Schmidt is a syndicated columnist and Editorial Board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Following her Republican primary defeat on Aug. 16, Rep. Liz Cheney referenced Lincoln’s words while introducing the establishment of her new leadership PAC, called The Great Task. This great task that Cheney is undertaking is enormous and it will require innovative political tactics.
I propose thinking of the Great Task as a triangle, whose mission is to save our democracy. The three angles are all important on their own, but would yield the greatest benefit if they all work together. The first angle is as Cheney has already laid out: keeping Donald Trump from ever becoming president again. The second is the reminder to all Americans of our shared values and the significance of the freedoms we cherish. The third, and probably the most difficult to accomplish (perhaps even impossible), is addressing the disease ailing the Republican Party.
As a part of her concession speech, Cheney told the crowd gathered in Jackson Hole: “We must be very clear-eyed about the threat we face and about what is required to defeat it. I have said since January 6, that I will do whatever it takes to make sure Donald Trump is never again anywhere near the Oval Office.” Cheney is not afraid to point out Trump’s ongoing efforts to dismantle our democratic system as well as his constant attacks on the foundations and institutions of our republic. Much of that work may come from Cheney’s role as vice chair of the Jan. 6 select committee.
Cheney remains committed to calling out the lies and conspiracies surrounding the 2020 election and has added that she plans to help defeat Republican election deniers during the upcoming midterms. Cheney understands that our elections are foundational to our freedoms and if we do not shutdown election deniers, the United States may never recover.
Cheney might have the most success with The Great Task by working from within the federal government. There is a way. But it is a long shot – a very long shot – on multiple fronts. If the Democrats manage to hold onto their majority in the House of Representatives in the midterms, they should nominate Cheney for speaker of the House. Not as a Democrat but as an independent. This action would be a bold signal that Democrats are more committed to saving our democracy than pushing through an agenda. Cheney has proven she can work as a bipartisan, good faith actor through her work on the Jan. 6 committee.
This unconventional plan would require an extraordinary amount of trust. Then again, our republic is facing an extraordinary crisis. The action would be the ultimate example of putting country over party. As a bonus, it might also help restore some level of trust in our institutions.
According to a recent NBC poll, registered voters in the United States say that the top issue on their minds is the threats facing our democracy. Twenty-one percent of voters ranked "threats to democracy" as the most critical matter facing the country, while 16 percent chose "cost of living." In third was "jobs and the economy," at 14 percent. The same poll also showed that 57 percent of voters believe that the investigations into Trump's alleged misconduct should continue.
The rise in democracy as a voting issue may be due to the televised Jan. 6 hearings. Perhaps they have primed the electorate and reminded us of what our republic stands for and how it works. Cheney seems to know how to use soaring rhetoric to keep this momentum going. Following her defeat, Cheney addressed the crowd with these words: “Let us resolve that we will stand together — Republicans, Democrats, and independents — against those who would destroy our republic. They are angry and they are determined, but they have not seen anything like the power of Americans united in defense of our Constitution and committed to the cause of freedom. There is no greater power on this earth. And with God's help, we will prevail.”
The ills that afflict the Republican Party run deep. There is no quick fix here — it will likely take multiple election cycles before we see a healthier GOP again. A GOP which is based on substance, principles and ideas, and not a cult of personality around one man. This will not be popular with Republican base voters or with Republican elected officials but is a necessary step in our two-party system. Cheney understands that one of the underlying causes of the disorder infecting the Republican Party is constant lies that voters are being fed. This illness, in my opinion, will be the most difficult part of the Great Task.
No matter how you define “great,” Cheney’s mission encompasses all of them. It may also be how we end up defining her.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.