Former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney suggested the creation of a new political party as a potential option for conservative voters disillusioned with the GOP’s current direction during an interview with New York Times journalist Peter Baker on Friday.
Speaking with Baker for the Cap Times Idea Fest in Wisconsin, Cheney shared her thoughts at length on the potential of a second Donald Trump administration and what motivated her initial denunciation of him. Toward the end of the conversation, she expressed frustration with the direction of the Republican Party, stating that she couldn’t see how it could appeal to voters until it addressed the former president’s influence. Cheney briefly suggested the possibility of organizing a new party to meet that challenge, before returning to her thought that the Republican Party cannot credibly argue for people to support it as it stands.
“I don’t have any question that the majority of Americans don’t want somebody like Donald Trump to be the president. The majority of Americans really would like to have a president that their kids can look up to; they really would like a president they know is going to defend the peaceful transfer of power. And I think that that’s where we have to start. Whether it’s organizing a new party—look, it’s hard for me to see how the Republican Party, given what it has done, can make the argument convincingly or credibly that people ought to be voting for Republican candidates until it really recognizes what it’s done,” Cheney said.
When asked by Baker to expand on the notion of a new party, who then referenced the GOP’s own origins from the late Whig Party, Cheney acknowledged the possibility before stressing the need for “some entity” to focus on key issues important to conservatives like herself.
“It may well be because, again, so much of the Republican Party today has allowed itself to become a tool for this really unstable man. And so it certainly has moved away from standing for anything of substance, anything of policy,” she added. “I think we’re gonna have to have some entity that can actually be making the case for the kinds of conservative causes that I believe in—in terms of a strong national defense, limited government, and low taxes—the things that represented the Republican Party before Trump.”
Readers can watch Cheney’s full conversation at the Cap Times Idea Fest below. Her remarks on the potential for a new political party begin 58 minutes into the discussion:
What kind of conservative wants to ensure that the murdering of babies can continue unabated?
What kind of conservative would want to force women to be drafted into the military?
What kind of conservative wipes their ass with the Bill of Rights?
And what kind of conservative would ever endorse Kamala Harris for president no matter who they were running against?
Liz Cheney is no conservative, neo- or otherwise, and never has been. She has no respect for the founding fathers or the constitution. She’s merely the RINO branded version of Tom Hoefling and Joel Skousen: a deeply evil, totalitarian warhawk.
Yes, the NeoConservatives are conservatives.
A “conservative” is just someone who is reluctant to change from some previous status quo because “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.” Conservatism isn’t itself an ideology. It is always historically dependent. The antiquity is intrinsic to the appeal. Yesterday’s liberals can be today’s conservatives. Conservatives believe that without historical continuity, society would be chaotic and life would be meaningless. Although change may become necessary, conservatives generally believe that some level of evil and suffering is tolerable and preferable to the chaos that may come with change.
NeoConservativism hearkens back to the mid 1900s Cold War Progressives, which formed following WW2. Harry Truman, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Lyndon Johnson and people of that era. Beginning in the late 1960s, some Cold War Progressives left the Democratic Party because they were embarrassed by the New Left and were concerned about that faction of the Democratic party’s increasing friendliness with socialism. Some of them thought Johnson’s Great Society programs were a little too great. The Cold War Progressives who had more tolerance for the Social Conservative bible thumpers than they did the smelly, communist hippies in the New Left became NeoConservative Republicans.
I agree with both posters!
She would be credible if she actually was conservative and not a neocon warmongering whackjob like her war criminal daddy.
It should be called the War & Torture Party.