Goldstone’s most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights.
In early 2020, if anyone was willing to bet that the conservative icon and anti-abortion, gun-toting zealot Liz Cheney, who sported an almost unbroken record of voting with Donald Trump and a history of calling Barack Obama “the most radical man who’s inhabited the Oval Office,” would be turned out of her own office by a former Never Trumper who had praised Cheney as a “proven, courageous, constitutional conservative,” they could have gotten very nice odds.
And lost.
Harriet Hageman succeeded in what only two years ago would have seemed laughable. But by making a single course correction — she, like many other Republicans including Rep. Elise Stefanik, changed from Trump hater to Trump groveler. Cheney, of course, sealed her doom by going in exactly the opposite direction, fueled by her determination to resurrect Republicans as an actual political party. Even more bizarre than her loss in the primary is that her approval rating among Democrats is now higher than among Republicans. While there has been no shortage of near insanity in the American political scene, Cheney’s whipsaw certainly ranks near the top.
Forsaken by her home state and the many voters who once revered her, Cheney must now decide how to continue her crusade to purge the party of Donald Trump and what, if anything, he stands for, an aim she announced bluntly in what passed for her concession speech. There has been widespread speculation that she will mount a run for the 2024 presidential nomination ... as a Republican. Although she is aware that she is facing a climb more arduous than Gannett Peak, the highest mountain in Wyoming, Cheney’s goal would likely be more to impact the process than to actually win the nomination.
Every American should root for her to run.
There has been a good deal of talk, hardly idle, about the United States abandoning even the pretext of democracy and descending into autocracy. Fortunately, although the pressure has been immense, autocracy has not yet taken root in the nation as a whole.
But in the Republican Party, it has.
Turning a blind eye to history, morality and the Constitution, Republicans have decided that to hold on to power for its own sake — they don’t seem to have a legislative agenda worth discussing — they will forgo even the veneer of truthfulness, honor and patriotism to embrace a man for whom democracy is a foolish affectation of the weak. If Christopher Marlowe were still around, he would cast Kevin McCarthy as Faust.
Although Republicans have yet to be successful in remaking the United States in Donald Trump’s image, they also seem loath to attempt to gain power by persuading a majority of Americans of the merit of their ideas. In the first place, they no longer have any ideas, and in the second, they are doing all they can to prevent the majority from expressing itself. The irony is that during the four months of the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, the delegates feared despotism more than any other calamity that might befall the new nation and created a system that they thought would discourage it. Instead, by building minority rule into both the legislative and executive, and providing insufficient checks on the judiciary, they enabled it.
To be sure, a Republican takeover of the government is hardly assured. There have been signs that, despite Trump’s unquestioned influence in the primaries, many of those he has backed, such as Senate candidates Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Herschel Walker in Georgia, Blake Masters in Arizona, and even J. D. Vance in ordinarily Republican Ohio, might face a difficult road in the general election. If all or most of them lose — a genuine possibility — Democrats will increase their control of the Senate to a Manchin- and Sinema-proof majority. Trump’s endorsement may also backfire in key gubernatorial races, such as those in Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania. In House races as well, gerrymandered though they may be, Trump might turn out to be as much unwanted baggage as first-class ticket.
Still, without a plausible Republican alternative, even if Trump himself is rejected, Trumpism may well survive in the person of smarter, smoother, more acceptable amoral pretenders, such as Ron DeSantis. The Florida governor, while certainly conservative, doesn’t seem to have real core beliefs that guide him other than his own determination to inherit Trump’s gold toilets. Trump thus may turn out to have been a perverse Daniel Boone, blazing a trail for other, less obvious, would-be dictators to follow.
This is where Liz Cheney comes in. Whatever one may think of her policies and her beliefs, at least she has some. If she runs, while she may not get many votes, she will have a chance to share the stage during the debates that will sprout like mushrooms during the primary season. (Republican leaders are already considering how to keep her from participating in debates, but if she gets enough signatures to appear on the ballot, it will be difficult for them to win the inevitable court challenge.) Once on stage, she will forcefully air all the hypocrisies that the other candidates will desperately attempt to ignore.
All of this theater might not garner her all that much support — although perhaps there are a greater number of principled Republicans than many pollsters think — but exposing the duplicity and venal self-interest of the other candidates could well impact that share of the electorate that is still truly independent.
Another lesson Republicans have learned from Trump is that there is nothing worse than losing — not cheating, not lying, not stealing, not prostituting one’s values. If independents appear as if they will reject Republicans’ power grab and vote for Democrats, the prospect of defeat may nudge Republicans toward the center. Or, if they persist regardless, push them out the door.
Either way, the nation will be better off.




















Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.