Book Report: Cheney: The Untold Story of America's most Powerful and Controversial Vice President

If you believe Socrates when he said "The unexamined life is not worth living," then it stands to reason that the unexamining biography is not worth reading. I have just finished Stephen Hayes' "Cheney: The Untold Story of America's most Powerful and Controversial Vice President," and I'm frustrated and feel like I've wasted my time. I don't think Hayes meant the title ironically, but the most striking thing about this book is that it fills 595 pages with well-executed narrative prose, and yet keeps the most interesting parts of the Vice President's story blatantly untold.

It is quite clear from the first page of this book that Dick Cheney wants to keep it that way. He doesn't talk much by nature; he is a public figure who hates publicity. On top of that, he is a "republican" not only by party, but also in that he interprets the U.S. government as a strict representative republic. As far as the Vice President is concerned, citizens' involvement in government begins and ends with choosing politicians. Once elected, "public service" consists of doing exactly what Dick Cheney sees fit, with minimal consideration for anyone else, including those other two pesky branches of government and the public that elected him.

The implication is that we're lucky to get what scraps of information Cheney is willing to throw us, and Hayes goes along and tries his best to spin Cheney as an admirable, strong, silent type of real Western American manhood. Well, that would have worked out if Cheney's actions as Vice President had been successful and his motivations had been transparent. If we willfully ignore the usual right-wing vs left-wing debate over whether Cheney was actually "successful" or not, (and that isn't easy when reading this book because Hayes so blatantly slants it to the right) no sane person could make the claim that Cheney's motivations are easy to figure.

In cases like this, we rely on journalists and historians to at least dig out the facts and put them in some kind of context where we can interpret them, and if they're really good, perhaps explore some alternative explanations for these facts. Unfortunately for readers of this book, Hayes chooses to write as a propagandist rather than a journalist or historian. As a good propagandist, Hayes doesn't exactly lie, though he comes closest when a Clinton or Gore comes into the picture and he does the expected right-wing foaming at the mouth. Most often, Hayes just tells half the story, and interprets it in the way that would best please Cheney.

The result is maddening. Not only does Hayes not criticize Cheney for any of his questionable actions or less-than-perfect results, but he does not defend him either. According to Hayes, Cheney never made a mistake. He was simply always right about everything that mattered, so has no need to be defended. Hayes trots out the facts and quotes that support Cheney's views, and ignores everything else. Cheney's critics and political enemies do make plenty of appearances in this book, but only to be denigrated and dismissed. The frustrating thing is that Hayes' attacks on Cheney's critics are usually misdirections. He finds some unrelated fault with their story or with them, and hammers away at it, ignoring the substance of the criticism.

So, in summary, the English is great, but the glorification of all things Cheney is weak, clumsy, and full of holes. If you are moderate or leftist, you will probably throw this book away before you finish it. If you're far right-wing, you will probably like this book, but it's bad for you, amounting to seductive falsehood. It will keep you from the self-examination you need to move on from the head-in-the-sand mentality that plagues the writer and his subject. Read Scott McLellan, read Bob Woodward, read the 9-11 commission report for more facts about Cheney, read "Angler" by Barton Gellman. Leave this book to the obscurity it deserves.