But to have a different position than the president’s on a war doesn’t qualify anyone to be an anti-war candidate. ~Chuck Hagel

You can say that again!  Oh, yes, Hagel did say it again just today in his non-announcement announcement.  It serves the arguments of antiwar commentators to turn Hagel into an antiwar candidate, and Republican hacks would like nothing better than to be able to frame every mild disagreement over tactics into a question of treason or loyalty, but neither interpretation does justice to the man’s actual views.  Justin Raimondo writes in another praise-filled column on Hagel:

Hagel insists he’s not an “antiwar” candidate, but this is precisely what I mean about the effective stereotyping of all opposition to the neocons’ foreign policy: critiques of the war not steeped in either pacifism or blame-America-first leftism are simply inconceivable.

It’s true that this stereotyping exists and has a pernicious influence on the debate, but that’s not what Hagel means when he says he’s not an antiwar candidate.  He means, “I am not opposed to this or, for that matter, any other war.”  Since he has never said that he does oppose the war and goes out of his way, as he did today, to reiterate that he doesn’t oppose it, it is odd that anyone could think that he does.  Like other critics of how the administration is waging the war, he quibbles with their methods, tactics and decisionmaking, but he does not object to the project itself nor does he really reject the foreign policy paradigm that is behind the war.  He doesn’t oppose interventionism and is not an anti-interventionist, so how can he inject anti-interventionist arguments into the debate? 

I appreciate Mr. Raimondo’s acknowledgement of the criticism that I and others have made about Hagel’s foreign policy and other views.  (Libertarians will be amused to see my perspective referred to as a libertarian one, which they and I would both heartily deny, but no matter.)  If he sees all these flaws and wants to embrace someone he calls a Republican “realist,” I can see how that makes a certain amount of political sense.  It was very good to see Mr. Raimondo write at length about Ron Paul in some of the rest of the column.  When Rep. Paul gets into the race, then we will have an antiwar candidate and more than just an antiwar candidate: a candidate who actually believes in adhering to the Constitution strictly, reducing the size and scope and power of government and defending liberty by actually defending it against its foremost antagonist, which is the central government, rather than airily talking about its defense while making the state ever more powerful through intrusive laws at home and unjust wars abroad.

I have no problem if some folks want to applaud Hagel’s criticisms and acknowledge that he has at least dissented a little bit from the party line, but let’s not get carried away.  I also have no problem if some want to support his candidacy, if and when it ever comes into existence, provided that they understand that he is not an antiwar candidate and represents pretty much standard-issue Republican Party political establishment views on everything from immigration to foreign policy to trade.  Chuck Hagel is a party man in the Party of Immigration, Imperialism and Insolvency, so Hagel supporters should consider themselves forewarned.  You may as well support Sam Brownback–you would be getting almost exactly the same thing.  When Hagel does do something really impressive, then we can start praising him.  Until then, the unseemly gushing over someone who isn’t even on our side in the debate and who makes a point of distancing himself from our positions is bizarre.  Rick Santorum has also dissented from the administration on foreign policy, albeit in the opposite direction of ever-crazier and more dangerous ideas, but his status as an “outspoken” critic alone shouldn’t recommend him to us.