. If you can read past the obvious disgust with which the Blocks hold conservatives (an all-too-common and unfortunate trend in the psychological literature on politicial orientation), an interesting difference in self-control emerges. As preschoolers, the future conservatives tilt towards “over-control,” while the future liberals tilt towards “under-control.” Both extremes have their own sets of drawbacks, but the worst outcome you get from “over-control” is being rather bland and boring. In contrast, people who are “under-controlled” are going to be at risk for a number of self-destructive behavior patterns that are not exactly conducive to happiness.

1.  Napier, J.L., & Jost, J.T. (2008).  Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science, 19 (6), 565-572.

2.  Block, J., & Block, J.H. (2006). Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later. Journal of Research in Personality, 40 (5), 734-749.

Hello Bard... I don't know if you will get to read this, given that I have been out of town for several days and this blog post has been unattended.  But, if you do ... thanks very much for your comment. 

I won't respond to your entire post, but I would like to comment on one point you made.  I get from you post that you see liberal as simply waiting for government to solve all their problems and that they don't take personal responsibility.  I do disagree with that observation.  I believe and I think most liberals believe that we are responsible for our own outcomes.  However, I think there are some things that the government can help us and there are some things that need to be done that only government can do.  Ronald Reagan once said "Government is not the answer.  Government is the problem."  I have always disagreed with that philosophy.  Government cannot do everything and it does some thing really poorly, but government used effectively can be a help to society in ways that no other agency can.

Hmmm.  Not sure how you distilled that from what I wrote.

When I was discussing external locus of control and its relationship to traditional Democratic positions, I wasn't referencing liberalism, just the Democratic Party. It could be inferred from my posts that it is Democrats who tend to want big government to solve their problems. 'Liberal' has little to do with it.

My references to 'liberal' are two fold.  One is my personal observation that I was mistakenly equating liberalness with an independent quality of mind. Those two, as I said, are NOT synonymous. Democratic liberals seem, in my experience, to take a more predictable herd-like position. (As I mentioned previously, this is a window into Bard's views and NOT an indictment of any particular individual).

The other reference to 'liberal' was the above study which demonstrated that conservatives in 10 different countries - regardless of political affiliation - were a happier group overall than liberals of whatever stripe. That wasn't personal opinion.  That was purported to be scientific studies.

With reference to this quote of yours:   "Government cannot do everything and it does some thing really poorly, but government used effectively can be a help to society in ways that no other agency can. " Looked at from one angle, this is somewhat at odds with Thomas Jefferson who said, "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

And never forget this truism:  "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." -- Gerald Ford in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.

Government is not efficient enough to be of much help to society. Also, it tends to follow the mob sentiments of the era rather than lead with dispassion. I mistrust the government, and if you read enough of the Founding Fathers' commentaries, you can see that our very democracy is founded upon that distrust, and sees it as part of a system of checks and balances.