While I tend to believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, there's one major problem with this idea in this time period: you actually have to be willing to do the things that will be helpful. Democrats are, at this point, reflexively against Trumpism, if only for tribal reasons. But the issue with people like Cheney is that they se…
While I tend to believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, there's one major problem with this idea in this time period: you actually have to be willing to do the things that will be helpful. Democrats are, at this point, reflexively against Trumpism, if only for tribal reasons. But the issue with people like Cheney is that they seem to be entirely unaware of their position.
Politically, there are two paths forward. You can be a Trumpist, or you can be a Democrat. This isn't about forcing people to take sides from the top down, this is just a practical matter. R voters want the craziest person in the race. And democratic voters won't support someone who holds every R position just because they have a D next to their name.
But let's zoom out from that for a moment. The issue with Cheney is that she's voting against all the things that, supposedly, she's for. Voting rights bills? She opposes them. The bill for limiting presidential pardon power so it can't be abused? She voted against it. Shutting down the government? She was for it. Defaulting on the debt causing a recession? She was for it.
The point that Elias is making is that you shouldn't lionize someone just because they're against someone you hate. Cheney is just as destructive as MTG when it comes to how she votes, she just isn't making you mad in tweets.
I think what you're missing Charlie, is that you're doing the equivalent of 'but Gorsuch.' You're ignoring the real harm that Cheney and Kissinger are actively doing, because 'but anti trump!' Like being anti most things, anti-trump doesn't mean pro-democracy. And it's unclear that Cheney or Kissinger or any of the others are willing to actually do more than be anti-Trump.
While I tend to believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, there's one major problem with this idea in this time period: you actually have to be willing to do the things that will be helpful. Democrats are, at this point, reflexively against Trumpism, if only for tribal reasons. But the issue with people like Cheney is that they seem to be entirely unaware of their position.
Politically, there are two paths forward. You can be a Trumpist, or you can be a Democrat. This isn't about forcing people to take sides from the top down, this is just a practical matter. R voters want the craziest person in the race. And democratic voters won't support someone who holds every R position just because they have a D next to their name.
But let's zoom out from that for a moment. The issue with Cheney is that she's voting against all the things that, supposedly, she's for. Voting rights bills? She opposes them. The bill for limiting presidential pardon power so it can't be abused? She voted against it. Shutting down the government? She was for it. Defaulting on the debt causing a recession? She was for it.
The point that Elias is making is that you shouldn't lionize someone just because they're against someone you hate. Cheney is just as destructive as MTG when it comes to how she votes, she just isn't making you mad in tweets.
I think what you're missing Charlie, is that you're doing the equivalent of 'but Gorsuch.' You're ignoring the real harm that Cheney and Kissinger are actively doing, because 'but anti trump!' Like being anti most things, anti-trump doesn't mean pro-democracy. And it's unclear that Cheney or Kissinger or any of the others are willing to actually do more than be anti-Trump.