Liz Cheney on American Authoritarianism

A podcast sponsored by the Bulwark and the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, and dedicated to the proposition first articulated by Walter Lipman World War two, that a strong and balanced foreign policy is the necessary shield of our Democratic Republic. I’m Eric Edelman Counseler center for strategic and budgetary assessments, a Bulwark contributor and a non resident fellow at the Miller center. I’m joined as always by my colleague in this enterprise, Elliot Cohen, the Roberty Osgood professor of strategy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. And the Charlie Sykes chair of strategy at the center for strategic and international studies, Elliot. Great to see you.

Great to see you. And I’m I have to tell you I’m particularly impressed, Eric, that in a fantastic book that I’ve just read, You are referred to quite prominently on page fifteen as a tremendously skilled and effective career ambassador who had served presence of both parties at the highest levels of government. And I have to add that’s all the more It

goes on. It goes on.

You know, it

does go on a great life, but I’d I don’t wanna blow up his go even more than it is. I I now I have to explain to our listeners that the the thing that’s so striking is that this comes from a book which is a really a study in herpetology. For those of you who know what herpetology is, it’s the study of snakes.

Well, I think I’ll leave it there. Over to you, I wanna introduce our very special guest, Liz Cheney, former representative from Wyoming, Republican, from Wyoming, and, a, star of the January sixth committee and a and a friend of both Elliott and mine, and a great American and a great American public servant. Her book, oath, and honor, is a New York Times bestseller, if you don’t have a copy, you absolutely must buy one and read it. It is a, a fantastic book incredible memoir, but also as the subtitle says a warning, for, where our country, might be headed in the next electoral cycle. Liz, welcome to shield of the Republic.

It’s great to have you.

Well, it’s an honor honor to be with you and and, great to have the chance to to talk to both you and to Elliott. So thank you guys very much for having me on, and thanks for everything you both have done over so many years for, for the Republic.

So Liz, it’s been a year, a little bit more, since the January sixth committee, finished up its its hearings. You guys reported out. You did a report. You’ve now written a terrific book about the entire process of the election, your experience dealing with the the election, the big lie, and then the the effort to expose it in the committee. As you’ve been doing your book tour, as you’ve been speaking around the country, what’s your assessment one year on of the impact that the committee had on, American public discourse on how people think about the events of January six.

There was a lot of speculation before the committee that It would be a dud that nobody cared. That didn’t turn out to be the way it was. It was incredibly compelling television, having watched all the hearings. And, from my point of view, very well done. But what’s your assessment of kind of what the impact has been?

Well, well, well, thank you for that. And I, you know, I think that that when I look at the work that the committee did, you know, the the first sort of, lens through which I I think you have to assess it is, you know, the the extent to which there are people who were opposed to even having an investigation at all, even opposed to the original bipartisan commission that, you know, would seem to have been the obvious thing that we would do, what we do after every sort of major crisis in modern history in this country, and and the fact that that was voted down and and that then we form the select committee, so first of all, I would say I I couldn’t have conceived of moving forward without an investigation. And and I think it’s crucially important that, that we were able both, to secure the testimony of of so many of the witnesses, who did appear before the committee and and reminding people that the vast majority of the witness es who testified were Republicans. And, it certainly, made clear in my view going in that what Donald Trump was engaged in was much much broader, much much deeper.

Much more, sort of, of of a widespread plan, a multi part plan to attempt to overturn the election and seize power. And and I think had we not conducted an investigation You know, certainly there are are many parts of what he did that that likely would have been lost to history. I think that prior to the investigation getting underway, the Justice Department had certainly done a huge amount of work in terms of prosecutions of the people who were actually in the capital. I think that it was you know, at least in part because of the work of the committee and the information that we were able to gather and and and the way that we were able to publicly put it on that the justice department began to move, you know, just as aggressively to make sure that people were held accountable, not not just the sort of the foot soldiers, if you will, but but, you know, all the way up, to the president himself. And And I think that’s been important.

I think certainly, you know, we know that because of public reporting that the justice department the the special counsel has been able to get testimony from some of the witnesses who would not testify in front of the committee. I think that’s been important. I also think that, if you look at at the efforts, that Donald Trump has got underway now to attempt to delay the the January sixth, trial. He’s also now attempting we know to delay the documents trial. But but, you know, he he he knows, partly because of the public testimony in front of our committee, partly because he now Donald Trump’s got access to the grand jury testimony.

He knows the witnesses who will testify against him in open court and he knows what they will say if the January sixth trial goes forward. And and so he’s doing everything he can to try to stop that. I think it’s it’s hugely important. And I suspect that Supreme Court understands how important it is. That that evidence not be suppressed, that the American people get a chance to see that all, before we go to the polls again.

And that they’re they’re well aware that actually, you know, the election interference that’s going on here is Donald Trump trying to prevent the American people from hearing hearing that testimony. So I, I’m very proud of what the committee, accomplished. I’m proud of the way in which we did our work. And, and I I think it was it was hugely important for history that people understand the unprecedented nature of the threat that Donald Trump poses.

I think we should probably, tell our listeners that it’s mean, it it really is a terrific memoir. It it’s an account of the, of the inquiry, but it’s also very much an account of the day. And of the behavior of, particularly various of your colleagues in ways that really are appalling, and that’s why, you know, referred to it as Bulwark in, in herpetology. Do do you think within the Republican Party, particularly among political leadership that it’s had any impact on them whatsoever because it is You know, I think, I think I can speak for all of us. It’s very distressing when you, you know, you look at the behavior of the, So called leaders of the Republican Party, how most of them just clearly wanna pretend this didn’t happen or just say, well, January six was a kind of a demonstration got out of hand or something like that.

Do do you see any lasting effect from that or are they simply impervious?

Well, what what it looks like to me is that, you know, you you have a situation where, right after January six, we were nearly unanimous. In the days, just after the sixth, Republicans, nearly unanimous in in recognizing that, you know, a line had been crossed that could never be crossed and that Donald Trump was responsible. And if you look at the public statements of of many, most of the leaders, it’s time, that’s what they were saying. I think that what what you’ve seen since then, is really cowardice. And, you know, they they know the truth.

But but, you know, the human capacity for rationalization has has been on full display. And and I think that it’s I think that when historians look back, they’re they will identify several factors year. I mean, one, you have very small number of people who actually believe what Trump is saying. Very small number of elected Republicans in the Congress, like you know, you can count them on one hand. But but then a much larger number who began to decide for a variety of reasons whether it was their own political survival or fears of safety, which were legitimate concerns about safety and the threats coming from the former president.

Just because of, you know, for convenience sake, in many instances, I had I had individuals including, Senator McConnell on a number of occasions tell me that he fully understood the danger that Donald Trump posed his public remarks reflect that. But say that we just need to ignore him, that if we just ignore him, he’ll go away. And I think a lot of elected officials comforted themselves. You know, and we’re able to sort of say, well, we’re not we’re not gonna stand up against this because it’ll go away if we don’t. And and what that did was it really gave space for voters, Republican voters across the country to say, well, wait.

If our leaders are not speaking out against this, then it must not be so so bad. And and so I I’m I’m very disappointed. And certainly as somebody who, you know, grew up in Republican politics and has known many of these people for decades, You know, I really did believe that if it ever came to it, you know, when the chips were down, the people would do the right thing. And and, certainly, that’s not what we’re seeing. But I I do think that those people who are enabling this, are themselves just as accountable you know, as as the former president because he he can’t succeed without them.

But but the last thing I’ll say on this is I that is a description of what’s happening within the Republican Party. It’s not a description of what’s happening within the electorate as a whole. And and I think that that’s that’s where when you see over thirty percent of Republicans in New Hampshire, for example, saying they’ll never vote for Donald Trump. There there are real warning signs, and and they’re hopeful signs for those of us who who believe in the institution, frankly, that ultimately the general electorate, we’ll we’ll get this right. We’ll not, reelect Donald Trump.

So if if I could just press a little bit, Jonathan Last, you know, in some ways, I find for myself Trump trump is what he is, despicable character. I don’t know how many times I’ve said that. And so it’s not it’s not actually even very interesting. And he, you know, he’s just awful. I find alarming the lack of a some kind of backbone, some kind of principled behavior on the part of most Republicans.

I mean, most Republican leaders, I should say, You know, there are the, you know, the noble calendar examples, you know, you and Adam Kinzinger, and people who voted for impeachment and, and a few others, but there are tiny minority. Let’s face it. And people who I had thought much better of, like Lindsey Graham, for example, you know, have really bent the knee. And it what worries me about this is quite a part for the possibility of Trump becoming president again, which would be a disaster. In so many ways for the country.

How how will the United States be able to exercise leadership when you have the leadership of one of the two great parties being this craven. And, you know, of course, we’re really seeing this on on the Ukraine vote, which is, this is absolutely critical for the survival of Ukraine. And, you know, we all know what’s what’s happening with that. I mean, I hope they can pull it out at the last minute, but, that’s that’s my biggest concern. What are your thoughts on that?

I I think you’re absolutely right. And I I think that, you know, when I say that the people who are enabling him have to be held accountable to, you know, I I think that it certainly includes the, you know, people that people like Lindsey Graham. People like Tim Scott. People who who absolutely know, the the extent to which both the the danger that Trump poses at home, but also what Trump’s embrace of an admiration for, strongmen. They know what that means for for the United States.

And and what it means for the cause of freedom globally. And, you know, I I I find it hard to imagine you know, worse situation than than the one that the Ukrainians are in today where they’ve been fighting this valiant war where many people, you know, after the Russians initially invaded, many people said, well, you know, this will be over quickly and the Ukrainians won’t be able to defend themselves, and they’ve they’ve proven that absolutely wrong. And and now are finding that they’ve got to fight on this, you know, second front in the United States Congress. And And and normally, you know, if you’re talking about the Congress, you sort of say, well, you know, it’s it’s a body in which you’ve gotta work very di very hard to get agreement to move forward. It’s unusual to have one individual, holding the fate of something as important as Ukraine in his hands, but Mike Johnson does today.

He he he he could, you know, put the Ukraine aid bill that’s already passed the Senate. He could put that on the floor. He should have called the house back into session. They’re coming back this week. He had to put it on the floor for a vote immediately.

And, and I I think that again, this is a place when you when you think about what comes after twenty twenty four, I think the party itself is, gonna have to to I don’t know if it can survive, but, conservatives and those of us who believe strongly in in, American leadership in the world are gonna have to be very clear and honest about what’s at stake and, and about the credibility of people that have abandoned this cause for political expedience, you know, over the last, several months here.

Well, Liz, you know Mike Johnson pretty well. He was your deputy, I guess, when you were, chairing the, Republican house conference. You discuss his role, you know, it was not a particularly felicitous role, after the election in, you know, dealing with the various lawsuits, the big lie, the Amicus brief that many members signed on to for the Texas case, etcetera. What do you think is motivating him here? I mean, is it fear of the freedom caucus, you know, in a motion to vacate?

Is it fear of Donald Trump? What, you know, he he has said publicly he supports Ukraine and, you know, supports aid to Ukraine yet he’s not doing anything as you point out to actually get the majority because everybody agrees there’s a bipartisan bicameral majority to support the bill. But he’s not doing anything to to bring it to a vote. What, you know, what what is the explanation for that? Do you think?

Yeah. I mean, I think it’s both I think it’s it’s he he fears that the Freedom caucus will bring a motion to vacate and, you know, but they’re my my advice to him, which, you know, I’m not suggesting that he’s listening to my advice, but my advice to him would be, you know, what? It’s worth if if if history looks back on you and says at this moment, you know, you met your moment and you did what was right to save lives and defeat the Russians and Ukraine and ensure the Americans that we don’t have to deploy our own, men and women when, you know, to fight when puto Putin moves next into a NATO country you know, if they move to vacate the chair, it’s worth it. Sometimes you have to stand up for what’s right in a in a very difficult set of circumstances. So he clearly fears that.

He also fears Donald Trump. One of the real, sort of challenges of dealing with Mike Johnson after the election, of twenty twenty that I write about in the book was he was so clearly not what I thought he was. And and so we would have discussions about the legal arguments he was making. And and I would say to him and others, you know, Kevin McCarthy’s Council was saying to him, Mike, you know, there’s no basis for what you’re arguing in the law. There’s no basis for it in the constitution.

You’re you’re wrong on the legal theory and and he would often acknowledge in those conversations that he knew he was wrong. And and but then the very next time he was speaking at a meeting of the House Republicans, he would still, you know, be taking the position that he knew to be wrong. So I I think that, it’s not a surprise that he would be conducting himself the way he is given what what we know he did previously. But again, I I just I think that that, you know, people ought to really take a step back and think about what what some things have to matter here. And whether or not America, helps Ukrainians defeat Putin, whether or not America stands on the side of freedom, that really matters.

And and our our members ought to be conducting themselves that way. I think it also is really important as people look at, this question of Donald Trump, in a second term, the notion that somehow he will not present that grave of a threat because of the checks and balances, you know, that’s that’s obviously false if you look at the fact that Congress won’t even right now, the Republicans won’t stand up to him. And he’s not even the the nominee of the party formally. And so the idea that, well, we we don’t have to worry about, his authoritarian tendencies in a second term because we have Congress you know, it’s completely, completely false.

So here here’s my question for you as, you know, your student history as well as having been a diplomatic lawyer. On top of all that, how did Trump get this hold over people? I mean, it’s I think in in, you know, I I sometimes, as I try to think through this period, try to imagine, what are the things that graduate students in history, will be baffled about fifty years from now.

You

know, I’m scratching their heads and saying, Professor so and so. How how on earth did that happen? What what what is your explanation?

Well, I think that, one of the things that he’s he’s done is is tap into a very real sense that millions of Americans have had that their government doesn’t listen to them. And he he, of course, betrays them and he lies to them and has convinced him that somehow he’s the solution, but But it’s a real thing. I mean, I often think about the, you know, people that I represented in Wyoming. And, you know, if if you are you know, trying to graze cattle, your livelihood depends upon grazing cattle on public lands. And you’ve got you know, a bureaucracy in Washington DC issuing regulations that could destroy your livelihood, and nobody will listen to you.

You can’t find a way in. And suddenly, You’ve got, you know, Donald Trump appears and says, you know, I’ll be your voice. Millions of people have believed him. And and so I think that it’s important to recognize that there there’s something very real that he’s tapped into. Now, you know, I think that you also have elements that we’ve seen in in, you know, other societies around the world of the effectiveness of this big lie.

I think that what he’s trying to do is also clearly, been fomented by foreign adversaries kind of divisiveness and conspiracy theories. The kind of attack on democracy that Donald Trump is leading is exactly what you know, the the Russians and the Chinese would like the world to think about our democracy. But he also is the first American president, I think, who who has just does not have a reverence for doesn’t understand, doesn’t know about, but doesn’t have a fundamental reverence for our founding principles, for our founding documents. And I suppose, you know, if you look back at what the framers said about the kinds of people they they knew we would have to protect against, pretty accurately described Donald Trump in a number of instances. So they understood the threat.

And I I think you could say, you know, part of what’s surprising is we haven’t faced the threat earlier. We made it this many years without having to deal with, many of the challenges they thought that we would. But but he’s he’s a particular particularly dangerous leader, partly because I think that there are a lot of people who have discounted him. And, and I think that’s that’s dangerous. But and then I would come back to the notion that we were talking about before of the enablers.

Because everything that I’ve said He can’t do any of it. Effectively, if you don’t have, well, formerly responsible Republicans, helping him. And, you know, had everybody maintain the position that we had right after the attack on January sixth, had the Senate convicted him, had had people done their duty, then we wouldn’t be facing the the threat we’re facing today.

This is a kind of personal question, but, you and I first met some thirty years ago, when we were working, you know, together, when, to bring down the the Soviet system, and then to replace it with a democratic system, you worked, you know, on the transition to democracy, in the early nineties and the Bush forty one administration. You worked with Boris Niemsoft, the late Boris Niemsoft. I’m just wondering whether you had the same you know, almost physical revulsion that I did the other day when Laura Ingram was interviewing, you know, Donald Trump and asking him about his various legal difficulties. He said, oh, this is all a a kind of Navalny. I’m I’m being, like, treated like Navalny.

I’m a dissident in which he actually said at the, CPAC meeting where he said he was a a dissident. I mean, I I found this almost, you know, you know, physically nauseating to to, you know, to hear him say this. And I just was curious whether you had a similar reaction.

Yeah. I mean, both to that, as well as to, you know, the fact that that he hasn’t condemned Putin for Navalny’s killing, the and the extent to which, you know, you’ve got others. You guys have mentioned some of them other Republicans who used to be leaders in the national security area who, similarly refused to condemn Putin. And and I I think that, you know, the the the danger. This is it sort of goes to the danger of a second term, partly because, you know, if you think about the the alliances that, you know, you both are far more expert in this than I am, but the alliances that have kept us safe for so many years The intelligence sharing that’s kept us safe for so many years.

The five eyes relationships, the extent to which we’ve been able to work with these countries, because they trusted us. And if you think about, you know, one of the threats of a Trump second term that hasn’t gotten a lot of coverage is, you know, what does it mean to have Donald Trump in charge of the intelligence apparatus the United States? And knowing that he will appoint people like Cash Patel, like general Mike Flynn, you know, And and then, you know, asking yourself, well, is that really gonna call into question? Our allies and the extent to which they think they can trust us. They think would they be able to trust the American president with the kind of intelligence sharing that we’ve needed to defend the nation for so many years.

And it’s a it’s a really perilous question. But but but certainly the idea that America, which has so clearly stood on the side of freedom. Suddenly, you know, we’re we’re gonna be faced with the nominee potentially of one of our two parties, who would rather line up with strongmen And he really doesn’t doesn’t, you know, try to hide that. He talked about Russia’s tremendous war machine, and I can’t count now the number of times he’s he’s praised president Xi of China. But it’s a kind of even more frankly than the moral equivalence that, I know we all used to find so dishonest, frankly, when the left would do it, during the cold war.

This is even beyond that. This is, you know, these these strong men are better. They’re better than America. They’re better than us. That’s that’s Donald Trump’s perspective.

Well, that I mean, I think that, leads me to the kind of there’s a logical question. You know, I think of that Tucker Carlson, interview with, Putin, which was obsequious. And, you know, his you know, subsequent filming of himself in Moscow. I mean, it is really truckling to these people. Eric mentioned CPAC, And, you know, we were talking a bit before the show about some of the characters who’ve gone on to the stage there.

Genuine dictators, people were kind of phocistic, or, you know, you have extreme religious movements, which I don’t want wanna basically, overturn the separation of church and state, which has been critical. I think to the Republic as well. And, you know, the question that I have in all this is to to what extent are we simply seeing the bubbling to the top of currents that were always there? You know, I I started off very early on writing for national review, for the late Bill Buckley, who very much to his credit, even though he came from a background of isolationism, certain amount of racism Ron DeSantis Semitism, you know, evolved way past that. Transcended it and actually helped, you know, drive some of those folks underground, the birchers, and so on.

And even people have been close friends of his, like Joe Sobrin, Is that what’s going on now that this stuff is, you know, it’s resurfacing like the, cicadas, you know, they go underground for seventeen and then they come to the the surface and breed. Or or is there do you think and and hear them you know, really turn to your political judgment. Something kind of deeper at work in the country that we should take cognizance of and reflect done.

You know, I I think that, I think that there there are several things that are at work. I mean, if Again, you know, if you if you look at at, for example, the, you know, people who invaded the capital on January sixth. Many of them, you know, carried with them the signs of races and the signs of antisemitism. You know, we saw that. We saw a Confederate flag inside the Capitol and and Holocaust denial, t shirts and and other other in dish of kind of racism Ron DeSantis Semitism.

And certainly there if if you look at the difference in the way that the House Republican leadership dealt, for example, with Steve King, in early twenty nineteen, I believe, you know, as soon as it became clear that Steve King, representative from Iowa, had, made comments that, you know, embraced, the idea of white nationalism white supremacy, you know, we immediately condemned him and immediately removed him from his committees. There was no question. And if you compare that to, you know, what has been going on now in the Republican conference in the last couple of years, the people with with those views, you know, people like Paul Gosar, for example, Marjorie Taylor Green, they’ve been they’ve been elevated. So, you know, that that is also, you know, I think uh-uh, something people need to focus on in terms of of an indication of kind of where the Republicans are. I think that, you know, Donald Trump certainly brought brought views that were in many ways, you know, operating in the dark.

He he made it, acceptable on some level and people began to say things publicly. I mean, when you have, you know, Donald Trump dining at Mar a lago with Nick Fuentes, who is a a despicable and disgusting, white supremacist, holocaust denier, you know, he openly dining with him, and people sort of write that off. There’s there’s absolutely I mean, if you just look at Trump’s comments during the debates in twenty twenty when he told the proud proud boys to stand back and stand by instead of condemning them. You know, so so he himself has has fomented this. But look, I think you also if you look at what’s happened across the country since October seventh, If you look at the rise in in anti Semitism on college campuses, the extent to which you’ve got you know, actual Hamas sympathizers, you know, the chanting from the river to the sea and and chanting for genocide.

You know, that that that is also something that and we’re seeing that around the world, not just in the United States. It’s it’s in in some ways, that’s a a resurgence of some of the things we’ve seen before, a resurgence of it. Now The anti Semitism is not only on the right. You know, Rashida to leave and Elon Omar, got members of Congress. And and, you know, the Democrats would not condemn you on Omar when she made very clearly anti semitic remarks several years ago.

But but I think the the extent to which the the Republican party had a moment where we could have chosen and we, you know, obviously I should have chosen to to turn away from this, and didn’t. I think, you know, that that sends a very, a very clear signal to people that believe these things that, you know, your your home is your home is in the Republican Party, unfortunately.

Liz, I’d like to go back to something Elliott talked about, earlier, which is the question of how how the United States, behaves in the world, when its main adversaries Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, are all governed by authoritarian regimes. And, one great party, you know, a party that was, you know, founded on reverence for for freedom and liberty, actually. Both economic and and social, is, and political equality is you know, headed by a would be authoritarian who, as you’ve said, you know, a couple of times already on this, just on this show, you know, lavishes praise on, on Putin and Xi Jinping. And, you know, Kim you know, Kim Jong Un. I mean, you know, his famous love letters with with with Kim Jong Un.

I mean, what do you think the impact is on the ability of, you know, the United States to actually lead in in a world kind of beset by authoritarians, revocious, people pursuing territorial aggression, when we have this problem at home.

Well, I mean, look, I think this this is an issue. I know you you you both have done a huge amount of work on years of work on. And and I think first of all, it’s why we have to defeat Donald Trump. But secondly, I would say, you know, the we don’t have right now advocates in in either party, unfortunately, for, the kind of strong American leadership in the world that we need. And while, you know, my own view is obviously that that Donald Trump presents the existential threat.

You know, I if you look at the approach to national security policy that the Biden administration has taken, you know, in too many instances, they’ve they’ve made very serious misjudgments you know, whether it’s lifting the sanctions on Iran or failing to have the kind of muscular response that we should have had when you know, American shipping and and all shipping came under attack from the Houthis, the Iranian backed Hutis. Whether, you know, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the the way that it was done, and and in my view, the fact that it was done, you know, certainly is sending a message where you can imagine America’s allies around the world begin to think, well, you know, we gotta maybe make other arrangements if we can’t count on the United States. And and I think that we have we have because we’ve been faced with so many challenges domestically, we have, not had the kinds of debates that we need to be having about national security policy. And, you know, you see things like the the budget cuts that the defense department announced, I don’t know, last week, just a few days ago, and and, you know, those deserve, you know, those ought to be the center of attention and the extent to which, you know, our adversaries are building up and developing capabilities that we can’t counter that we don’t have in some instances.

And we’re, you know, cutting our defense budget. And, I I think that, you know, it’s another reason why in my view once get past twenty twenty four, we really either have to develop, a new party or completely reform the Republican Party because it isn’t it, you know, as we’ve talked about, Trump’s embrace of the dictators and the authoritarians would have been unimaginable a few years ago pre trump, but you also have this spreading view within the Republican Party, people that are, again, advocating isolation ism and seem not to understand history or understand the importance of America’s role in the world. And that’s gotta be defeated as well. You know, ultimately, we’ve gotta we we need more strategic thinkers in high office, both appointed and elected. And and we need to understand and recognize the gravity of the situation we’re facing globally as well as, as here at home.

Could I pursue that a a little bit further, You know, obviously, if god forbid Trump is elected, then we’ve got a, you know, some ways an existential set of issues on the table, you know, my own feeling has been that’s probably not going to happen. I mean, even if you look at the, you know, the recent primary in South Carolina, I’m not sure that’s all good news for for Trump. We we can talk about that, but let let’s go to exactly the point you raised. I mean, I have to tell you you know, when, people ask me whether I’m still a Republican, I say, no. That’s because I’m a conservative.

And, you know, I could you talk about those two possible paths and what they would look like. A recovery of the Republican Party to something that would be more like the party of Reagan than, the bushes or what I’ve and and I I will tell you I don’t have a whole lot of confidence in that. I really don’t. I’m I find it very doubtful. And I I will confess.

I was very glad to hear you raised the possibility of another party because I think this may be one of those crisis points in the history of the Republic, where you need to do things that, you know, people in normal times would find it you know, inconceivable or impossible or just too painful to conceive of. So could you talk through that, particularly the idea of a third party?

Yeah. I think that, it partly, will be governed by what happens in November of this year. And, And I I I’m with you in terms of, I I think that that Trump has to be beaten, and I think that that Trump can be beaten and and, you know, I I I think it’s really important for the Democrats to operate in a way that doesn’t drive independence to Trump. I mean, I think there are a lot of a lot of pieces to that policy, but, but I think a loss in November, certainly will inform what the next steps are. If you look at the Republican Party today, one of the really significant challenges we have is the extent to which positions of leadership in the party all up and down but, you know, starting in too many cases from the precinct committee men and women, you know, up to the state party chairs have been taken over by people who have embraced Trump.

I mean, in Wyoming, the the chairman of our party, is a member of the oath keepers. And and so you have you have that phenomenon that’s taken hold, which each day that goes by, again, I I share your concerns, Elliot, that it becomes harder and harder to imagine that the party itself can survive. I think that that what will have to happen. You know, once Trump gets the nomination, if that is what happens, seems to be the path that we’re on. And then then following through into November, I think you’re gonna have, in many ways, and we we need to help encourage this in my view, a splintering of the party and a recognition that the people that are staying in the party if the party stays structured the way it is, and and looks like it does now, that those people you know, there there’s a an embrace of of what we’ve seen happen over the last three years that that is, in my view, very hard to come back from.

But that there are far more people around the country who, who want responsible leadership who don’t want the extremes on either side that we’re seeing now, who want seriousness in dealing with the issues that we’re facing. And and that begins to look more and more like a third party. And and the questions that a third party faces during the election cycle where you’re very consumed with, you know, can you get on the ballot in this cycle and and what does that look like? In some ways, you know, those are questions that party needs to be addressing and dealing with once it’s it’s had time to become established and, they’re much more difficult to deal with now in the heat of of this election cycle. But, you know, going through the process that we haven’t been through since the civil war, really, in terms of forming a legitimate nuts, you know, whether this would be a third party, whether it would be a conservative party that takes enough support away from the Republican Party that, you know, the Republicans become the whigs.

I don’t know how that all pans out, but I think the there’s a combination of sort of the substantive movement that has to be built, as well as the mechanics of you know, party conventions and, you know, establishing a platform and all those things that define a party. But but there are enough people that are dissatisfied, and not even just dissatisfied, but the deeply concerned about what’s happened to the Republican Party that that, you know, I I think that we’re we’re gonna be in a moment where one of those two things has to happen and and even though we know politics can move very quickly, things can change very fast. I find it harder and harder to see the current Republican Party being able to come back from from where it is today. You know, in in any anything that looks like the near future and time enough for us to have the debates have to have before we get to the next presidential election.

I wonder if I could get you to talk a bit about, the importance of a rule of law. This is something that’s a major theme, of course, in the book. And it’s it’s something that at least for me, is, you know, emerged as a major theme in my own work as a diplomat dealing with other countries that, you know, you can talk about elections and reforms, but if there’s not fundamental respect for rule of law, It’s very difficult for democracy to take root, to thrive and to survive. You know, you, and and your husband, Phil Perry wrote a a long detailed memo for your colleagues back in December of, twenty twenty outlining all the cases that Donald Trump, and the campaign had brought about electoral fraud. And I think they they won one out of sixty one, and I think that was a very kinda narrow technical ruling, but you know, sixty of them found that there was no major fraud and and yet so many of your colleagues as you detailed in the book and as you’ve commented here, in the end of the day, you know, we’re willing to let rule of law sort of go, you know, go by the boards.

I mean, again, I I’m still trying to explain that, you know, to myself, to understand it. And I understand, you know, in Washington, you know, everybody is ambitious, whether you’re a bureaucrat or an elected official. There’s a certain amount of ambition that draws people to Washington, but as you said earlier, at some point, you know, sort of fundamental things have to matter. It can’t all just be about personal ambition. What’s your reflection on on all of that from, you know, this experience?

Well, I think it’s it’s it’s perhaps sort of the area as we look at at the danger of a second term that people really do need to focus on. I mean, we we talked about sort of the extent to which Congress is not gonna provide any sort of you know, a check-in balance against a second trump term. And and so then I think you have to look to the courts and, the the thing that people I think don’t fully understand or maybe focus on is that the rulings of of our courts only have power if the chief executive enforces them. And, the quickest way to begin to unravel the foundations of the republic is would be a a Donald Chomp who has told us this is what he will do, you know, who decides that, actually, the the rulings of the Supreme Court don’t apply to him, who asserts as he as he has, as his lawyers have, that, you know, he, as president, has the ability to ignore those rulings to make his own constitutional interpretations Obviously, he’s claiming he’s got complete immunity. But, you know, I I often I remind people that, those those folks who said, well, you know, he he couldn’t have actually stayed in power after January twentieth.

Because the Supreme Court would have gotten involved, the court would have ruled. And and I asked people to think, look, maybe they would have gotten involved but who’s gonna enforce that ruling? Let’s say they did, you know, issue a ruling that he had to leave office. Who enforces that? And and I think that recognizing if you look at what he’s doing today and, you know, the attacks on the judiciary, the attacks on the court system, the threats of violence, the fact that, you know, jurors sitting in his criminal trials and his civil trials now you know, have had to have their identities protected.

They’re anonymous. And the judge, you know, is warned in the Eugene Carroll case know, ordered that the jurors not reveal who else was on those juries, those are the kinds of things that, you know, normally would happen if if you were dealing with, you know, a mob trial. But but this is Donald Trump. And I so I think I think that it’s a it’s a crucial point. You know, as you said, people think about elections, which obviously fundamentally important for functioning democracy.

But but what it means to live under the rule of law and the extent to which that is threatened, you know, is is a huge, a hugely important part of this. It also goes to education. I mean, we we have really fallen far back in terms of our ability to to educate young people adequately about, you know, what the constitution says and how it works and and what the rule of law is and what it means. And and we have to do a much better job of that going forward as well.

You know, I’ll just say as a, as a erstwhile school teacher, I think that’s a hundred percent correct. I mean, it It is appalling how little, American history is taught and and sort of basic civics, but also, you know, a kind of history, which would make you think that this system is admirable, and it’s worth being vigilant and, defending it. I’m I’m, seeing we’re we’re unfortunately be coming to the end of our time. The question I wanted to ask you a way to get back to the book, and there are plenty of villains there. And like I said, number of snakes and reptiles and so forth.

But but there are also some quite heroic figures, and I’m and I think everybody’s now familiar with some of the you know, the police officers and others who really put themselves in harm’s way. And, obviously, that’s that is genuine heroism. I think some of your colleagues, behaved that way. And I I also I have to say I found very touching some of the across the aisle kinds of moments I was just wondering if you could talk about, you know, some of the human relations side of that experience, both on the day and in the, subsequent investigation. And what what are the ones that really stick with you?

Yeah. It’s a such an important point. I mean, it’s a it’s an important point because it gives me real hope. And and it it also I think, you know, shows people, that their their are brave and courageous Americans out there. Many of them Republicans who did their duty and who stood up against the tremendous pressure you know, to capitulate to help help Donald Trump steal the election.

And so I was I was inspired by, you know, so many of those examples, people like Rusty Bowers, who was the speaker of the Arizona State House. And, you know, at a moment of real personal crisis for him. His daughter had terminal a terminal illness and she was she was dying while the the the Trump people, you know, were calling him a pedophile and and threatening him. I mean, it was a really disgusting story and Rusty stood up in ways that were very brave and powerful. As their number of others, the capital police you mentioned, the metropolitan police officers.

And and the, you know, the the members of Congress that, you know, I I think about people like Abigail Spanberger, for example, a Democrat We disagree on, you know, a number of issues. I’m sure. But but Abigail, you know, she said to me at one point that she had trained as a CIA officer, how she would defend herself if she found herself in a building under attack. But she never imagined she would have to use those skills, you know, in in the chamber of the US House of Representatives while the capital was being attacked. People like Mikey Cheryl, you know, Mike and I’ve had several important conversations.

Mike is another. She’s a democrat from New Jersey. About this issue of civics and and education and and what can be done across party lines to help improve the teaching of American history in our classrooms. I I also think, you know, I certainly hope it’s the case that on both sides of the aisle, you know, there’s been sort of a recognition that you know, you can’t say everything is a five alarm fire because then when you really do face a five alarm fire like we are now, it becomes harder to convince people that what you’re saying is actually that this threat really is that big. And I I hope that that will change the way that that we all talk to each other, that we all talk about our political opponents, you know, and and I think voters have a huge impact potential to have a huge impact there in terms of who they vote for, who they support, and, you know, rewarding people who are doing serious work, and and not just sort of, you know, launching partisan attacks for social media likes.

Liz, we are coming to the end of our time. I mean, I think Elliot and I could, you know, continue this conversation with you for, you know, hours on end but we we we won’t do that to you.

Well, I would I would look forward to it. We could do it over over a meal.

That sounds like a that sounds like a plan. But our our guest has been representative Liz Cheney, author of oath and honor. If you don’t have a copy, please go get one. She’s a national treasure, and we’re very grateful that you’ve spent this hour with us on Shilda the Republic, and hope we can have you back in the future.

Well, it’s been been my pleasure. I look forward to it, and and I’m learning all kinds of new vocabulary words about snakes.