opinion | Liz Cheney’s Truth
If you start clicking these binaries together, you can find logical paths from these problems to wildly different arguments about the current path. The emphasis on structure, on Mr. Trump as a product of our system, and the saturation of electoral denial as a reflection on that system, can take you everywhere from legislators who diligently pour concrete into the archaic flaws of the Electoral Count Act. are trying. 1887, for writers who argue that the extension of the Supreme Court would be correct for political destabilization and minorityism.
And the emphasis on Mr. Trump as an anomaly takes you to Capitol Hill with Ms. Cheney on a recent Thursday night. During the committee’s last hearing this summer, dressed in white and sitting inside a room watched by millions, she sat on stage for hours.
Ms Cheney has argued that private agency affairs have occurred since 6 January: institutions consist of individuals and individuals who shape political reality, regardless of whether they intend to do so. Officers, she told an interviewer, have a duty “to recognize that we may have influenced events”. “We clearly have a situation where elected officials have to make a decision about whether we stand or the leader,” she told another, calling it an “irresponsible act” such as Our institutions are self-sustaining, because they are not; it takes us, it takes people, to make that happen.”
In a closing statement addressing the committee’s criticisms, Ms. Cheney focused on the individual against the system. Instead of hiding behind executive privilege, individual witnesses testified, she said; Individuals have called “a series of confessions” against Mr. Trump from within the party and the White House, rather than as part of some broader political class; A man like William P. Barr is not a “delicate flower” that will break under cross-examination. Every doctrinal objection to the committee’s political matter morphed into a central point about the main character in this scenario: that, in the lead-up to January 6, it didn’t matter what everyone knew and said inside and outside the White House. Mr Trump was going to do what he did. And in response, Cheney has apparently subjected herself to her endless stockpile of attacks, as well as the necessary boycott of the party.
Over the past decade, some conservative Trump critics have gravitated toward a more-sad-in-anger style, and are often a bit at a loss about the way Mr. Trump is dealt with and everything MAGA policy incorporates. Is. and style.
Ms Cheney, however, is not like that, or has not been for the past 18 months. There is no feeling; If those guys run hot, she runs cold, “as passionate as algebra,” as one Republican lawmaker put it last year; There is no personal anecdote about how difficult life has become for him; There is very little ornamentation; This granite is nothing but a singularity. Apparently he’s willing to give up power constantly without making it seem like a sacrifice, so much so that you can almost forget it’s happening. Here, then, is the man, making a choice to maximize personal agency within the confines of the political system, to address a crisis posed by someone else in Mr. Trump.