Holding her head up high

House Republicans voted by a wide margin last night to keep Rep. Liz Cheney as House Republican Conference Chair, following a fiery closed-door meeting in which members aired their grievances. Cheney was re-elected by a secret-ballot vote of 145-61, after standing by her recent vote to impeach Donald Trump on the charge of incitement of insurrection.

• — "I won't apologize for the vote." Cheney sustained criticism from Rep. Scott Perry, who said she "aided and comforted the enemy" with her vote, and Rep. Darrell Issa, who asked if she would "do it again." But Rep. Doug Lamborn suggested Cheney should keep her position because "everyone agrees she had a right to vote her conscience."
•  
• — McCarthy takes some heat. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy drew some criticism of his own. Rep. Adam Kinzinger "unleashed hell" on McCarthy for defending Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene more than Cheney, which he said was "embarrassing." Rep. Tom Rice took aim at McCarthy for his meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago last week. —Forbes
•  
• — The Greene House effect. As for Greene, the racist conspiracy theorist from Georgia, she attempted to disclaim her past comments at the meeting, receiving a standing ovation from some in attendance. After McCarthy took no punitive action against her, the House is voting today on a resolution to strip her of her committee assignments for her violent rhetoric about Democrats. —Axios

Edsall: QAnon has not loosened its grip

"If the conspiracy wing of the Republican Party becomes strong enough to routinely mount winning primary challenges to mainstream incumbents, [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell may well abandon his critique and accept a party moving steadily closer to something many Americans (though not all) could never have imagined: the systematic exploitation of voters gullible or pathological enough to sign on to preposterous conspiracy theories in order to engineer the installation in Washington of an ultraright, ethnonationalist crypto-fascist white supremacist political regime." —Thomas Edsall in The New York Times

Thomas Edsall is a columnist at The New York Times covering politics, demographics, and inequality.

MORE: Faye Flam: How the QAnon conspiracy seduces normal people —Newsday

Pentagon calls for military stand-down

Acknowledging that a disproportionately high number of current and former military servicemembers participated in the siege of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, the Pentagon yesterday announced plans for military-wide stand-downs, pausing regular activity over the next 60 days to tackle the issue of white nationalism and other extremism within the ranks. The decision was made by Defense Sec. Lloyd Austin, who made history by becoming the first African-American to lead the Pentagon. In his confirmation hearing, Austin underscored the need to rid the military of "racists and extremists." —Reuters

MORE: Jarod Taylor: The U.S. military must be nonpartisan, but not apolitical —World Politics Review

Pape & Ruby: The insurrectionists aren't like other extremists

"Violence organized and carried out by far-right militant organizations is disturbing, but it at least falls into a category familiar to law enforcement and the general public. However, a closer look at the people suspected of taking part in the Capitol riot suggests a different and potentially far more dangerous problem: a new kind of violent mass movement in which more 'normal' Trump supporters—middle-class and, in many cases, middle-aged people without obvious ties to the far right—joined with extremists in an attempt to overturn a presidential election." —Robert Pape & Keven Ruby in The Atlantic

Robert Pape is a political science professor at the University of Chicago and the director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats. Keven Ruby is a senior research associate at the Chicago Project on Security and Threats.

MORE: Shell-shocked and angry: Inside the Capitol Police force a month after the deadly attack —CNN

Balko: How public opinion on race and policing shifted

"Trump's incessant race baiting, the open bigotry among some of his supporters, and incidents such as Charlottesville aided the overwhelming shift in public opinion that followed the [George Floyd] protests. It's easier to believe there's systemic racism in policing when the self-described most pro-police president in history encourages and enjoys broad support from white supremacists. On policing, race, and crime, as on so many other issues, the more Trump rallied his base behind his views, the more everyone else seemed to turn against them." —Radley Balko in The Washington Post

Radley Balko is a columnist at The Washington Post focusing on civil liberties and the criminal justice system.

MORE: Kamil Warraich: I'm a cop and I know police do a poor job of policing their own —The Star-Ledger

Focus on foreign policy

President Biden will deliver the first foreign policy speech of his presidency from the State Department today. He is expected to emphasize the return of human rights promotion to the top of the U.S.'s foreign policy agenda and the importance of working multilaterally to achieve foreign policy aims. Restoring morality and cooperation to American foreign policy is an encouraging start, but it remains to be seen whether wayward authoritarian politicians and generals change their behavior, particularly when U.S. sanctions haven't been very effective.

• — China. Tariffs didn't change China's behavior. It has accelerated its crackdown on Hong Kong, tightened its grip on Muslim minorities, and issued new threats against Taiwan. Figuring out how to make China pay a price for a genocide may be one of Secretary of State Antony Blinken's most complex tasks.
•  
• — Iran. In the case of Iran, many in the previous administration believed that a few years of crackdowns on oil exports would fracture the government there, or at least force the country's leadership to strike a new nuclear deal. It did neither.
•  
• — Russia. Biden's best hope for progress may be in Russia. Inside the administration, there is hope that the thousands of Russians who have taken to the streets in support of opposition leader Alexei Navalny may give the U.S. an opportunity. If executed skillfully and with the help of European allies, officials say many ordinary Russians may welcome sanctions as a sign that the U.S. is on their side. —The New York Times

The Economist: Despots vs democracy

"Putschists and despots tend to crave at least a veneer of legitimacy. A semblance of democracy may help keep their subjects quiescent and certainly makes international summits less awkward. The ideal is to create some scope for genuine political competition, the better to appease the masses and their foreign friends, while retaining control over all important decisions. ... Such arrangements, however, are inherently unstable. Autocrats dislike being shown up, no matter how negligible the consequences." —The Economist

MORE: Global democracy has a very bad year —The Economist

I would like to share my thoughts on some of the ideas recently posted. First of all, I am glad to see that someone is undertaking the role of protecting our democracy. I am a conservative "Never Trump" Republican who also questions the future of the party. I vote country over party. Some names of potential leaders for the future have been floated. I strongly respect John Kasich and Mitt Romney for their courage in standing up for what they see as true and best for our country. I would encourage them to come forward to guide us into the next best path forward. However, I live in a strongly Republican, rural Ohio community and can say that these courageous men are viewed as "traitors" by many "loyal" Republicans. My personal opinion is that the future of the Republican Party is in jeopardy. There is not enough common ground to keep from infighting and allow us to move forward productively.

The national government might benefit from having three significant parties. I see the present system as a head-to-head football game. Two sides butted up against each other. It is really about advancing the TEAM. A three-party system would, I hope, be more similar to a track meet, where each team is encouraged to do their best and applauded for advancing and succeeding. Opposing teams actually encourage each other.

Another observation to note: Although you endorsed Joe Biden to defeat Trump, please be careful to not become too much of a "cheerleader" for him. Yes, we should acknowledge progress, but remember that there are major differences in policy. I voted third party because my conscience would not allow me to endorse either Trump or Biden. Although I did breathe a sigh of relief at the victory of Biden, many of his executive orders over the past few weeks have been very much against my convictions. His pro-abortion orders took us major steps backward in the fight for the respect for and protection of human life. Be aware that this issue is MAJOR in voters' minds as they cast ballots.
 
I thank you and pray for your success in helping to steer our wonderful country onto better roads ahead. —Nancy R., Ohio

The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff or the Stand Up Republic Foundation.