Liz Cheney Wants to Save Democracy From Trump's Next Coup
By: Jonathan Chait (Intelligencer)
Republican Liz Cheney has written an op-ed forcefully denouncing Donald Trump's assault on American democracy.
Republicans are angry and plan to remove her from her House leadership post.
Cheney understands the stakes.
Trump is leading the Republican Party into fascism.
The Republican Party is happily following.
Germany's great capitalist corporations thrived under Hitler's rule.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
But in the current moment, frighteningly enough, her argument has identified the central question in American politics: the survival of democracy against the threat posed by Donald Trump, who is "seeking to unravel critical elements of our constitutional structure that make democracy work — confidence in the result of elections and the rule of law."
Precisely because Cheney's reasoning is so simple, many people have failed to grasp how radical, brave, and essential her position is.
The primary argument in How Democracies Die , by Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky, is that the survival of a democratic regime against an authoritarian threat usually comes down to choices made by ideological allies of the authoritarian side. They can decide either to support an authoritarian party or leader that advances their policy agenda, or break from their natural allies and defend the system. According to their historical study of threats against democratic regimes, when the authoritarian candidate's allies defect and join with their natural ideological opponents to save the system, democracies survive.
When they stay loyal to their normal partners, on the other hand, democracy perishes. (The term Ziblatt and Levitsky borrow for this fateful latter decision is "ideological collusion" — choosing to win by subverting democracy rather than saving the system by joining with their ideological opponents.)
Democracy is not an issue you can simply put aside, or even weigh alongside all the other issues. It's a foundational issue — the one decision that has to be settled before any other political question can be considered.
That fate of American democracy is the biggest issue in American politics. The system survived Trump's often clumsy efforts to subvert it. But the threat is far from over. A majority of Republican voters believe Trump's lie that the election was stolen, and this belief has been the most important driver of their post-election behavior. Republican-controlled states are implementing voting restrictions to placate this lie; Republican officials who refused to go along with Trump's autogolpe are being removed from their positions.
The Bulwark's Jonathan Last recently argued that Trump's election lie is the Republican autopsy. "Republicans are already well on their way to marshaling the political will to do whatever the law even theoretically might allow in pursuit of power," he argued. In 2020, a handful of key Republican actors were unwilling to use the full extent of their power to overturn the result and either assign electoral votes to their party using their control of state government, or throw the contest to the House.
Trump is both extending his control over the party and ensuring that his anti-democratic ideology is no longer challenged. He is training his party to join him in subverting the next election.
Cheney's Republican critics are mostly willing to let her continue to disagree with Trump's lie. What they cannot abide is her vocalizing her belief. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), reportedly complained in a caucus meeting about her "defiant attitude" and failure to be a "team player."
Eliana Johnson, editor of the Washington Free Beacon, perfectly explains the mainstream view within the party. The party's operatives and politicians are "eager to put the divisions of the past four years behind them" and resent Cheney for "continuing to draw attention to an issue that divides Republicans, rather than training her fire on the Biden administration."
What they want, in other words, is for Cheney to put aside her concern about the survival of democracy in America and instead focus on matters that unite the Republican party's authoritarian and democratic wings. They're demanding, in so many words, ideological collusion. She should cooperate with Trump for the benefit of their shared opposition to Biden's agenda. Trump and his allies in the party and conservative media can continue propagating their big lie and organizing for the next assault on the system, and they can try to divert that energy to halt Biden's plans to raise the capital gains tax, which after all, is the really important thing in their minds.
Cheney, of course, shares the party's objectives on nearly every one of these issues. It is because she is such a partisan, conservative Republican that her dissent is so significant. There is no hidden agenda at work, no subtext of quiet sympathy for Biden's policies. Cheney believes in right-wing policy and settling control of government at the ballot box.
The Republican Party is sliding into authoritarianism at a terrifyingly rapid clip. To stand by is to let it happen. Republicans who have reservations about this trend have tried quiet hand-wringing for five years. It hasn't worked. Somebody has to fight back, and Cheney has volunteered for the role.
Tags
Who is online
43 visitors
By posting to this seed, you are agreeing to abide by the Group's Rules .
And he is succeeding in that. One only has to look at the likes of Graham, McCarthy, et al to see it.
I am very dubious about the survival of the United States as an effective democracy... at a relatively short term.
I'm less pessimistic about the survival of our democracy overall. Trumpism did get pushed back in the end. Those that participated in the insurrection of Jan 6th have (and are) being arrested, charged and judged. The number of conservatives not on the Trump train are more than the number of those actively gaslighting for Trump. Those remaining silent will waffle which ever way they perceive the political winds blow.
This doesn't mean I'm not concerned about further pockets of violent rebellion, either. As Trumpism ratchets up it's rhetoric and whips it's base to a frothy pitch some will act. I'm just hoping the worst of them are caught before things get ugly.
"I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work." ---Kent Brockman, The Simpsons.
It is amazing to me that so many people are so blinded by partisanship that they actually believe Trump won the election. This is just brain-dead stupid. And those who know this is a lie yet pretend it is true are themselves contemptible liars.
Partisan politics just seems to degrade further every year.
Not "partisan politics in general". Just Republican partisan politics.
There is nothing on the Democratic side comparable to Trump-McConnell-McCarthy; There is nothing comparable to the "Trump really won" Big Lie. There is nothing comparable to the Republicans' blatant and cynical voter suppression.
It's a mistake - a serious mistake - to imply that the parties are symmetrical. One is determined to destroy democracy in America; the other is not. That's a rather important distinction.
The Rs have definitely gone off the deep end this year. But it is naive (and arguably partisan) to claim that degrading partisan politics exclusively occurs in one party.
I agree with that today. Note that I did not imply otherwise.
I hate it when people try to twist my comments. The parties are not identical and the Rs clearly are the target of my frustration right now (and for good reason, they seem out of their collective minds). But don't try to argue that the D party does not engage in partisan politics.
Don't turn a point of agreement into disagreement.
My point is that a "true" statement may be very misleading.
We have two major parties. If one of them degrades (on a ten-point scale) from 7 to 3, while the other improves from 7 to 8... the overall situation has degraded.
Your statement is perfectly true. And it is misleading.
I did not state a time frame: "Partisan politics just seems to degrade further every year." I spoke about the general trend in politics. You imposed a time-frame.
Now, given the time-frame you imposed, I have already provided my position. And I strongly disagree that (strictly) currently the D party is so pure in terms of not being partisan. The R party currently is abysmal (I would give them a 1 not a 3), but the D party sucks too (maybe a 5). Let's see what happens with the court packing threat or making D.C. a state.
I'm not sure we define ''partisan politics'' in the same way.
For me, having different policy positions is not a problem. Using underhanded methods to attain them is a problem. The latter is what I call ''partisan politics''.
''Court packing'' is a good example. Mitch McConnell has used underhanded methods to keep democratic nominees off the court. He violated the spirit of the Constitution. Is it reasonable to require the Democrats to ''play by the rules''?
There are more American citizens living in D.C. than in Wyoming or Vermont. It's logical that they should have representation in Congress. Only exacerbated partisan politics prevents this.
Filibuster?
It is reasonable to require all elected officials to play by the rules. True also of all government workers.
It is unrealistic to expect that they will.
Packing the court is perfectly legal. Is it OK? If not, why?
The problem lies in the reason for adding to the court. If the reason is simply to change the political dynamics of the court then that goes against the spirit of the CotUS. The SCotUS is intended to be apolitical. We all know that is an ideal given no human being is purely objective and political entities seat the justices. But to increase the size of the court just to 'catch up' is an extraordinary act and is clearly a purely political move. I am against that.
Now, if there was a good reason to increase the size of the court such as workload on the justices, that would be a different matter. Given the current SCotUS seems to be quite against increasing the size of the court, it does not seem likely that such a good reason exists.
The Republicans violated the spirit of the Constitution by blocking Democratic nominees.
Why shouldn't the Dems compensate by packing?
Are you really arguing that because one party did a bad the other party should do bad too?
I will argue that neither party should violate the spirit of the CotUS and that a wrong by one does not justify a wrong by the other.
The pragmatic problem with your position is that it rewards ''skirting'', kinda like NT...
If there's no penalty for McConnell, why should he ever have any policy other than ''obstruction by any means''?
McConnell ran all over Obama, doing precisely this.
(Bed time...)
I disagree. To not do that perpetuates bad. Punish in an ethical, constitutional fashion — not by violating the spirit of the CotUS (or other bad method).
We'll have to agree to disagree...