Liz Cheney Demonstrates Exactly Why She Should Be Nowhere Near Leadership

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

There are many Republicans with whom I hold disagreements who I can still largely tolerate. That’s part of being in a political party. You are rarely going to agree with every single thing someone posits. This was true for Donald Trump, and it’s true for any number of congressional members.

Then there are some Republicans who are so continually out of bounds that they simply don’t elicit a defense anymore. Rep. Liz Cheney is one of those people, and while many have based their dislike of Cheney on her more recent views about Trump, she’s been worthy of contempt for far longer than that.

To drive that point home, Cheney reiterated her views on foreign policy yesterday. In doing so, she demonstrated exactly why she should be nowhere near leadership within the Republican party.

These irrational, childish rantings came under the guise of the Ronald Reagan Institute. That’s especially ironic given Cheney absolutely would have seen the late president as an evil, appeasing isolationist given her current standards on the matter.

Regardless, let’s talk substance here, because Cheney exhibits a view on foreign entanglements that truly borders on being sociopathic.

To be clear, the constant comparisons of any caution in foreign policy as being similar to appeasing Hitler is intellectually dishonest trash. It’s the kind of generalized logic you’d expect from someone whose ability to critically think hasn’t moved past that of a ten-year-old. Not bombing Libya would not have been like appeasing Hitler. Not helping kill over half a million people in Syria would not have been like appeasing Hitler. Actually thinking through the Iraq war instead of still being there 20 years later would not have been like appeasing Hitler.

But a neoconservative’s mind sees everything as an immediate, existential threat, and that leads to constantly shooting first and dealing with the unintended consequences later. That might be fine if there weren’t real lives at stake — and I’m not just talking about American soldiers — but there are. Does Cheney feel any remorse at all for the millions of people who have died in the last two decades for wars and engagements that appear more and more unjustified by the day? Where is her empathy? Where’s her introspection? Instead, she arrogantly denounces those who objectively did foreign policy better without even a hint of contrition about the deadly mistakes she’s helped propagate in the past.

Cheney wasn’t done, though. She also hung the mantle of white supremacy around the GOP’s neck.

No, we don’t need to make that clear because we aren’t. The surest way to be labeled in a manner you don’t desire is to accept the false premise of your opposition. That demands you prove a negative, and Republicans who spend all day apologizing for something that isn’t true only end up lumped in with exactly what they oppose.

Regardless, Cheney’s foreign policy beliefs are simply an issue that can’t be ignored anymore. Appeals to appeasing Hitler and screaming about patriotism may have been acceptable 20 years ago, but they have been shown to be the illogical rantings that they are at this point. That doesn’t mean one has to be an isolationist, but it is not wrong to think critically about what a foreign conflict might actually mean down the road. It’s also proper to weigh the total loss of life against the perceived benefits. Those are aspects Cheney has never seemed interested in, and it’s exactly why she should not have a part in the future of the Republican Party.