If you start clicking these binaries together, you can trace logical paths to wildly different arguments about the current path getting rid of these problems. The emphasis on structure, seeing Mr. Trump as a product of our system, and the saturation of opting out as a reflection of that system, can get you anywhere from legislators trying hard to pour concrete in ancient error of the Elected Counts Act of 1887, for those who argued that expanding the Supreme Court would correct for political consolidation and minorityism.
And Trump’s emphasis on the anomaly takes you right to Capitol Hill on a recent Thursday night with Ms. Cheney. Dressed in white and seated inside a room watched by millions, she sat up for hours, stern and fierce, at the commission’s final hearing this summer.
Ms. Cheney has argued that the personal agency problem since January 6 plays out: Institutions are composed of individuals and individuals shape political reality, regardless of whether they intend to do so or not. . Officials, she said an interviewer, which is supposed to “recognize that we can influence events.” She told again, “We clearly have a situation where elected officials have to make decisions about whether we are outsiders or leaders,” calling it “irresponsible” “as if the institutions of we are self-sustaining, because they are not; it needs us, it needs people, to do it. “
In one closed statement Addressing the committee’s criticisms, Ms. Cheney focused personally against the system. Personal witnesses testified instead of concealing executive privilege, she said; individuals who have made what she calls “a series of confessions” from within the party and the White House, rather than being part of some broader political class against Mr. Trump; an individual like William P. Barr is not a “fragile flower” that will wither under cross-examination. Each of the theoretical objections to the committee’s political case centered on one key point about the protagonist in this scenario: that, in the lead-up to January 6, people had know and say in and out of the White House, it doesn’t matter, Mr. Trump will do what he did. And in response, Ms. Cheney has pointed out that she has suffered numerous attacks by him, as well as a fundamental boycott of the party.
Over the past decade, some conservative Trump critics have tended to take a sad rather than angry style, and are often a bit confused about how to deal with Mr. Trump, and everything MAGA demands, in policy. and style.
However, Ms. Cheney is not, or has not been, in the past 18 months. No feelings; if those people were hot-tempered, she would be cold, “emotional as algebra”, like a Republican lawmaker said last year; no personal anecdote about how life has become harder for her; there is very little decoration; nothing but this granite singularity. She seems so willing to constantly give up power that it doesn’t seem like a sacrifice, so much so that you can almost forget it’s happening. Then here, as individuals, make choices, extend personal self-determination to the fullest extent within the confines of the political system, to resolve the crisis caused by another individual in Mr. out.