Speak of The Devil (or Why I Spend Half My Time Outside the U.S. Apologizing that I'm American)

It is rare that I comment out loud about politics and I don't see that changing much in the near future, at least not in this forum. My sincerest apologies if you're hoping this will provide in some way, shape, or form a touch of humor or a window into a world outside the U.S.; this entry will probably do neither.

I've been outside the U.S. for 11 months now and I must admit that I'm tired. It's not that I'm tired from a life or lifestyle altogether different from the one I was accustomed to before I left. No, it's not that at all; in fact, I live a very comfortable and enjoyable life here in Vietnam and to a somewhat lesser extent previously in India. What I'm truly tired of is the utterly soul-sapping experience of meeting people from other countries and feeling the need to apologize for being American.

Although I think it pretty clear that I'm well distanced from the American government as well as the unfathomable number of Americans that still think the 9/11 attacks were masterminded by Saddam, I nevertheless am guilty by association.

It usually starts with a perked ear, morphs into a glare or a pointed remark, and then culminates with an exaggeratedly pronounced eye roll. After a bit of conversation most people (usually) forgive me and for the rest of the evening refer to me as "a different American" or something of the sort. Periodically, it takes on an amusing twist as they introduce me to other people and offer their own half-apology/ half-justification as though they'd already done the research: "He is American, but you know, not like an American".

I used to see their initial skepticism as rooted exclusively in our reputation on the traveler's circuit as, well, obnoxious. But now I think it's more as though we're looked at as the poster children for our government. And just in case no one cc'd you, people around the world aren't too rosy on our government. And why is that?

There's one name I hear an awful lot: Dick Cheney.

My apologies for the tangent...

Ten days ago or so, The Washington Post began a four part series on the Vice Presidency of Cheney. The series is impressive in its investigations and shocking in its detail. There isn't much there that we haven't all heard before at some point and in some fashion. When you take it all in the aggregate, however, it is rather outrageous and exasperating what has occurred in the past handful of years.

I'll offer a bit of summary here. Should you then like to read further, you can simply click on the links to select the sections that interest you most.

The first part, 'A Different Understanding With the President', illustrates how Cheney revolutionized the role of the Vice President, turning it from one characterized by public appearances and fundraising into one of real power. The Constitution left the position without any real formal authority; note how well that vacuum has recently been filled.

The second, Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power, details Cheney's work toward the accretion of power for the executive branch not, ultimately, for the good of the country but for himself, and by default, Bush. You know the difference between "torture" and "cruel, inhuman or degrading methods of questioning"? According to Cheney there is a difference, with the latter being labeled as "robust interrogation." The semantics are chilling indeed. Three cheers for the degradation of American moral authority! [If you don't know who David Addington and John Yoo are, you should really read this section]

The third, A Strong Push From Backstage, depicts Cheney as frighteningly comfortable outside his traditionally familiar turf of defense (war) and energy (oil). He plays with taxes, the space program, The Supreme Court, corruption ... ever wondered how to skirt the law? Here's your chance to find out. Read up.

The final section, Leaving No Tracks, illustrates Cheney's utter disdain for pro-environmental legal precedents. The Clean Air Act? Too strict. Caps on greenhouse gases? There's really no evidence that humans adversely contribute greenhouse gases. The ban on snowmobiling in National Parks? Forget conservation, snowmobiling is too much fun! Endangered species? Not as important as satisfying constituencies. [Anyone that loves Oregon will especially enjoy this section]

Some people have called for Cheney's impeachment. Others have called for his head. But who's really to blame? Where does the buck ultimately stop?

As far as I understand it, it is the President's responsibility delegated to him/her in Article II of The Constitution to take care that the laws of the country be faithfully executed and to see that his/her administration behaves lawfully and appropriately. Everything Cheney has done has been with Bush's explicit or tacit consent. If anyone should be held responsible for the breathtaking surrender of authority to the Vice Presidency that we have seen, it should be the President in his failure to perform his elected duties.

Do we then settle for Cheney's head?