Pulling my Cheney
Fallout Over Cheney’s Scheduled Speech at BYU
By Tracy Medley, 4-02-07
We live in interesting times, in an interesting state. Whatever quaint notions the rest of the nation has about Utah – no one can accuse us of passing on a good political dust up and Brigham Young University’s recent announcement that Vice President Dick Cheney would be giving this year’s commencement address is no exception.
Last week Rebecca Walsh of The Salt Lake Tribune wrote a cutting editorial asserting that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints leaders had blown their cover as political neutralists by inviting the godfather of neo-con soul veep to speak at the church owned school. Walsh makes an interesting, but ultimately unsaleable and unnecessary argument, because well, duh…have the LDS church’s political leanings ever been much of a mystery? Not really. Was inviting the controversial, patron-saint-of-partisanship...er, Vice President to speak an ill-conceived move on the church’s behalf? Maybe. But what Walsh fails to point out is that church leadership aside, not all Mormons are on the Cheney bandwagon.
According to another editorial in The Tribune, a current BYU professor had this to say about Cheney’s visit, “If BYU seeks to bring a model of abuse of power, greed and political extremism, which seeks to decimate citizens’ rights guaranteed by our laws, then Cheney is the perfect choice.” Eeep! In that same spirit, BYU students and alumni created a petition website entitled, Oppose Vice President Dick Cheney’s BYU Commencement Speech. The site claims, “We are concerned that this action by BYU represents an unvoiced endorsement of one of our nation’s most controversial partisan figures, and serves to undermine the stated position of political neutrality held by BYU’s sponsoring institution, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” The site has accumulated over 2500 signatures so far.
There is a danger in oversimplifying the complexities of our political and religious lives in such a polarized community. I say let the veep speak and let those who wish to, protest his speech. Can’t we all just get along while we’re not getting along?
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
They are hosting a sit-in, and a faculty panel to discuss problems with Cheney's record in office. For more info google BYU Democrats or you can look them up their protest events in Facebook.
I think it is great that they are standing up being noticed on the national scene, to let people know that Mormon dems to exist.
It is both an intriguing model of publicness and public opinion being voiced on private land and an intensely mediated approach to criticism. I'll be reading more to find out the success or possibly other avenues of media attention and concern that may be addressed by avoiding the polarization that can happen when a group stand solely to oppose.
Here in Boise, we've all got our panties in a wad because there are too many "liberal" speakers, or because different people should select the speakers, or because a guy is speaking whose focus is on illegal immigrants, and lots of us don't like that because it smacks of benign racism.
And apparently Provo isn't much different. They invite a prominent guy who obviously has some background, and who therefore has plenty of detractors as well as supporters. (When you have opinions, and make them known, that's bound to happen in today's society.) Yet - people accuse the Mormon Church of political favoritism. Did these same folks wring their hands when Sen. Harry Reid spoke at the BYU Law School Commencement in 2004?
Criminy! Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) have spoken at BYU. Margaret Thatcher spoke there - she was never a wallflower.
In the words of that 20th-century scholar and statesman, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
I understand that America requires tough guys to defend against bad guys, but when the tough guys prey on the good guys is when I have a problem, but I suppose one can excuse even this with the belief that there are no good guys.
Your post is equally hostile. Protest and dissent are necessary parts of any system of government that retains some amount of freedom. Through this practice, people can engage in what remains of their democracy. To demonize protestors for exercising their right to participate in the democracy, you encourage a hostile polemic that moves both sides further from a solution, consensus or peaceful cohabitation. I have no feelings on your political alignments but, if you re-read the article, you may see that many who are protesting are interested in giving equal time. They are using the time for education. A far more dangerous weapon than simple mud-slinging at overly public figures or using patronizingly reductionist language to paint a group of individuals with similar political alignments all one brand of lunatic or fanatic.
rant smarter... not harder...
since when is using someone's own words as quotes "vile" and "angry"? Since when is summarizing their stated position rhetoric?
You don't like it, fine. Then say it's divisive, say that the quotes are taken out of context, dispute the summary, but just throwing out those labels doesn't further the conversation or make any sort of a point except that you are just as divisive as gc_wall.
There aren't a lot of dots to connect here. Cheney was head of Halliburton, the biggest military contractor around, when he was tapped to locate a running mate for W. Halliburton wasn't doing so well. With the end of the cold war the US military budget was slashed leading to a treasury surplus under Clinton. Without those lucrative contracts Halliburton was tanking and so was its CEO. But Mr. Cheney sacrificed his business career (or did he) and chose himself to be W's running mate. He dutifully put his 433,000 stock options in Halliburton into a blind trust. They weren't worth much at the time but he was, in the eyes of the law, ethically cleansed.
Then 9/11 happened which was just the circumstance for inciting public opinion Cheney had desired when he and the other neocons authored this manifesto in 1998 for enlarging US military presence in the Middle East, particularly Iraq because of our strategic interests (oil). http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Needless to say 9/11 was very convenient for implementation of the plan. Problem was the terrorists were being harbored in Afghanistan which had no oil. So Cheney and the other neocons (Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz) manufactured a reason to go to where the oil was, Iraq. When the first reason didn't pan out others were created. The metamorphosis of the rationale for this war would be almost laughable if it hadn't been so effective ; i.e. Iraq caused 9/11-(not true), WMDs-(never determined), bringing democracy to the freedom loving people of Iraq-(since when did this become a reason to invade any country?).
It worked and in so doing they managed to irk our traditional allies and sacrifice any goodwill our country had after 9/11. This made the US a lonelier place on the planet, hence having a greater need for military might. One of the first contracts let out of the Pentagon went to Halliburton. At the meeting to decide the recipient of the lucrative contract was the VP's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, now a convicted felon. He didn't say or do anything at the meeting, he was there for no reason anyone can determine and the contract did go to Halliburton as did many others. The neo cons horribly mismanaged the war leaving us in the precarious position we find ourselves.
Today the civilized world distrusts us, the Muslim world views us equal to Israel, the oil exporters view us as greedy for their oil, the families of the Iraqi dead will forever hate us and its becoming clearer to the American populace that we will likely have to keep paying for a better and larger military to protect us from the enemies we've created. Meanwhile Halliburton is enjoying record profits and has rewarded the US by moving its center of operations from Texas to Dubai. And gee, the VP's stock options are now not so worthless. He has created a great deal of personal goodwill with all companies that do business with the Pentagon. So you see he isn't kidding. We do have to come to terms with the mess he and the other neo cons have created for us. They looted the treasury, mortgaged your kids' future, and destabilized our national security assuring a huge military for forty years to come. Isn't it ironic that the most powerful nation on earth can't locate a decrepit old man, dependent on dialysis to live, and bring him to justice. Or do the neo cons still find him useful? I say "mission accomplished" Mr. VP.
A wise man and general once warned: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Too bad we didn't heed his advice. Not surprising that even students at BYU recognize the need to protest.
Make us proud, BYU!
And Erik, while gc_wall's post may have had some angry rhetoric, calling it "most vile" makes you look like a raving newbie, especially given that the vilest parts of it are factual.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/03/AR2007040301576.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
,,,and see whether you might be able to figure it out.
You lack the ability to debate, Erik. It's sad, but true. If you think you can defend your position, try, please. Unfortunately you'd rather play the martyr, the saint, the one who is compassionate as a cover for your lack of defense of Cheney's words.
The "why do I bother" is the frustration that is felt operating in a politicized system where one finds his/herself in the minority, isn't it? If you find that voicing an informed opinion is only met with genuine hostility, then you wind up in the situation that democrats were in for so long as they remained largely silent while Republicans used consistency in their public language to place all democrats under the umbrella of liberalism (which is clearly too broad a brush to cover all who identify with a democratic ethic). Then adding fangs a pointy tail and a trident to the picture of liberal, resulting in (just a few) bad feelings from the democrats. However, by tacitly accepting the terms of oppression in the power of the majority and not matching the Republican public language agenda (initially) democrats re-enforced the majority's assumed right to dictate their agenda as an ethical mandate (because by sheer numbers, their ethic dominates the public sphere for the time of their control of power).
Then, the dissent comes in and the balance of power is disputed and possibly shifts (2006 elections). It is natural that the recently challenged majority would be unwilling to relinquish their power and would be equally displeased if a new ethic is being put forth as if it speaks for all (using the same tactic of the previous authority but speaking in new ethical language).
This reversal of fortune could either draw both sides away from one another or offer an opportunity for both parties to recognize their complicity in oppression of the other at times that "their side" holds the power. As a state, we have not done this very well but each new reversal is an opportunity to learn right?
So, Erik, it is the hostility of the ethical language used, as if it is fact, the implication that this language is true / the actual ethical structure of my country and the hints to the legacy of oppression that this language embodies that I found hostile in your comments.
Debating is good though.
I find many of the other comments on this page hostile but some contain content that can be examined and I can ignore the rest.
Indeed Erik, I also don't want to discourage you from having your say. But in so doing you should be prepared to defend what you say and the source of your information. gc_wall may not be the eptiome of eloquence but he made some valid points to which your only response was how vile it was and combatting it with sweeping generalizations. Try this, avoid using any adjectives in your next response and provide citations to any statements you suspect might be controversial. You will be far more pursuasive. And if you don't want to be attacked try to aviod doing so. yourself.