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.
Clearly you've never heard of Elissa Slotkin, Connor Lamb, Joe Manchin, Krysten Sinema, Abigail Spanberger, etc etc etc. Oh, don't forgot about Obama's speech deriding woke culture (just need to google 'Obama Woke Culture Speech' to find it). I don't agree with the Al Franken debacle at all, but it was at least based on addressing a real problem (sexual harassment).
The current Democratic party is a big tent with diverse viewpoints with some illiberal problematic elements in it. The current GOP is primarily becoming an illiberal party that considers diverse viewpoints within it a problem. Period.
Obama made that comment way before things got really bad and you know it. Or you should know it. Please tell me when any of those you named have criticized Critical Race Theory in public and on Fox News and called it a threat to the country. You are 100% incorrect about the state of the Democratic Party. There has never been in our history a more illiberal Democratic Party and Left overall. The Democrats are now the party of conformity and censorship. We have handed over free speech to the GOP and now they will run with it. Pretending to suddenly care in order to use Liz Cheney as a pawn is shameful.
Yes, an Illiberal party would vote for Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Most democratic voters are suburbanites and college-educated folks who just want people to have decent health care, a living wage, and want to make sure to not completely wreck the environment. Twitter isn't real life.
Exactly and how is that working out for the moderates who voted for that guy? Did they get that guy? NO they did not get that guy. Voters voted for the centrist and they got the Bernie Sanders. I personally don't mind particularly myself but I imagine there are people out there who feel like it was a bait and switch. Biden barely campaigned. He didn't have to. He had the media and Twitter doing it for him. He had an unprecedented effort to put him in power so voters had no clue what they were voting for. They were voting for an idea, a ghost, a person who no longer exists. So give me a break, okay? We got a Bernie Sanders. We didn't get a Joe Biden. The Joe Biden I knew would have stood up to the left in its current form.
Exactly. A centrist would say "I'm not signing any legislation unless it can pass the 60 vote threshold under regular order". Instead, we are getting bitterly partisan spending bills that are leading us directly to the 70's again - except without the disco and cocaine. At least that was fun. This sucks. Hey, enjoy the inflation, gas lines, high unemployment, and Iran on a rampage...
You’re delusional. Bernie campaigned on M4All, 15 dollar minimum wage, universal college education, cancelling student debts, and the green new deal. None of these things have happened.
You're dishonest. Biden is shoring up Obamacare with billions, tried to get the 15 dollar Min Wage into the covid relief bill but was turned down by the parliamentarian. Biden is proposing free community college, student debt relief, and massive climate spending as part of the "infrastructure" bill. It's a difference of degree, not kind - gated by realistic politics. Again, be honest. Sanders and AOC are HAPPY with the direction of this administration...and it's only bound by the fact that they don't have supermajorities in both houses. Thank God.
Joe is a Beard. You know it. He's governing mostly the same way Sanders and AOC would given the current situation. Never has the tone and the policy been more different. Centrists voted for Joe because he was moderate in tone and "not Trump". The fact that he's governing like LBJ and FDR instead of Clinton or Obama is meaningful.
Bernie campaigned on M4All, 15 dollar minimum wage, universal college education, cancelling student debts, and the green new deal. None of these things have happened. FDR’s new deal was so much more comprehensive and progressive than anything Biden has done. Seriously you people are delusional.
I'm inclined to agree with most of what you say, but not its tone. We certainly are heading toward a dangerously polarized society. My problem with your rejoinder lies in the word "they." I'm a Democrat, and have been one for more than 50 years. I think critical race theory is silly and a bit dangerous. I think the most important problem we face upon ending the pandemic will be to reduce our polarization, and this can only happen if we are prepared to treat each other as potentially rational individuals.
The GOP has no ideology about critical race theory or whatever. It just has a man in Florida they have to appease. That's why Elise Stefanik is going to get the job despite having a worse voting record than Cheney. Chip Roy is also more consrvative than Stefanik, but Trump attacked him yesterday because Roy has consistently been unwilling to say the election was stolen.
That is the narrative from the left press. I get it. There are two things you have to know. The first, there is a faction of the Trump movement that is all in on election "fraud." The other is that Trumpism is alive and well with or without Trump. What that is: America First policies, which the Left has deemed "racist." But that is what appeals to the new Right, with or without Trump. The Left can't let go of the election - that is all they apparently have since they can't criticize themselves for destroying the party. But anyone who spends even a tiny bit of time listening to the chatter in Trump World understands it's less about Trump and more about what Trump did: stand up to the left.
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.
That 'graph in the essay is easy to criticize. It speaks in absolutes (which are almost always wrong) and it woefully overstates the the value Americans place on diversity. When it comes to the article itself, I tend to think Cheney's ouster is a bad example of illiberalism; she clearly does not reflect the party's values as it relates to a specific dimension on which many in the party have strong feelings (Trump loyalty), and she holds an explicitly elected position, so removing her from leadership, while a mild rebuke of diversity in thought, is hardly worthy of the level of news it generates. As others have noted, it seems things related to Donald Trump occupy disproportionate amounts of media time and emotion.
However, what Mr. Khatiri argues is that liberals should be willing to recognize worthy arguments from the "other side." But he's explicitly stated that he doesn't expect anyone to agree with all of her policy ideas or to become a supporter of her in general. I believe he's arguing that we should put aside those disagreements within the context of a discussion where we agree with her and engage on that.
I'm not entirely sure I agree that the progressives have been over-critical of Cheney; I've largely overlooked most of the coverage of what I consider a doomed effort. Cheney is saying things that will undoubtedly get her in trouble. Some argue she is doing it out of self-interest because of some kind of political calculus that it will benefit her. That argument appears prima facia incredible to me; it's quite obvious the party is not going to tolerate the questions she is raising. So I think that she's evincing equal parts courage and folly in pursuing those questions. I am not in the head or heart of Liz Cheney, so I cannot speak to if self-interest or morality drives her, but I'd need to see a pretty convincing argument that she things it's the politically shrewd or sound thing to do.
Separately, I dislike your characterization of the US. I'm not going to dispute your facts -- I have not read the books you suggest, I'm not likely to, at least not on the basis of this conversation. However, it is undeniable that there has been tremendous injustice on this continent that pre-exists the founding of the United States, persisted through its founding, persisted through the 20th century and into the 21st. Slavery, corruption, and prejudice form many of the veins which throb through our generations to the present day.
However, the US has *also* had a large share of citizens pushing for justice, fairness, and morality. You paint our country to be this inherently evil or corrupted thing; it is no more corrupt and immoral than most human enterprises are, and significantly less than some. I don't believe in American Exceptionalism. We're not the best of everyone. But when it comes to allowing dissenting ideas, we are among the best, even historically. That's because allowance for dissenting ideas is based on valuing the freedom of expression, something that has indeed equally been a vein that throbs through our history and culture. The failure of each generation's prevailing powers to immediately adopt values that were later nearly universally considered to be moral does not invalidate the parts of the US that DID push to make those things happen, and eventually made those things happen. You've claimed those moral characters for your "progressives" tribe -- forgive me if I eye your tribal arrogance askance. As if the muckrakers and the civil rights movement and the abolitionists and the civil libertarians (to name just a few of many) who have -- ultimately successfully -- advocated for significant improvements to justice and fairness and morality in society -- as if they shared the same set of progressive values as each other or modern progressives or you.
The foundation of the United States was one of citizens capable of managing their own affairs, and being free to do so. There are many ways in which the US fell and has fallen short of those ideas, including the simple fact that the people who first aspired to those ideas really meant "well, freedom for *us* to run things instead of Britain." However, as many have pushed for increasing fairness over the generations, so have we come to more expansively define those values, to the better of all. That expansion is just as much a part of our heritage as Jim Crow.
Finally, please stop fetishizing race, especially confusing "multi-racial" with "diverse." Diversity has many dimensions, not one or two. For example, poor, urban blacks and whites have more in common with each other than either does with poor rural blacks and whites; blacks and whites raised in the middle or upper-middle class who graduated from the same universities have much much more in common with one another than they do with either of the other two groups. I'm not denying racism exists or is a serious problem, nor am I saying diversity is unimportant; quite the contrary, I believe diversity is critically important. I'm suggesting, however, that race is a very shallow way to find diversity, and frankly not even the most important form of it. Diversity of thought and diversity of assumptions are most important.
A few things stand out to me in your comment. Firstly, my intention was not to claim a superior moral character for my “tribe,” if it came across that way than that’s my mistake. Secondly, your claim that I’m “fetishizing” race and your assertion that I singled out multi-racialism as diversity flat out ignores the bottom portion of my comment, in which I point America’s intolerance of diversity in the ideological realm as well. That intolerance ranged from both red scares and the imprisonment of political dissidents domestically, to the mass slaughter of millions of leftists world wide. As for the reading, that’s your prerogative, but they provide valuable insight into our country’s history and moral character that are often ignored in discussions like this, especially when people like the author assert such demonstrably false premises that most Americans take for granted to be true.
A last thought: my real “tribe” is my family and friends, but my ideological “tribe” would be the socialist tribe, which I try to leave out of my comments on here, and in political conversations with people outside of my “tribe,” since Americans typically aren’t very tolerant or respectful of that point of view and tend to dismiss it outright - another result of America’s intolerance for diversity.
How did you write all this without mentioning that the Democratic Party fought a war to maintain slavery and then spent 100 years terrorizing black people?
Instead of focusing on America’s history of sin, but ignoring the modern party whose wealth and power substantially derives from it because it is the current party of “Progressives”, you should focus on America’s history of fighting that sin, even among its founders like John Adam’s.
I didn’t mention either party because everything I said applies to pretty much the entire political class of the US historically speaking. John Adams was the only president of the first 12 presidents who wasn't a slave owner, so not exactly the most representative example of the sentiment at the time (I’ll refer you to The Founder’s Coup once again to learn more). You seem fixated on the Democratic Party pre-1964 which obviously deserves plenty of scorn and criticism, but oddly myopic considering the modern day Republican Party is a neo-fascist party, and the political realignment that took place after the Civil Rights Act was passed is a very clear indication that explicit racism found a new home in the Republican Party, while implicit racism and disingenuous concern for racial and economic justice found its new home in the Democratic Party. Also, if you’re concerned about money inherited by slave-owning families and it’s influence in modern politics you’ll primarily have to look for southern republicans.
As for focusing on America’s history of fighting that sin, you should not look to politicians. Labor movements and activists of different kinds are primarily responsible for the vast majority of social progress this country has made. FDR told them they had to make him do it, and they did. It’s a rich history but like I said in my original comment, they’ve been met with strong resistance every step of the way.
"John Adams was the only president of the first 12 presidents who wasn't a slave owner, so not exactly the most representative example of the sentiment at the time (I’ll refer you to The Founder’s Coup once again to learn more)."
John Quincy Adams did not own slaves either. The sentiment of the time was mixed--and up until the civil war, the sentiment of toleration of slavery dominated; but the seed of abolition existed since the founding of the United States from many of the founders themselves and among politics of the northern states, best ultimately exemplified by the Radical Republicans who eventually became the majority in congress by 1866. John Adams, being the first vice president and the second president of the United States is I think a fact that should absolutely not be waved away.
"You seem fixated on the Democratic Party pre-1964 which obviously deserves plenty of scorn and criticism, but oddly myopic considering the modern day Republican Party is a neo-fascist party, and the political realignment that took place after the Civil Rights Act was passed is a very clear indication that explicit racism found a new home in the Republican Party, while implicit racism and disingenuous concern for racial and economic justice found its new home in the Democratic Party. "
I am not fixated on the Democratic Party pre-1964, the Democratic Party currently is fixated on pro slavery and pro racist sentiments of the United States pre-1964 (see the 1619 project and the efforts to make it part of government school curriculum) And thus, as a reaction to that fact, I provide a reality check.
And there was no "political realignment" in 1964. That itself is a myth of the Democratic Party, largely promoted by "progressive" academics and Democratic politicians. As Adams said, "facts are stubborn things", and of Republicans a greater percent voted to pass the 1964 civil rights act than Democrats, and of Democrats a greater percent opposed. Furthermore, following the passage of the 1964 bill, of 112 Democrats who voted against it only 2, one from the senate, and one from the house, switched to the Republican Party. Given that a larger percentage of the Republican Party supported the bill than the Democratic Party, it would make little sense for Democrats to move into the Republican Party if the Democrats moving opposed the bill, which is why 98.2% did not. Furthermore, it was only until 1994 that the Republican Party held a majority of southern seats.
And just to anticipate the inevitable "but the southern strategy!"-- Nixon lost the deep south in 1968, and won the least racist areas of the south and he further expanded civil rights legislation. Carter won the south in 1976. Lee Atwater, in his discussion on the southern strategy claims it was based on what the Democratic Party did, was largely limited to the 60s, and wasn't relevant to the victories of the Republican Party in the 70s or 80s. And Joe Biden was using the old Democratic "southern strategy" even in 1987 when he was campaigning, and appealed to southern racists when he told them that his state was on the "south side of the civil war".
The political realignment that did gradually occur was one of economics -- the Democratic Party became the party of economic progressives, while the Republican Party settled into the party of economic conservatives, which was no substantial deviation from most of its various stances since its inception. It had little to due with racism, but no doubt some voters who preferred economic conservativism also held racist views. Though Republicans acquired the south as the south became less racist and the Democratic Party became more economically progressive. Furthermore, there has been substantial migration from the North to the South since the 1960s, partially because northern areas became more expensive to live or less desirable often due to "progressive" policies. While progressives like to think that "capitalism is racist" and other such nonsense, there is absolutely nothing essentially racist about thinking economic conservatism is both a more effective and more virtuous system than economic progressivism.
No there was no realignment of the sort you are regurgitating. The Republican Party never promoted slavery or instituted Jim Crow. The notion of a "Switch" is just the Democratic Party's means of absolving themselves from the crimes of their past. The only party that had a substantial realignment was the Democratic Party, after it became clear that their KKK platform was bad PR. So, they had the brilliant idea to start manufacturing the image of the Republican Party as the party of racism. In 1999 David Duke foolishly tried to run on the Republican ticket for the US House, he lost, and was denounced by the Chair of the Republican Party:
"There is no room in the party of Lincoln for a Klansman like David Duke."
And the idea that the Republican Party is "neo-fascist" is just gibberish. What the hell do you define as "fascism"? Like Mussolini fascism? The only Party that has flirted with fascism is the Democratic Party; FDR expressed fondness for the dictator. His advisor Rexford Tugwell, who helped architect the New Deal, stated about Mussolini's fascism: "It’s the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious." The definition of fascism provided by Mussolini himself in The Doctrine of Fascism:
"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State."
Progressivism is basically fascism-light, American style. It seeks the same goals. And that was recognized by FDR *and* Mussolini. Mussolini musing about the New Deal: "Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices … Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”
Labor movements have been a mixed bag for "progress." Some labor movements have been "fascist"; any that supported the New Deal. And "labor movements" had absolutely nothing to do with the political outcome of the civil war, nor with the 13th amendment(unless you count "free-labor" as a labor movement); and they had marginal alignment with the civil rights movement, but as can be cleanly seen by how the Parties voted, not at all necessary.
The Democratic Party has embraced the latest cult that Progressivism has given birth to -- the Church of the Awoken and their nonsensical post modern racism; we now find the notion of individualism being taught by their army of diversity trainers as being a vestige of White Supremacy. "Anti-racism" racism (objectivity and meritocracy are "White") in the service of fascist ideology -- at least as defined by the Doctrine of Fascism.
"As for focusing on America’s history of fighting that sin, you should not look to politicians."
Some politicians were absolutely essential to it; were it not for some courageous politicians and their initiative, the 13th amendment may not have ever been passed or any semblance of a civil rights bill. In the former case all *Republican* politicians.
"Also, if you’re concerned about money inherited by slave-owning families and it’s influence in modern politics you’ll primarily have to look for southern republicans."
I'm interested in the money and power inherited by the political class from the two parties. The DNC and RNC have been receiving wealth since their inception, and the DNC had been dependent on the wealth derived from slavery and also the wealth derived from the terrorism of black people for 100 years after slavery to conduct their campaigns and spread their influence. And particularly, the power and influence of the current DNC is derived by direct lineage to those who fought to keep slavery going. As for modern politicians and their personal family histories: do you have the data to back that up? From the data I'm aware, after 1964, those Democrats who voted against the 1964 civil rights act continued being Democrats.
But any modern Republican who has a family history in which they owned slaves didn't inherit their current political power from a Party that fought for slavery, they inherited their political power from a Party that ended it. And insofar as they are not using that power to erode the progress that was made, then it is not in anyway problematic, and insofar as they are using their *familial* power that derives from slavery, as opposed to their political lineage (the Republican Party), on good things, then good for them. Any significant direct tangible inheritance received by any individual, politician or not, that derives from those people who fought for slavery, would be problematic inosfar as they claim to be opponents of slavery, if they have not done anything to redeem that inheritance but most people in the US do not have such a direct inheritance, like say, the THE FAMILY THAT OWNS THE NEW YORK TIMES, one of the most powerful media establishments in the world and loyal to the Democratic Party.
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.
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.
Also discovering that Liz Cheney is actually a hard-right conservative despite opposing Trump, is like discovering that, despite climate change, Antarctica is still pretty cold.
"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.
Clearly you've never heard of Elissa Slotkin, Connor Lamb, Joe Manchin, Krysten Sinema, Abigail Spanberger, etc etc etc. Oh, don't forgot about Obama's speech deriding woke culture (just need to google 'Obama Woke Culture Speech' to find it). I don't agree with the Al Franken debacle at all, but it was at least based on addressing a real problem (sexual harassment).
The current Democratic party is a big tent with diverse viewpoints with some illiberal problematic elements in it. The current GOP is primarily becoming an illiberal party that considers diverse viewpoints within it a problem. Period.
Obama made that comment way before things got really bad and you know it. Or you should know it. Please tell me when any of those you named have criticized Critical Race Theory in public and on Fox News and called it a threat to the country. You are 100% incorrect about the state of the Democratic Party. There has never been in our history a more illiberal Democratic Party and Left overall. The Democrats are now the party of conformity and censorship. We have handed over free speech to the GOP and now they will run with it. Pretending to suddenly care in order to use Liz Cheney as a pawn is shameful.
Yes, an Illiberal party would vote for Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Most democratic voters are suburbanites and college-educated folks who just want people to have decent health care, a living wage, and want to make sure to not completely wreck the environment. Twitter isn't real life.
Exactly and how is that working out for the moderates who voted for that guy? Did they get that guy? NO they did not get that guy. Voters voted for the centrist and they got the Bernie Sanders. I personally don't mind particularly myself but I imagine there are people out there who feel like it was a bait and switch. Biden barely campaigned. He didn't have to. He had the media and Twitter doing it for him. He had an unprecedented effort to put him in power so voters had no clue what they were voting for. They were voting for an idea, a ghost, a person who no longer exists. So give me a break, okay? We got a Bernie Sanders. We didn't get a Joe Biden. The Joe Biden I knew would have stood up to the left in its current form.
Exactly. A centrist would say "I'm not signing any legislation unless it can pass the 60 vote threshold under regular order". Instead, we are getting bitterly partisan spending bills that are leading us directly to the 70's again - except without the disco and cocaine. At least that was fun. This sucks. Hey, enjoy the inflation, gas lines, high unemployment, and Iran on a rampage...
And don't cite the polls, please. They measure only media influence.
You’re delusional. Bernie campaigned on M4All, 15 dollar minimum wage, universal college education, cancelling student debts, and the green new deal. None of these things have happened.
You're dishonest. Biden is shoring up Obamacare with billions, tried to get the 15 dollar Min Wage into the covid relief bill but was turned down by the parliamentarian. Biden is proposing free community college, student debt relief, and massive climate spending as part of the "infrastructure" bill. It's a difference of degree, not kind - gated by realistic politics. Again, be honest. Sanders and AOC are HAPPY with the direction of this administration...and it's only bound by the fact that they don't have supermajorities in both houses. Thank God.
Joe is a Beard. You know it. He's governing mostly the same way Sanders and AOC would given the current situation. Never has the tone and the policy been more different. Centrists voted for Joe because he was moderate in tone and "not Trump". The fact that he's governing like LBJ and FDR instead of Clinton or Obama is meaningful.
Bernie campaigned on M4All, 15 dollar minimum wage, universal college education, cancelling student debts, and the green new deal. None of these things have happened. FDR’s new deal was so much more comprehensive and progressive than anything Biden has done. Seriously you people are delusional.
Have you considered that Critical Race Theory is not as dangerous as Fox News tells you it is? Have you read a single written work on the subject?
Yep, you guys do a great job in that big tent - especially when it involves pandering to Marxists, Anti-Semites, and other leftist authoritarians...
I'm inclined to agree with most of what you say, but not its tone. We certainly are heading toward a dangerously polarized society. My problem with your rejoinder lies in the word "they." I'm a Democrat, and have been one for more than 50 years. I think critical race theory is silly and a bit dangerous. I think the most important problem we face upon ending the pandemic will be to reduce our polarization, and this can only happen if we are prepared to treat each other as potentially rational individuals.
The GOP has no ideology about critical race theory or whatever. It just has a man in Florida they have to appease. That's why Elise Stefanik is going to get the job despite having a worse voting record than Cheney. Chip Roy is also more consrvative than Stefanik, but Trump attacked him yesterday because Roy has consistently been unwilling to say the election was stolen.
That is the narrative from the left press. I get it. There are two things you have to know. The first, there is a faction of the Trump movement that is all in on election "fraud." The other is that Trumpism is alive and well with or without Trump. What that is: America First policies, which the Left has deemed "racist." But that is what appeals to the new Right, with or without Trump. The Left can't let go of the election - that is all they apparently have since they can't criticize themselves for destroying the party. But anyone who spends even a tiny bit of time listening to the chatter in Trump World understands it's less about Trump and more about what Trump did: stand up to the left.
What is the GOP platform? Why didn't they publish one last year?
Your last sentence betrays everything. "Stand up to the left" is not a platform. It's just right wing virtue signalling identity politics.
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.
That 'graph in the essay is easy to criticize. It speaks in absolutes (which are almost always wrong) and it woefully overstates the the value Americans place on diversity. When it comes to the article itself, I tend to think Cheney's ouster is a bad example of illiberalism; she clearly does not reflect the party's values as it relates to a specific dimension on which many in the party have strong feelings (Trump loyalty), and she holds an explicitly elected position, so removing her from leadership, while a mild rebuke of diversity in thought, is hardly worthy of the level of news it generates. As others have noted, it seems things related to Donald Trump occupy disproportionate amounts of media time and emotion.
However, what Mr. Khatiri argues is that liberals should be willing to recognize worthy arguments from the "other side." But he's explicitly stated that he doesn't expect anyone to agree with all of her policy ideas or to become a supporter of her in general. I believe he's arguing that we should put aside those disagreements within the context of a discussion where we agree with her and engage on that.
I'm not entirely sure I agree that the progressives have been over-critical of Cheney; I've largely overlooked most of the coverage of what I consider a doomed effort. Cheney is saying things that will undoubtedly get her in trouble. Some argue she is doing it out of self-interest because of some kind of political calculus that it will benefit her. That argument appears prima facia incredible to me; it's quite obvious the party is not going to tolerate the questions she is raising. So I think that she's evincing equal parts courage and folly in pursuing those questions. I am not in the head or heart of Liz Cheney, so I cannot speak to if self-interest or morality drives her, but I'd need to see a pretty convincing argument that she things it's the politically shrewd or sound thing to do.
Separately, I dislike your characterization of the US. I'm not going to dispute your facts -- I have not read the books you suggest, I'm not likely to, at least not on the basis of this conversation. However, it is undeniable that there has been tremendous injustice on this continent that pre-exists the founding of the United States, persisted through its founding, persisted through the 20th century and into the 21st. Slavery, corruption, and prejudice form many of the veins which throb through our generations to the present day.
However, the US has *also* had a large share of citizens pushing for justice, fairness, and morality. You paint our country to be this inherently evil or corrupted thing; it is no more corrupt and immoral than most human enterprises are, and significantly less than some. I don't believe in American Exceptionalism. We're not the best of everyone. But when it comes to allowing dissenting ideas, we are among the best, even historically. That's because allowance for dissenting ideas is based on valuing the freedom of expression, something that has indeed equally been a vein that throbs through our history and culture. The failure of each generation's prevailing powers to immediately adopt values that were later nearly universally considered to be moral does not invalidate the parts of the US that DID push to make those things happen, and eventually made those things happen. You've claimed those moral characters for your "progressives" tribe -- forgive me if I eye your tribal arrogance askance. As if the muckrakers and the civil rights movement and the abolitionists and the civil libertarians (to name just a few of many) who have -- ultimately successfully -- advocated for significant improvements to justice and fairness and morality in society -- as if they shared the same set of progressive values as each other or modern progressives or you.
The foundation of the United States was one of citizens capable of managing their own affairs, and being free to do so. There are many ways in which the US fell and has fallen short of those ideas, including the simple fact that the people who first aspired to those ideas really meant "well, freedom for *us* to run things instead of Britain." However, as many have pushed for increasing fairness over the generations, so have we come to more expansively define those values, to the better of all. That expansion is just as much a part of our heritage as Jim Crow.
Finally, please stop fetishizing race, especially confusing "multi-racial" with "diverse." Diversity has many dimensions, not one or two. For example, poor, urban blacks and whites have more in common with each other than either does with poor rural blacks and whites; blacks and whites raised in the middle or upper-middle class who graduated from the same universities have much much more in common with one another than they do with either of the other two groups. I'm not denying racism exists or is a serious problem, nor am I saying diversity is unimportant; quite the contrary, I believe diversity is critically important. I'm suggesting, however, that race is a very shallow way to find diversity, and frankly not even the most important form of it. Diversity of thought and diversity of assumptions are most important.
A few things stand out to me in your comment. Firstly, my intention was not to claim a superior moral character for my “tribe,” if it came across that way than that’s my mistake. Secondly, your claim that I’m “fetishizing” race and your assertion that I singled out multi-racialism as diversity flat out ignores the bottom portion of my comment, in which I point America’s intolerance of diversity in the ideological realm as well. That intolerance ranged from both red scares and the imprisonment of political dissidents domestically, to the mass slaughter of millions of leftists world wide. As for the reading, that’s your prerogative, but they provide valuable insight into our country’s history and moral character that are often ignored in discussions like this, especially when people like the author assert such demonstrably false premises that most Americans take for granted to be true.
A last thought: my real “tribe” is my family and friends, but my ideological “tribe” would be the socialist tribe, which I try to leave out of my comments on here, and in political conversations with people outside of my “tribe,” since Americans typically aren’t very tolerant or respectful of that point of view and tend to dismiss it outright - another result of America’s intolerance for diversity.
How did you write all this without mentioning that the Democratic Party fought a war to maintain slavery and then spent 100 years terrorizing black people?
Instead of focusing on America’s history of sin, but ignoring the modern party whose wealth and power substantially derives from it because it is the current party of “Progressives”, you should focus on America’s history of fighting that sin, even among its founders like John Adam’s.
I didn’t mention either party because everything I said applies to pretty much the entire political class of the US historically speaking. John Adams was the only president of the first 12 presidents who wasn't a slave owner, so not exactly the most representative example of the sentiment at the time (I’ll refer you to The Founder’s Coup once again to learn more). You seem fixated on the Democratic Party pre-1964 which obviously deserves plenty of scorn and criticism, but oddly myopic considering the modern day Republican Party is a neo-fascist party, and the political realignment that took place after the Civil Rights Act was passed is a very clear indication that explicit racism found a new home in the Republican Party, while implicit racism and disingenuous concern for racial and economic justice found its new home in the Democratic Party. Also, if you’re concerned about money inherited by slave-owning families and it’s influence in modern politics you’ll primarily have to look for southern republicans.
As for focusing on America’s history of fighting that sin, you should not look to politicians. Labor movements and activists of different kinds are primarily responsible for the vast majority of social progress this country has made. FDR told them they had to make him do it, and they did. It’s a rich history but like I said in my original comment, they’ve been met with strong resistance every step of the way.
"John Adams was the only president of the first 12 presidents who wasn't a slave owner, so not exactly the most representative example of the sentiment at the time (I’ll refer you to The Founder’s Coup once again to learn more)."
John Quincy Adams did not own slaves either. The sentiment of the time was mixed--and up until the civil war, the sentiment of toleration of slavery dominated; but the seed of abolition existed since the founding of the United States from many of the founders themselves and among politics of the northern states, best ultimately exemplified by the Radical Republicans who eventually became the majority in congress by 1866. John Adams, being the first vice president and the second president of the United States is I think a fact that should absolutely not be waved away.
"You seem fixated on the Democratic Party pre-1964 which obviously deserves plenty of scorn and criticism, but oddly myopic considering the modern day Republican Party is a neo-fascist party, and the political realignment that took place after the Civil Rights Act was passed is a very clear indication that explicit racism found a new home in the Republican Party, while implicit racism and disingenuous concern for racial and economic justice found its new home in the Democratic Party. "
I am not fixated on the Democratic Party pre-1964, the Democratic Party currently is fixated on pro slavery and pro racist sentiments of the United States pre-1964 (see the 1619 project and the efforts to make it part of government school curriculum) And thus, as a reaction to that fact, I provide a reality check.
And there was no "political realignment" in 1964. That itself is a myth of the Democratic Party, largely promoted by "progressive" academics and Democratic politicians. As Adams said, "facts are stubborn things", and of Republicans a greater percent voted to pass the 1964 civil rights act than Democrats, and of Democrats a greater percent opposed. Furthermore, following the passage of the 1964 bill, of 112 Democrats who voted against it only 2, one from the senate, and one from the house, switched to the Republican Party. Given that a larger percentage of the Republican Party supported the bill than the Democratic Party, it would make little sense for Democrats to move into the Republican Party if the Democrats moving opposed the bill, which is why 98.2% did not. Furthermore, it was only until 1994 that the Republican Party held a majority of southern seats.
And just to anticipate the inevitable "but the southern strategy!"-- Nixon lost the deep south in 1968, and won the least racist areas of the south and he further expanded civil rights legislation. Carter won the south in 1976. Lee Atwater, in his discussion on the southern strategy claims it was based on what the Democratic Party did, was largely limited to the 60s, and wasn't relevant to the victories of the Republican Party in the 70s or 80s. And Joe Biden was using the old Democratic "southern strategy" even in 1987 when he was campaigning, and appealed to southern racists when he told them that his state was on the "south side of the civil war".
You may read the transcript of the Lee Atwater discussion on the southern strategy here: https://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/03/lee-atwater-interview-with-alexander-p-lamis-rough-transcript-weekend-reading.html
The political realignment that did gradually occur was one of economics -- the Democratic Party became the party of economic progressives, while the Republican Party settled into the party of economic conservatives, which was no substantial deviation from most of its various stances since its inception. It had little to due with racism, but no doubt some voters who preferred economic conservativism also held racist views. Though Republicans acquired the south as the south became less racist and the Democratic Party became more economically progressive. Furthermore, there has been substantial migration from the North to the South since the 1960s, partially because northern areas became more expensive to live or less desirable often due to "progressive" policies. While progressives like to think that "capitalism is racist" and other such nonsense, there is absolutely nothing essentially racist about thinking economic conservatism is both a more effective and more virtuous system than economic progressivism.
No there was no realignment of the sort you are regurgitating. The Republican Party never promoted slavery or instituted Jim Crow. The notion of a "Switch" is just the Democratic Party's means of absolving themselves from the crimes of their past. The only party that had a substantial realignment was the Democratic Party, after it became clear that their KKK platform was bad PR. So, they had the brilliant idea to start manufacturing the image of the Republican Party as the party of racism. In 1999 David Duke foolishly tried to run on the Republican ticket for the US House, he lost, and was denounced by the Chair of the Republican Party:
"There is no room in the party of Lincoln for a Klansman like David Duke."
And the idea that the Republican Party is "neo-fascist" is just gibberish. What the hell do you define as "fascism"? Like Mussolini fascism? The only Party that has flirted with fascism is the Democratic Party; FDR expressed fondness for the dictator. His advisor Rexford Tugwell, who helped architect the New Deal, stated about Mussolini's fascism: "It’s the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious." The definition of fascism provided by Mussolini himself in The Doctrine of Fascism:
"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State."
Progressivism is basically fascism-light, American style. It seeks the same goals. And that was recognized by FDR *and* Mussolini. Mussolini musing about the New Deal: "Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices … Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”
Labor movements have been a mixed bag for "progress." Some labor movements have been "fascist"; any that supported the New Deal. And "labor movements" had absolutely nothing to do with the political outcome of the civil war, nor with the 13th amendment(unless you count "free-labor" as a labor movement); and they had marginal alignment with the civil rights movement, but as can be cleanly seen by how the Parties voted, not at all necessary.
The Democratic Party has embraced the latest cult that Progressivism has given birth to -- the Church of the Awoken and their nonsensical post modern racism; we now find the notion of individualism being taught by their army of diversity trainers as being a vestige of White Supremacy. "Anti-racism" racism (objectivity and meritocracy are "White") in the service of fascist ideology -- at least as defined by the Doctrine of Fascism.
"As for focusing on America’s history of fighting that sin, you should not look to politicians."
Some politicians were absolutely essential to it; were it not for some courageous politicians and their initiative, the 13th amendment may not have ever been passed or any semblance of a civil rights bill. In the former case all *Republican* politicians.
"Also, if you’re concerned about money inherited by slave-owning families and it’s influence in modern politics you’ll primarily have to look for southern republicans."
I'm interested in the money and power inherited by the political class from the two parties. The DNC and RNC have been receiving wealth since their inception, and the DNC had been dependent on the wealth derived from slavery and also the wealth derived from the terrorism of black people for 100 years after slavery to conduct their campaigns and spread their influence. And particularly, the power and influence of the current DNC is derived by direct lineage to those who fought to keep slavery going. As for modern politicians and their personal family histories: do you have the data to back that up? From the data I'm aware, after 1964, those Democrats who voted against the 1964 civil rights act continued being Democrats.
But any modern Republican who has a family history in which they owned slaves didn't inherit their current political power from a Party that fought for slavery, they inherited their political power from a Party that ended it. And insofar as they are not using that power to erode the progress that was made, then it is not in anyway problematic, and insofar as they are using their *familial* power that derives from slavery, as opposed to their political lineage (the Republican Party), on good things, then good for them. Any significant direct tangible inheritance received by any individual, politician or not, that derives from those people who fought for slavery, would be problematic inosfar as they claim to be opponents of slavery, if they have not done anything to redeem that inheritance but most people in the US do not have such a direct inheritance, like say, the THE FAMILY THAT OWNS THE NEW YORK TIMES, one of the most powerful media establishments in the world and loyal to the Democratic Party.
If someone could point me towards any evidence that Americans have always agreed that diversity is our greatest strength, I’d love to see it.
If I could cancel my yearly subscription again I would
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.
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.
Also discovering that Liz Cheney is actually a hard-right conservative despite opposing Trump, is like discovering that, despite climate change, Antarctica is still pretty cold.
"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.