The left leaning media has distorted this story greatly. It is not an example of "cancel culture," but rather a party taking over its own leadership. This would be happening to the Democrats if Biden had not become a full throated progressive in his policies. AOC and others would be challenging Democratic leadership. Moreover, if a single democrat ever ONCE spoke out against Critical Race Theory or cancel culture or the debate over biology and trans rights and if they then went on Fox News and spoke to Tucker Carlson about it - do you think the Democrats would stand for that? Not a chance. Moreover, they seem to only care about "cancel culture" when it applies to Liz Cheney - then suddenly they care. Well, which is it? Liz Cheney was not doing what they want her to do - and is instead helping Democrats stay powerful. If it were "cancel culture" they would have forced her to resign as the Democrats did with Al Franken. They have every right to vote out the leadership they don't want. The left - and especially the left press - continue to be obsessed with Trump even though he isn't even on social media or anywhere in their line of sight. They can't let go. Not to mention, that THIS is the obsession during a week of devastating violence in the Middle East, gas lines, ongoing unemployment and growing fear -- tells you everything about the current state of the Democratic Party and the the massive media machine that does its bidding.
Iran? Trump? This author seriously compares The politics of Trump to Iran? Trump was and is no threat to our “liberal Democracy” — in fact a bigger threat to our liberal Democracy is the politics of those like the author’s, or Liz Cheney’s.
You see, I didn’t vote for Trump, either in 2016 or in 2020. I voted for Hillary and then Jorgensen. Between 2016 and today, the faction that was obsessed with ideological purity more than any other was that of the Progressives in the Democratic Party. Even the reason the author is happy with Cheney is because she satisfies his ideological purity, at least regard to his delusion that believing the results of an election was caused by fraud(which the the Democratic Party asserted was essentially the case with Trump and the Russians for 4 years) is somehow a threat to American Democracy(tm).
Personally I don’t think voter fraud is why Trump lost, but I don’t think there is any problem with people believing that it was so—that’s their right. Nor do I assume that Republicans are *lying* when they say it is the reason; they could just be *wrong*. Because someone thinks something we think is false doesn’t mean they are lying. When Christians say that Jesus was a god, I don’t think they are lying, I think they are wrong. When Democrats say that climate change will destroy the earth in 12 years.... well... when AOC says it I think she is lying, but when the average Democratic Party voter says it, I think they are just in error.
Now, Trump being Trump, and the delusional narcissist he is, I think it is highly plausible that he believes that the reason he lost was because of voter fraud. Thus for Democrats... and Liz Cheney, to say that Trump losing because of election fraud is a LIE, I think... no it’s just a conspiracy theory like the idea that Hillary lost in 2016. Hillary though is not the sort of delusional narcissist that Trump is; she is just a lizard person—thus I suspect actually she lies about that, and the Democratic Party leaders as well simply because they know that the Democratic Party base are gullible loyalists, which can easily be demonstrated by the fact that the Democratic Party have on their website in their history link that they have been fighting for civil rights for 200 years when 150 years ago they fought a war to preserve slavery, and no Democrats seem to give a fuk.
Cheney isn’t spreading the Democratic Party narrative because she is a warrior for truth, as she portrays herself, she does so because she hates Trump, maybe because he denounced the Iraq War, which was itself based on lies, and which Cheney still supports. So to applaud Cheney simply because she shares a shred of the ideological purity of the Democratic Party, that DEMOCRACY IS UNDER ATTACK by Trump, when the Democratic Party admitted in court that they didn’t give 2 shits about democracy when running their own primaries and then spent 4 years attempting to remove an elected president under the banner of a conspiracy theory, is itself just base factionalism. As is the author’s post. “We [progressives]” — I’m certainly not part of the authors faction. But I’m acutely aware of its demand for ideological purity: climate change, “anti racism”, abortion, cultural relativism, post modern gender theory, economic “equity”.
I suspect the Democratic Party would not keep a senator in a party leadership position if they for some miraculous reason began to denounce the Democratic Party’s perverse flirtation with “investigating” how “America”, and innocent immigrants, should pay reparations for the legacy of slavery, which is actually the Democratic Party’s legacy. If a Democratic Party senator actually had the nobility to demand the Party of Slavery finally redeem itself for fighting a war to keep slavery and its 100 year terrorism of black people, and pay reparations themselves from their own wealth and power that they derive from slavery — well I do not suspect that senator would remain in their position of power and the author would not be writing trite horseshit about diversity of thought. He would be calling for that senator to be purged as being disloyal to the Democratic Party and its BIG LIE.
And despite our country’s current political factionalism it is no where near the political conditions of Iran. May the matrix bless the USA.
Only in the backwards world of absolute contrarianism and anti-progressivism would the major issue related to Cheney be the *progressive* response to her recent GOP defection.
I like how you add a fig leaf at the beginning about how “yeah the GOP is bad for defenestrating her from the party because she refuses to falsely claim the election was stolen”, but then the remainder of the piece is dedicated to the liberal response to this mess, and *their* demands of ideological purity.
For the record, I’ve seen countless journalists and liberal politicians defending Cheney on tv and in print again and again. It might be out of self-interest, but it’s happening frequently. If all you’ve seen is progressive critiques of Rep Cheney, in spite of her brave stance against the former President and the remainder of her party, perhaps that’s on you?
This is a great piece Shay, unfortunately, it will fall on deaf ears, as many on the left are as illiberal as the people on the right they despise - Cheney among them. A plague on both our houses...and I'm afraid that the left bears more responsibility for illiberalism in our country than does the right. The left has rampaged its way through nearly all cultural institutions with Maoist intensity and focus - while the right's illiberalism is largely a spasmodic, angry response to leftist hegemony.
You only need to look at the media, Hollywood, the academy, and now leftist corporations preaching CRT (I had my struggle sessions this month at work) to realize how much the new Woke Religion is pressing into our lives - against our will. The right doesn't have a program to fight it, so they elect leaders who are willing to raise the middle finger and piss on Woke Orthodoxy.
If this were a Christian revival, instead of a new progressive, state religion, it would be fought by the left with massive intensity - and we all know it. Leftists have found a way to break down the separation of church and state: just leave out the church and create a new functional religion that supports their statist and (now) Marxist objectives.
The second paragraph of this article is dangerously naive, and perfectly encapsulates why this whole article is just ridiculous. “Americans have always agreed that diversity is our greatest strength,” is a demonstrably false statement, and Liz Cheney’s refusal to recognize her own sister’s humanity is just one example of it. You only need to watch one night of Fox News’s prime time shows to understand how untrue that is. They’ll inform you that democracy is in danger, not because of Trump, but because of the increase in America’s black and brown populations (otherwise known as diversity). But don’t stop there, take an good look at the history of the United States and start being honest with yourself. The ruling class has resisted democracy and diversity very strongly since its founding. John Jay said, “those who own the country should govern it,” and his was the popular opinion amongst the political elite at the time. The book The Founder’s Coup by Harvard Law professor Michael Klarman documents this very well, I suggest you read it. I suggest you read some slave memoirs, Incidents in the Life Of A Slave Girl is a good one; or some James Baldwin, or The Autobiography of Malcolm X and start to come to terms with the fact that America is not what it purports to be. If you think this is in our past, consider the fact that Ahmaud Arbery’s Murders are currently citing a citizens arrest law passed in the middle of the civil war in defense of the modern day lynching they took part in. The law was passed so white citizens could legally arrest black people escaping from slavery, and it wasn’t repealed until this week. If you want more recent history and how intolerant America is of diversity - not just racial, but of political thought - I recommend you read about America’s maniacal and extremely violent global war against leftist political ideology. The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins is very eye opening. Read Kissinger’s Shadow by Greg Grandin. Talk to a leftist from Guatamala, El Salvador, Honduras, Brazil, Chile, Vietnam, Indonesia, and ask them if America values diversity. Asking progressives to stand in solidarity with Liz Cheney is not just delusional, it’s ignorant, because Liz Cheney is no friend to progress.
If we lived in a world where we could draw a nice neat line between Good and Evil as easily as you'd choose up sides on a playground, where no one was good in some ways and bad in others, right about some things and wrong about other things, liberal democracy would be naive at best if not immoral. It's because the real world is nothing like that that it's a better way.
Geez, why is everybody bent out of shape about ideological purity when it comes to Cheney.
1. Who cares? For people opposing Trump, the only question is whether her defection will split the GOP or just be a prick on the finger to Trumpists. Cheney made a political decision and took a political risk. Whatever her 'moral ' motives is irrelevant. 2. What does Cheney know? She is from a well-connected political family. I would assume she's astute enough to firmly asses the environment within the Republican Party and took a path she believes she can win and benefit from. She is not going to to go against her self-interest. (Glen Greenwald writes that her aim is to return neo-conservatism to the lead in US foreign policy. ) 3. Cheney's ouster was a political hit job, not cancel culture.
I regard Liz Cheney as a vital ally in preserving American democracy. I believe she has taken a very brave stand. I do not however regard her as a hero. Liz Cheney voted not to impeach Trump for abuse of power in the first impeachment proceeding. Let's recall that in that instance Trump attempted to get false statements from a foreign leader through the illegitimate and coercive use of financial/military aid. The purpose was to undermine the candidacy of his political opponent, Joe Biden by using the office of the president to do so. I regard that as the first step in a continuous chain that leads to the insurrection of Jan. 6. This is not a demand for ideological purity but rather a recognition that Ms. Cheney also needs to be held accountable along with everyone else who facilitated Trumps efforts to undermine the election. Ms. Cheney also voted not to restore parts of the Voting Rights act. This is again, not a question of ideological purity but a vote to further the efforts of the Republican party to undermine the democratic concept of majority rule by attempting to disenfranchise voters who disagree with them. This was an early step in an extraordinarily dangerous process in which we now see over 100 voter suppression laws being introduced in Republican held state legislatures, aimed at allowing a party which does not believe it can actually and consistently appeal successfully to a majority of voters, particularly voters of color, stay in power. Nevertheless, with eyes wide open I welcome Liz Cheney as a true and staunch ally in the fight to preserve our (very) threatened democracy.
"Ideological purity" is a strong concept. Most progressives I know applaud Cheney for her stance. Normally, I would too. But accusing the D party of "infanticide" crosses my one line (NBC, Meet the Press, 2019).
Good article. A fair additional point would be that ideological purity has been a major factor in the increased tribalism in the US. Our groupings have become more numerous & more exclusive. This also makes them smaller & more intense. Most importantly, the focus tends to become an argument over our differences rather than our similarities—why we are separate rather than how we can work together despite our differences.
My example would be within religion. The Amish have gone from one religious doctrine to several. Each time the split was based on some element of discord. Look at the number of religious denominations in the US today, including non-denominational groupings. Heck, they now even seem geographical (Southern Baptist).
This translates to the political parties today. The Democratic party is struggling with how to enjoin gun rights & right to life advocates into the fold. This would be a broadening of liberalism and the “tribe”. The GOP, of course, is on a reverse course.
The left leaning media has distorted this story greatly. It is not an example of "cancel culture," but rather a party taking over its own leadership. This would be happening to the Democrats if Biden had not become a full throated progressive in his policies. AOC and others would be challenging Democratic leadership. Moreover, if a single democrat ever ONCE spoke out against Critical Race Theory or cancel culture or the debate over biology and trans rights and if they then went on Fox News and spoke to Tucker Carlson about it - do you think the Democrats would stand for that? Not a chance. Moreover, they seem to only care about "cancel culture" when it applies to Liz Cheney - then suddenly they care. Well, which is it? Liz Cheney was not doing what they want her to do - and is instead helping Democrats stay powerful. If it were "cancel culture" they would have forced her to resign as the Democrats did with Al Franken. They have every right to vote out the leadership they don't want. The left - and especially the left press - continue to be obsessed with Trump even though he isn't even on social media or anywhere in their line of sight. They can't let go. Not to mention, that THIS is the obsession during a week of devastating violence in the Middle East, gas lines, ongoing unemployment and growing fear -- tells you everything about the current state of the Democratic Party and the the massive media machine that does its bidding.
This is a very silly post.
Iran? Trump? This author seriously compares The politics of Trump to Iran? Trump was and is no threat to our “liberal Democracy” — in fact a bigger threat to our liberal Democracy is the politics of those like the author’s, or Liz Cheney’s.
You see, I didn’t vote for Trump, either in 2016 or in 2020. I voted for Hillary and then Jorgensen. Between 2016 and today, the faction that was obsessed with ideological purity more than any other was that of the Progressives in the Democratic Party. Even the reason the author is happy with Cheney is because she satisfies his ideological purity, at least regard to his delusion that believing the results of an election was caused by fraud(which the the Democratic Party asserted was essentially the case with Trump and the Russians for 4 years) is somehow a threat to American Democracy(tm).
Personally I don’t think voter fraud is why Trump lost, but I don’t think there is any problem with people believing that it was so—that’s their right. Nor do I assume that Republicans are *lying* when they say it is the reason; they could just be *wrong*. Because someone thinks something we think is false doesn’t mean they are lying. When Christians say that Jesus was a god, I don’t think they are lying, I think they are wrong. When Democrats say that climate change will destroy the earth in 12 years.... well... when AOC says it I think she is lying, but when the average Democratic Party voter says it, I think they are just in error.
Now, Trump being Trump, and the delusional narcissist he is, I think it is highly plausible that he believes that the reason he lost was because of voter fraud. Thus for Democrats... and Liz Cheney, to say that Trump losing because of election fraud is a LIE, I think... no it’s just a conspiracy theory like the idea that Hillary lost in 2016. Hillary though is not the sort of delusional narcissist that Trump is; she is just a lizard person—thus I suspect actually she lies about that, and the Democratic Party leaders as well simply because they know that the Democratic Party base are gullible loyalists, which can easily be demonstrated by the fact that the Democratic Party have on their website in their history link that they have been fighting for civil rights for 200 years when 150 years ago they fought a war to preserve slavery, and no Democrats seem to give a fuk.
Cheney isn’t spreading the Democratic Party narrative because she is a warrior for truth, as she portrays herself, she does so because she hates Trump, maybe because he denounced the Iraq War, which was itself based on lies, and which Cheney still supports. So to applaud Cheney simply because she shares a shred of the ideological purity of the Democratic Party, that DEMOCRACY IS UNDER ATTACK by Trump, when the Democratic Party admitted in court that they didn’t give 2 shits about democracy when running their own primaries and then spent 4 years attempting to remove an elected president under the banner of a conspiracy theory, is itself just base factionalism. As is the author’s post. “We [progressives]” — I’m certainly not part of the authors faction. But I’m acutely aware of its demand for ideological purity: climate change, “anti racism”, abortion, cultural relativism, post modern gender theory, economic “equity”.
I suspect the Democratic Party would not keep a senator in a party leadership position if they for some miraculous reason began to denounce the Democratic Party’s perverse flirtation with “investigating” how “America”, and innocent immigrants, should pay reparations for the legacy of slavery, which is actually the Democratic Party’s legacy. If a Democratic Party senator actually had the nobility to demand the Party of Slavery finally redeem itself for fighting a war to keep slavery and its 100 year terrorism of black people, and pay reparations themselves from their own wealth and power that they derive from slavery — well I do not suspect that senator would remain in their position of power and the author would not be writing trite horseshit about diversity of thought. He would be calling for that senator to be purged as being disloyal to the Democratic Party and its BIG LIE.
And despite our country’s current political factionalism it is no where near the political conditions of Iran. May the matrix bless the USA.
Only in the backwards world of absolute contrarianism and anti-progressivism would the major issue related to Cheney be the *progressive* response to her recent GOP defection.
I like how you add a fig leaf at the beginning about how “yeah the GOP is bad for defenestrating her from the party because she refuses to falsely claim the election was stolen”, but then the remainder of the piece is dedicated to the liberal response to this mess, and *their* demands of ideological purity.
For the record, I’ve seen countless journalists and liberal politicians defending Cheney on tv and in print again and again. It might be out of self-interest, but it’s happening frequently. If all you’ve seen is progressive critiques of Rep Cheney, in spite of her brave stance against the former President and the remainder of her party, perhaps that’s on you?
This is a great piece Shay, unfortunately, it will fall on deaf ears, as many on the left are as illiberal as the people on the right they despise - Cheney among them. A plague on both our houses...and I'm afraid that the left bears more responsibility for illiberalism in our country than does the right. The left has rampaged its way through nearly all cultural institutions with Maoist intensity and focus - while the right's illiberalism is largely a spasmodic, angry response to leftist hegemony.
You only need to look at the media, Hollywood, the academy, and now leftist corporations preaching CRT (I had my struggle sessions this month at work) to realize how much the new Woke Religion is pressing into our lives - against our will. The right doesn't have a program to fight it, so they elect leaders who are willing to raise the middle finger and piss on Woke Orthodoxy.
If this were a Christian revival, instead of a new progressive, state religion, it would be fought by the left with massive intensity - and we all know it. Leftists have found a way to break down the separation of church and state: just leave out the church and create a new functional religion that supports their statist and (now) Marxist objectives.
The second paragraph of this article is dangerously naive, and perfectly encapsulates why this whole article is just ridiculous. “Americans have always agreed that diversity is our greatest strength,” is a demonstrably false statement, and Liz Cheney’s refusal to recognize her own sister’s humanity is just one example of it. You only need to watch one night of Fox News’s prime time shows to understand how untrue that is. They’ll inform you that democracy is in danger, not because of Trump, but because of the increase in America’s black and brown populations (otherwise known as diversity). But don’t stop there, take an good look at the history of the United States and start being honest with yourself. The ruling class has resisted democracy and diversity very strongly since its founding. John Jay said, “those who own the country should govern it,” and his was the popular opinion amongst the political elite at the time. The book The Founder’s Coup by Harvard Law professor Michael Klarman documents this very well, I suggest you read it. I suggest you read some slave memoirs, Incidents in the Life Of A Slave Girl is a good one; or some James Baldwin, or The Autobiography of Malcolm X and start to come to terms with the fact that America is not what it purports to be. If you think this is in our past, consider the fact that Ahmaud Arbery’s Murders are currently citing a citizens arrest law passed in the middle of the civil war in defense of the modern day lynching they took part in. The law was passed so white citizens could legally arrest black people escaping from slavery, and it wasn’t repealed until this week. If you want more recent history and how intolerant America is of diversity - not just racial, but of political thought - I recommend you read about America’s maniacal and extremely violent global war against leftist political ideology. The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins is very eye opening. Read Kissinger’s Shadow by Greg Grandin. Talk to a leftist from Guatamala, El Salvador, Honduras, Brazil, Chile, Vietnam, Indonesia, and ask them if America values diversity. Asking progressives to stand in solidarity with Liz Cheney is not just delusional, it’s ignorant, because Liz Cheney is no friend to progress.
If we lived in a world where we could draw a nice neat line between Good and Evil as easily as you'd choose up sides on a playground, where no one was good in some ways and bad in others, right about some things and wrong about other things, liberal democracy would be naive at best if not immoral. It's because the real world is nothing like that that it's a better way.
Geez, why is everybody bent out of shape about ideological purity when it comes to Cheney.
1. Who cares? For people opposing Trump, the only question is whether her defection will split the GOP or just be a prick on the finger to Trumpists. Cheney made a political decision and took a political risk. Whatever her 'moral ' motives is irrelevant. 2. What does Cheney know? She is from a well-connected political family. I would assume she's astute enough to firmly asses the environment within the Republican Party and took a path she believes she can win and benefit from. She is not going to to go against her self-interest. (Glen Greenwald writes that her aim is to return neo-conservatism to the lead in US foreign policy. ) 3. Cheney's ouster was a political hit job, not cancel culture.
I regard Liz Cheney as a vital ally in preserving American democracy. I believe she has taken a very brave stand. I do not however regard her as a hero. Liz Cheney voted not to impeach Trump for abuse of power in the first impeachment proceeding. Let's recall that in that instance Trump attempted to get false statements from a foreign leader through the illegitimate and coercive use of financial/military aid. The purpose was to undermine the candidacy of his political opponent, Joe Biden by using the office of the president to do so. I regard that as the first step in a continuous chain that leads to the insurrection of Jan. 6. This is not a demand for ideological purity but rather a recognition that Ms. Cheney also needs to be held accountable along with everyone else who facilitated Trumps efforts to undermine the election. Ms. Cheney also voted not to restore parts of the Voting Rights act. This is again, not a question of ideological purity but a vote to further the efforts of the Republican party to undermine the democratic concept of majority rule by attempting to disenfranchise voters who disagree with them. This was an early step in an extraordinarily dangerous process in which we now see over 100 voter suppression laws being introduced in Republican held state legislatures, aimed at allowing a party which does not believe it can actually and consistently appeal successfully to a majority of voters, particularly voters of color, stay in power. Nevertheless, with eyes wide open I welcome Liz Cheney as a true and staunch ally in the fight to preserve our (very) threatened democracy.
"Ideological purity" is a strong concept. Most progressives I know applaud Cheney for her stance. Normally, I would too. But accusing the D party of "infanticide" crosses my one line (NBC, Meet the Press, 2019).
Good article. A fair additional point would be that ideological purity has been a major factor in the increased tribalism in the US. Our groupings have become more numerous & more exclusive. This also makes them smaller & more intense. Most importantly, the focus tends to become an argument over our differences rather than our similarities—why we are separate rather than how we can work together despite our differences.
My example would be within religion. The Amish have gone from one religious doctrine to several. Each time the split was based on some element of discord. Look at the number of religious denominations in the US today, including non-denominational groupings. Heck, they now even seem geographical (Southern Baptist).
This translates to the political parties today. The Democratic party is struggling with how to enjoin gun rights & right to life advocates into the fold. This would be a broadening of liberalism and the “tribe”. The GOP, of course, is on a reverse course.
Their “tribe” is now in the process of splitting.