#660 Musings Beyond the Bunker(Monday May 15)
Good morning,
I don’t agree with Liz Cheney on a number of issues. I think she has been too accepting of many states’ unreasonable restrictions on women’s choices in questions of abortion. I think she has been too accepting of a broad reading of the Second Amendment. It think she is too accepting of lower tax rates and tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations.
That said, I applaud Representative Cheney’s views on pursuing a robust foreign policy that constrains the designs of dictators and furthers democracies around the world. I agree with her that we need to constrain government spending and make government more efficient. I am appreciative of her support of the State of Israel and her stand against antisemitism from the right and the left. Most importantly, I remain in awe of her bravery in sacrificing her House career to defend democracy from the dangerous authoritarian impulses and banal acceptance of evil by most of her party. She has proven to be one of the few people who stands up for her beliefs, unapologetically.
Perhaps most compelling, however, is her acknowledgement that there will need to be compromises made between people with seemingly intractable views in order to serve the interests of our society. Her views on both guns and abortion have moderated in recent months. Her desire to reach across the aisle remains high. And her steadfast refusal to condone lies and fraud are exemplary.
The message I took away is that there are people with whom I have disagreement—some profound—nonetheless are worthy of engagement and negotiation. Many people are reasonable and see the limits of going “all in” on their personal views, without acknowledging that we need to work together.
REASONABLE PEOPLE DISCUSSING COMPLEX ISSUES COMPASSIONATELY
In the past two weeks, I have had the pleasure to interview two world leaders in two different forums. The first was Mircea Geoana, the Deputy Secretary General of NATO, who also is a prominent political leader in his native country of Romania.
Mr. Geoana shared the importance of NATO, his concerns about the need to stop Russian aggression, and reminded us of what it was like to live in a Communist country, where his travel was restricted and the government controlled the media and most aspects of life. He commented on the importance of standing against unprovoked aggression and the need of the community of nations to act together to avoid regimes such as that in which he was raised.
He also shared his concerns with cyber-warfare, and the work being done by the Chinese, Russians, and Iranians to access personal data and systems and to manipulate social media. Besides being an important pact binding together the liberal democracies, NATO is focused on these more esoteric, yet no less serious, threats.
We have been the beneficiaries of one of the longest periods of relative peace in Europe and North America in history—largely as the result of NATO (one has to look back to the Congress of Vienna and the 1815 Treaty of Paris (after Napoleon met his Waterloo) until the First World War, with brief interludes of the Franco-Prussian wars and the Crimean War, for a similarly long period of relative peace. NATO maintained a valuable bulwark against Soviet aggression and was able to navigage the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 and after. It eventually invited other nations to join NATO, after a long period under the control of the Soviets and their client regimes. As the Ukraine War has taught us, NATO remains a vital organization that has, notwithstanding Donald Trump and the isolationists (on the right and the left), served us well and has an important mission going forward.
LIZ CHENEY
The second conversation was with Liz Cheney. As a result of her steadfast pursuit of the truth in the January 6th Committee hearings and her relentless attacks on the anti-democratic, authoritarian impulses extant in our country, she has become someone who is recognized simply by mention of her first name. Who doesn’t immediately respond to “Liz” with the acknowledgement that we must be speaking about her?
Liz covered the gamut of issues that our nation faces. While one certainly can learn her views on any number of topics simply by following the news, I can boil down what she left us with by citing two important lessons. First, that sometimes doing the right thing may not be in a person’s immediate personal interest—that the timidity of people who won’t stand up to evil are enablers of that evil (see, e.g., Hannah Arendt’s cogitations on “the banality of evil.”) Second, that one can have a conversation with people of different positions that is civil, respectful and desirous of finding a reasonable middle ground. The questioning following our colloquy was not always reflective of agreement—but included inquiries intended to highlight differences. It was interesting that she could take someone’s point and clarify a middle ground with the questioner or she could simply say, “then you shouldn’t vote for me.” Practical, frank talk. It reminds me of John McCain’s “straight talk express” days.
Most of the people in the audience who agreed with her regarding the insurrection and the danger of Trump. Many of those same people disagreed with her on gun control and abortion rights. But even in a short Q&A, one could see people leaning forward, trying to understand the position of the other, and finding places in which they agreed or in which they were at least in striking distance of compromise. It is only through compromise—not the abandonment of principles—but the melding together of different principles—that can get us to the finish line on the important issues of our times.
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: