A time for choosing

While some of us were enjoying holiday downtime, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was keeping busy. A steady stream of revelations came out over the past two weeks, culminating in the biggest (though not very shocking) reveal from Rep. Liz Cheney, vice chair of the committee, that the panel has "firsthand testimony" that, during the attack, Donald Trump's daughter and then-senior adviser Ivanka Trump asked him at least twice to intervene—to no avail for several hours, and weakly after that. And Ivanka's not the only one. "Our party has to choose," Cheney said. "We can either be loyal to Donald Trump or we can be loyal to the Constitution, but we cannot be both." Indeed. —CNN

• — Let's hear from Hannity. The committee is preparing to ask Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity for his voluntary cooperation with the investigation. Hannity was a close adviser to Trump throughout his presidency and texted then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows during the riot to urge him to get Trump to stop his supporters. Jay Sekulow, counsel to Hannity, told Axios, "If true, any such request would raise serious constitutional issues including 1st Amendment concerns regarding freedom of the press." —Axios
•  
• — And Justice for all. Attorney General Merrick Garland will give a speech tomorrow about the DOJ's efforts to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the Jan. 6 riot. He will stress the department's "unwavering commitment to defend Americans and American democracy from violence and threats of violence," and discuss "the department's solemn duty to uphold the Constitution, follow the facts and the law, and pursue equal justice under law without fear or favor," a Justice Department official said. A growing chorus of lawmakers, ex-public officials, and others have called on Garland in recent weeks to intensify the department's effort to investigate the insurrection and those who incited it. —The Washington Post
•  
• — Why is accountability so important? Because frankly, without the "big lie," the insurrection wouldn't have happened, and the ongoing rejection of the election results is creating an environment ripe for more political violence. According to James Piazza, professor of political science at Pennsylvania State University, "the sore-loser effect…boosts acceptance of terrorism. Only around 9% of citizens of democracies where all losing parties accepted election results regard terrorism as justifiable behavior. This percentage increased to around 27% in democracies where the main, losing opposition party or parties rejected the election—the category most approximating the U.S. after the 2020 election." —Virginia Mercury

Schmidt: Liz Cheney models honest governance

"One way to increase trust in government is to highlight those elected officials who work to earn that trust and reward them with our votes. That trust can be earned by telling Americans the truth and rejecting the lies. It is Rep. Cheney's dedication to the rule of law and her oath to uphold the Constitution that propels her work on the Jan. 6 select committee. She has shown remarkable courage in standing up to her political party, whose members all but exiled her to a political island. Cheney is almost single-handedly attempting to save our democracy." —Lynn Schmidt in St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lynn Schmidt is a Renew America Movement Fellow and a member of the editorial board at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

MORE: A majority of Americans believe U.S. democracy is in crisis —NPR

Chuck has a plan…

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is at his wits' end trying to pass voting rights legislation, so he's using the Jan. 6 anniversary to inject new momentum into the fight. At issue is the chamber's filibuster rule and whether to reform it in some way to counter gridlock. It's no easy task—Schumer needs total unity on the matter from his caucus, and some Democrats remain squeamish about tinkering with the rules. So he has set a deadline for Republicans to cooperate: Jan. 17, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. And if they don't? "The Senate will debate and consider changes to Senate rules," Schumer wrote in a letter to Senate Democrats yesterday. "We must ask ourselves: if the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the U.S. Senate to do the same?" Stay tuned. —The Hill

MORE: Report shows the extent of Republican efforts to sabotage democracy —The Guardian

Talisse: The first step to combatting polarization

"[M]anaging polarization could involve working to counteract conformity by engaging in respectful disagreements with people we see as allies. By taking steps to remember that politics always involves disputation, even among those who vote for the same candidates and affiliate with the same party, Americans may begin to rediscover the ability to respectfully disagree with opponents." —Robert Talisse in Chicago Sun-Times

Robert Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University.

MORE: Two lawmakers say their bipartisan friendship is a model for overcoming 'toxic' year in Washington —CNN

Bechev: What to expect from Putin in 2022

"Moscow has been transacting with Washington as a near geopolitical peer. At a time when the U.S. is fixated on rising China, this is no small feat. Brezhnev's USSR may be long gone, and today's Russia may be a pale shadow of its predecessor, but from the Kremlin's perspective, it is doing its best to stay in the game." —Dimitar Bechev in Al Jazeera

Dimitar Bechev is a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe and a lecturer at the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, University of Oxford.

MORE: Biden tells Ukrainian president U.S. 'will respond decisively if Russia further invades' —CNN

Focus on gerrymandering

The independent commission created to strip politics from New York's redistricting process veered toward collapse yesterday, as its Republican and Democratic members bitterly conceded that they could not reach consensus on a single set of maps to determine congressional and state legislative districts for the next decade. Instead, they voted to send two dueling, nonbinding proposals to Albany for consideration. So what does that mean? Eight years after New Yorkers voted to take redistricting out of the hands of politicians, the politicians are poised to wrest it right back. Ugh. —The New York Times

• — North Carolina. A gerrymandering trial over North Carolina's congressional and state legislative maps began yesterday, with much of the testimony focused on the state's congressional map, which gives Republicans the advantage in 10 of 14 seats. Political science professor Jowei Chen, who ran a computer simulation of 1,000 potential maps, testified that "the Republican bias in the enacted plan cannot be explained by North Carolina's political geography." A three-judge panel will decide whether the maps need to be redrawn. —WFAE
•  
• — Michigan. There's been a lot more success in Michigan, where one of the country's most gerrymandered political maps has been replaced by one of the fairest. A new independent commission, established through a citizen ballot initiative, approved maps last week that create districts so competitive that Democrats have a fighting chance of recapturing the State Senate for the first time since 1984. The work of the commission, which includes Democrats, Republicans, and independents, stands in sharp contrast to the type of hyperpartisan gerrymandering that has swept much of the country—and highlights a potential model for reform. —The New York Times
•  
• — Virginia. Good news out of Virginia too. As the Washington Post Editorial Board writes: "The decades-long incumbent-protection scheme known as redistricting is finished in Virginia, at least for now. Good riddance. Its death sentence was pronounced by the state's Supreme Court, which last week approved new voting maps…with little regard to safeguarding existing seats for politicians." The new maps were drafted by a pair of experts chosen by the court, one from each party, and enacted unanimously by the seven justices. "It is the culmination of a reform approved by Virginia voters in the state's decennial redistricting procedure that, for the first time in decades, removed the map-drawing from the exclusive hands of self-interested state lawmakers." Bravo. —The Washington Post

Miller-Idriss: How extremism went mainstream

"In a November poll, troublingly low numbers of respondents said they would trust the official results of the 2024 presidential election if their preferred candidate loses: 82% of Democrats and only 33% of Republicans. If officials can't find ways to push extremist ideas back to the fringes, the Jan. 6 riot might someday look less like the last gasp of Trump-era extremism and more like a prelude to an era of violent division." —Cynthia Miller-Idriss in Foreign Affairs

Cynthia Miller-Idriss is the director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at American University and the author of "Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far-Right."

MORE: Facebook hosted surge of misinformation and insurrection threats in months leading up to Jan. 6 attack, records show —ProPublica

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is conducting a "survey" of issues that are important to his followers. Here's the list from the survey:

What issues are most important to you and your family in 2022? (Select all that apply)

Critical Race Theory Being Taught In Schools
Inflation
The Supply Chain Crisis
Male Athletes In Women's Sports
Vaccine Mandates
China
The Southern Border Crisis
Big Tech Censoring Conservatives
Anti-Police Rhetoric
Election Integrity

Notice how he leads off not with controlling a pathogen that has already killed over 800,000 Americans, but a non-issue: The teaching of critical race theory in schools. Yes, he does mention inflation and the supply chain crisis, but he lists 'male athletes in women's sports' before he addresses not Covid, but vaccine mandates.

He also mentions China, but never Russia, which may soon start a shooting war with Ukraine. What's the matter, Josh? Are you hoping to open a motel in Moscow and don't want to get on Putin's bad side? 

At least he is right on one aspect: election integrity. Anyone who has witnessed Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Trump over the last year is also very concerned about election integrity. —Jim V., New York

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.