Eric and Eliot inaugurate the first video episode of Shield of the Republic by welcoming former Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) to discuss her New York Times best-selling book Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning (New York: Little, Brown, 2023).
Folks, please do something to fix the sound on the podcast. It's much lower than any other Bulwark podcast, and at times is hard to hear even at max volume.
Ms. Cheney, I believe equating Biden and Trump in terms of US posture of strength is poor equivocation. You wonder how our allies view us as a partner with Biden administration approach to Afghanistan and Iran. Sorry, but most of our allies probably agree more with Biden than you. I'm not sure Biden is entirely correct. I am sure that you are not
In the State of the Union, President Biden should focus, and perhaps limit his remarks to the *two* bipartisan bills that came out of the Senate, one that included many items directed at the border that were predominantly Conservative goals, that enjoys overwhelming support in the House but that is being held up by a small minority of the Republican caucus for political gain. He should call on that body to take these bills up immediately, and on the voters to exhort their representatives to do that. He should say he could talk about what he has done, and what he would like to do, but frankly if we cannot do these simple things there's no point in doing that now, the campaign will take care of it.
All well and good, Liz. But, when calling out the enablers, it's the entire R party for the past 4 decades that has introduced hyper partisanship fueled by gerrymandered congressional districts at the state and federal level, and voter suppression laws. If the R party wants a clean slate, and try to govern, then it will have to accept that it has to let go of the tools that it used to obtain power as a minority party. This also means letting go of the 'republic' AND NOT necessarily a democracy distinction that you continue to use in your language. The R party has been doing this for a long time and it's extremely grating. We are either a democracy or not, and calling ourselves a republic doesn't make that distinction that you're trying to make any less anti-democratic and how we got to the MAGA world we have today.
I also noticed that you did not reference 'christian nationalism' at all. This is a bigger idea than MAGA and is counter to the 'rule of law' that you discussed at length in connection with a possible second Trump term. MAGA is using christian nationalism to rationalize just about all of its agenda. Failure to recognize and to call this out is a mistake IMO.
Sign me up, Liz. You are the de facto leader of the opposition against Trump. Trump has sullied the Republican party beyond redemption. As Eliot pointed out, they are not conservative. There needs to be clean slate. There needs to be a means for Republicans to repent and be cleansed of MAGA. But don't call it a third party. It shall be a party to restore the two-party system. My politics are more center to center-right, but I understand there must be a functioning conservative party. I can advocate the conservative agenda. Sign me up. I will volunteer whatever time and do whatever retail politics is required to get it off the ground.
Cheney continues to call out the chant "from the river to the sea" as anti-Semitic.
I would like to hear her acknowledge that Netanyahu's Likud formally incorporates the Movement for Greater Israel; It has the goal of a single nation from the river to the sea ruled by Jews.
We need to be even more careful with the term anti-Semitic when describing objections to the current slaughter of civilians, including thousands of children, in Gaza. The problem is not that death is being inflicted by Jews; The problem is that death is being inflicted on children and other people who has nothing to do with October 7.
Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. The slogan "from the river to the sea" calls for the killing of Jews, is inherently anti-Semitic, and anyone who chants it is either an anti-Semite, a useful idiot for anti-Semites, or just doesn't care about anti-Semitism.
That said, I agree with you on Netanyahu and the Israeli Right in general. US policy has been quite consistent that the settlements are illegal, and only a two-state solution with two sovereign states living side by side in peace provides a real way forward. I totally support that position, and believe that if the two sides won't accept it, it should be forced on them, including rolling back the settlements on the West Bank. After Hamas is eliminated.
Hamas is killing their own children. They raise them with the expectation of becoming a martyr who will die while killing Jews. It is a sick, child-abusive culture. You're trying to project your values onto them in empathy, but that won't work. Their values are anathema to ours.
During the second intifada, Hamas used children as suicide bombs. A year later, Gazans voted them into legislative power. Over 80% of Palestinians favor the October 7 pogrom. They are culpable. Gazans have been firing missiles into Israel every year this century. War is not tit-for-tat. Israel must disable Hamas' ability to wage war.
If the Palestinians were half has upset as you are about their children, they'd surrender. I urge you to question their narratives.
I know what finally brought peace in Northern Ireland was not killing all the Catholics; It was sharing power so they would be invested in the country's success going forward. Similar shifts from armed response to political inclusion have worked in South Africa and some central American countries. I can't think of any examples of brutal slaughter and suppression working long-term
They didn't vow to commit genocide of all Protestants. You have to compare it to the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany. We had to kill them to the point of defeat. They are now two of the most successful nation states, and they are two of our strongest allies. I refute your analysis.
Actually, generations of Northern Ireland Catholics hated their Protestant neighbors as fervently as Gazans do Israelis.
As for Germany, would Nazi-ism ever have taken over if the country had been better treated after the First War defeat? It was generosity toward Germany after WW II that made it an ally
We'll never know. What I do know is that the Nazis were losing power as the 1920s started to conclude. It was the Great Depression that dramatically elevated their popularity. The impact of that may not have been as severe had Germany not been saddled with reparations. But that question does not invalidate my point. They had to be defeated by extreme force. The same is true with Hamas. It's a damn shame.
Folks, please do something to fix the sound on the podcast. It's much lower than any other Bulwark podcast, and at times is hard to hear even at max volume.
looking forward to more from the Shield
Ms. Cheney, I believe equating Biden and Trump in terms of US posture of strength is poor equivocation. You wonder how our allies view us as a partner with Biden administration approach to Afghanistan and Iran. Sorry, but most of our allies probably agree more with Biden than you. I'm not sure Biden is entirely correct. I am sure that you are not
In the State of the Union, President Biden should focus, and perhaps limit his remarks to the *two* bipartisan bills that came out of the Senate, one that included many items directed at the border that were predominantly Conservative goals, that enjoys overwhelming support in the House but that is being held up by a small minority of the Republican caucus for political gain. He should call on that body to take these bills up immediately, and on the voters to exhort their representatives to do that. He should say he could talk about what he has done, and what he would like to do, but frankly if we cannot do these simple things there's no point in doing that now, the campaign will take care of it.
Then he should walk out.
All well and good, Liz. But, when calling out the enablers, it's the entire R party for the past 4 decades that has introduced hyper partisanship fueled by gerrymandered congressional districts at the state and federal level, and voter suppression laws. If the R party wants a clean slate, and try to govern, then it will have to accept that it has to let go of the tools that it used to obtain power as a minority party. This also means letting go of the 'republic' AND NOT necessarily a democracy distinction that you continue to use in your language. The R party has been doing this for a long time and it's extremely grating. We are either a democracy or not, and calling ourselves a republic doesn't make that distinction that you're trying to make any less anti-democratic and how we got to the MAGA world we have today.
I also noticed that you did not reference 'christian nationalism' at all. This is a bigger idea than MAGA and is counter to the 'rule of law' that you discussed at length in connection with a possible second Trump term. MAGA is using christian nationalism to rationalize just about all of its agenda. Failure to recognize and to call this out is a mistake IMO.
Sign me up, Liz. You are the de facto leader of the opposition against Trump. Trump has sullied the Republican party beyond redemption. As Eliot pointed out, they are not conservative. There needs to be clean slate. There needs to be a means for Republicans to repent and be cleansed of MAGA. But don't call it a third party. It shall be a party to restore the two-party system. My politics are more center to center-right, but I understand there must be a functioning conservative party. I can advocate the conservative agenda. Sign me up. I will volunteer whatever time and do whatever retail politics is required to get it off the ground.
Cheney continues to call out the chant "from the river to the sea" as anti-Semitic.
I would like to hear her acknowledge that Netanyahu's Likud formally incorporates the Movement for Greater Israel; It has the goal of a single nation from the river to the sea ruled by Jews.
We need to be even more careful with the term anti-Semitic when describing objections to the current slaughter of civilians, including thousands of children, in Gaza. The problem is not that death is being inflicted by Jews; The problem is that death is being inflicted on children and other people who has nothing to do with October 7.
Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. The slogan "from the river to the sea" calls for the killing of Jews, is inherently anti-Semitic, and anyone who chants it is either an anti-Semite, a useful idiot for anti-Semites, or just doesn't care about anti-Semitism.
That said, I agree with you on Netanyahu and the Israeli Right in general. US policy has been quite consistent that the settlements are illegal, and only a two-state solution with two sovereign states living side by side in peace provides a real way forward. I totally support that position, and believe that if the two sides won't accept it, it should be forced on them, including rolling back the settlements on the West Bank. After Hamas is eliminated.
Israel / Jewish homeland is approximately 22000 square km.
Arab / Muslim homelands are millions and millions of square km.
Hamas is killing their own children. They raise them with the expectation of becoming a martyr who will die while killing Jews. It is a sick, child-abusive culture. You're trying to project your values onto them in empathy, but that won't work. Their values are anathema to ours.
During the second intifada, Hamas used children as suicide bombs. A year later, Gazans voted them into legislative power. Over 80% of Palestinians favor the October 7 pogrom. They are culpable. Gazans have been firing missiles into Israel every year this century. War is not tit-for-tat. Israel must disable Hamas' ability to wage war.
If the Palestinians were half has upset as you are about their children, they'd surrender. I urge you to question their narratives.
I know what finally brought peace in Northern Ireland was not killing all the Catholics; It was sharing power so they would be invested in the country's success going forward. Similar shifts from armed response to political inclusion have worked in South Africa and some central American countries. I can't think of any examples of brutal slaughter and suppression working long-term
They didn't vow to commit genocide of all Protestants. You have to compare it to the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany. We had to kill them to the point of defeat. They are now two of the most successful nation states, and they are two of our strongest allies. I refute your analysis.
Actually, generations of Northern Ireland Catholics hated their Protestant neighbors as fervently as Gazans do Israelis.
As for Germany, would Nazi-ism ever have taken over if the country had been better treated after the First War defeat? It was generosity toward Germany after WW II that made it an ally
We'll never know. What I do know is that the Nazis were losing power as the 1920s started to conclude. It was the Great Depression that dramatically elevated their popularity. The impact of that may not have been as severe had Germany not been saddled with reparations. But that question does not invalidate my point. They had to be defeated by extreme force. The same is true with Hamas. It's a damn shame.