I was a sophomore at Denison University in the fall of 1975. That fall wasn\u2019t my best academic semester. While studying was still important, I found that \u201csocial activities\u201d played a much greater role in my life. I discovered the pleasures of alcohol, and spent a lot of that fall studying it, in its various forms. In fact, I studied it in such depth, that at the end of that semester I determined that \u201conly\u201d beer (or occasional wine) would be my choice, a decision that lasted until the next millennium.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So it probably wasn\u2019t the best scheduling choice to take Poli Sci 209, \u201cIntroduction to the Theory of Political Science\u201d as my early morning (9:30) class. But there I was, sitting in the front row of Dr. Steinberg\u2019s lecture hall, listening to theory from ancient Greece and Rome to the Enlightenment, delivered in a heavy New York accent. I was generally sober, but often still very tired from the \u201cactivity\u201d of the previous evening. Dr. Steinberg, though, was an excellent instructor, and there were two rules in his class: don\u2019t skip class, and don\u2019t fall asleep.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It was the 1970\u2019s, and smoking was still allowed in public buildings. Dr. Steinberg chain-smoked his way through the Greeks and Romans, emphasizing an important point with a particularly large cloud, or creating a dramatic pause as he lit his next cigarette. One class, after a particularly late evening (more early morning), I was struggling to maintain consciousness as the professor lectured on. I don\u2019t quite remember when I lost the train of thought \u2013 but I definitely recall waking up, desperately choking, as Dr. Steinberg shared his constant tobacco cloud directly into my face. The rest of the class howled in laughter. I took it philosophically, and NO ONE ever fell asleep in that class again! <\/p>\n\n\n\n
My somnambulance didn\u2019t help my grade, or my retention of Political Philosophy. I ended up with a \u201cB\u201d, and just this week had to go back and do some real research as I thought about how to write this essay (research in political philosophy, not the other stuff). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The 1700\u2019s were called the age of Enlightenment. In the current \u201cwoke\u201d era, there\u2019s a lot about the Enlightenment we might call less than \u201cenlightened\u201d. Jefferson and Madison were men of intellect and developed the moral and practical foundations of the United States. But at the same time, they participated in very real immorality. They enslaved other human beings, and they did so in full knowledge of the moral wrong they were committing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But they were well educated men, and knew well the other great minds of their own era. John Locke lived nearly a century before Jefferson. Locke wrote about \u201cnatural rights of men\u201d, beyond those granted by sovereign kings and governments. Locke outlined those rights as \u201clife, health, liberty, or possessions\u201d, not far from Jefferson\u2019s \u201cself-evident truths\u2026life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.\u201d Jefferson recognized that \u201cpossessions\u201d opened the door to the great immorality of their own time. It was better to talk about happiness than property. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
As the Founding Fathers debated the structures of the United States, other Enlightenment minds were thinking about how governing should work. One of those was Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament from Ireland. Burke considered the nature of representation. Was a representative chosen simply to voice the views of those who elected him? Or, was he elected to use his own best judgment. As Burke said in a speech to the voters of Bristol:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cYou choose a member (of Parliament) indeed, but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament. If the local constituent should should have an interest, or form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be, as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Burke viewed his role as an \u201cagent\u201d of his constituents; elected to use his own best judgment as to what was best for them, and for the nation. If the constituents didn\u2019t agree with him often enough, then they had the ultimate means of persuasion. They could choose not to re-elect him to office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Congressman Liz Cheney of Wyoming dramatically lost the Republican primary this week. Cheney only received 29% of the vote. Her opponent, backed by the twice-impeached and disgraced former President, received 66%. Two years before, Cheney received 73% from the same voters. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Cheney is a conservative. During the Trump Administration, she voted more than 93% of the time with the former President. And Cheney comes from a legacy of Republican Conservatism. Her father is a national conservative force, and has been since the 1970\u2019s. He served as Congressman from Wyoming, White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, and ultimately eight years as Vice President of the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Liz Cheney could not abide with the \u201cStop the Steal\u201d lie. And she would not support the attempts to overturn the election, leading up to the Insurrection on January 6th<\/sup>. In fact, she made it crystal clear how she felt about those who did support Trump. As the rioters were at the doors of the House Chamber in the Capitol, Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio attempted to take Cheney\u2019s arm to try to lead her to safety. She was blunt with him as only a \u201cCheney\u201d can be. She said: \u201cGet away from me, you F##king did this<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cheney voted to impeach Donald Trump for the Insurrection. For that, she was stripped of her leadership position in the House Republican caucus. She also volunteered to participate on the January 6th<\/sup>Committee, against the wishes of Minority Leader McCarthy. And she has been the primary \u201cprosecutor\u201d of the case against Trump in the Committee hearings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Liz Cheney has the courage of her convictions, and stood for the fundamental structures of the United States against the anti-democratic actions of Trump and his followers. She was an \u201cagent\u201d of the people of Wyoming, rather than a \u201cdelegate\u201d who follows the public sentiment of her state. She paid the price for that this week in the primary election.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCheney<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Courage<\/h3>\n\n\n\n