The hiatus remains in effect, but something compels me to write a follow-up post on the subject of Hagel the Non-noninterventionist.  That something would be another Justin Raimondo column overflowing with effusive praise for Chuck Hagel.  Why, look, even Peggy Noonan is applauding him–Hagel must be a serious contender now!  Traditionally much more antiwar Iowan voters barely prefer him less than they prefer Mitt Romney–get out the champagne!  (It is worth noting that Romney and Hagel pulled 8 and 7% respectively, trailing Giuliani, McCain and Gingrich–a flowering of GOP antiwar sentiment isn’t exactly in the offing.) 

Raimondo refers to Hagel’s “rock-ribbed conservatism.”  Perhaps the rocks he has in mind are metamorphic and prone to erode quickly.  This is clear from the man’s record.  His lifetime ACU rating (86) is only three points higher than McCain’s, which tells you plenty about Hagel’s “rock-ribbed” conservatism and the real value of ACU ratings.  Hagel voted against killing NEA funding, when the NEA has long been a target of “rock-ribbed conservatives” (very few of whom are in Congress, of course).  He voted against an amendment that would have given HHS the power to negotiate prescription drug prices (as Ron Paul correctly noted in his Reason interview, the program itself is unconstitutional but if there is going to be a program it ought to be run in such a way that it costs the taxpayers the least amount of money possible).  He was a co-sponsor of one of the most awful, pro-amnesty immigration bills of my lifetime.  If this is “rock-ribbed” conservatism, may God preserve us from the weak and vacillating moderate Republicans!     

Raimondo cites “good old David Boaz,” known most recently for helping discover the unicorn-like “libertarian swing vote,” as a voice of sound political analysis.  Unsurprisingly, Mr. Boaz writes:

Yes, right now the only thing conservatives know about him is his opposition to George W. Bush’s war plans, and conservatives are still inexplicably in thrall to the big-government Bush. But I’ll predict that over, say, the next 12 months leading up to the Iowa caucuses, Hagel is going to look increasingly wise and prescient to Republican voters. And as they come to discover that he’s a commonsense Midwestern conservative who opposed many of the Bush administration’s worst ideas, he’s going to look more attractive.

More attractive to whom?  He already does look attractive to many people who don’t consider themselves conservatives for all the reasons that he will never appear attractive to core GOP voters.  In any case, I fear that the latter pay more attention to the Hewitts of the world than the Hagels.  What these people hear on a regular basis from their demagogues is that Hagel’s position, as milquetoast as it is, is basically subversive and vaguely treasonous. 

Consider Boaz’s own description to understand how absurd this entire Hagel boom is.  A group of people whom Mr. Boaz identifies as being “in thrall” to Mr. Bush–and they are nowhere more “in thrall” to him than on the war–are supposedly going to come to value Hagel’s independence from Bush on the war (the main issue on account of which they have entered Bush-thralldom).  Moreover, they will do this because they are going to recognise (for equally inexplicable reasons) that the war is actually one of Mr. Bush’s “worst ideas” after having believed for four years that it has been a signature feature of his good leadership.  More to the point, they are going to heed Sen. Hagel’s appeal because he has supposedly “opposed many [italics mine-DL] of the Bush administrations worst ideas.”  Except that he doesn’t even oppose the war in Iraq, much less “many” of the administration’s worst ideas (several of which these people probably don’t regard as bad ideas at all anyway).  Hagel rejects the latest troop deployment plan and favours having a debate about Iraq.  A debate would be an interesting change from the servile submission of the last four years.  But it is a measure of how pathetic and weak Congress has become that the mere suggestion of talking about something (an activity that one would not think unpopular among the professional bloviators of the Capitol) is taken as a mark of profound opposition.  It isn’t, and we, as opponents of the war, are committing ourselves to another false hope just as we did before the war if we think it is and if we think it will lead somewhere.  You remember how it went before.  Maybe the British public will do our work for us and stop Blair from joining the invasion!  Maybe the Turkish government will deny use of their country as a springboard for invasion and stop the war in its tracks!  Maybe Hans Blix will save the day!  It’s no wonder we lost, if we ever thought that any of those scenarios were going to make a bit of difference. 

As for the administration’s other “worst ideas” as far as libertarians are concerned, he is staunchly supportive of the drug “war,” which is an appalling policy that should trouble all serious non-interventionists quite a lot.  He voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006, but then I suppose only sissies care about leaving the torture of detainees open-ended and at the discretion of the President.  He did oppose re-authorisation of the PATRIOT Act after having voted for it in the beginning.  In other words, when it counted, he went with the herd and did not lead.  Likewise, now he makes a great deal of noise (and so far it is just noise) about how he regrets his vote for the war and how he opposes the “surge” and so on and so forth, but when it counted–even though he could see with considerable prescience the potential pitfalls awaiting us–he voted with the easy majority.  On immigration, he took the political coward’s way out with his so-called “guest worker program” that simply dresses up amnesty, much as Mr. Bush has tried to do, as something other than what it obviously is.  This makes him not only a political coward, but something of a deceiver in the Bushian mould on a matter of supreme national importance.  It is very likely true to say that another amnesty will do more damage to this country, short and long term, than almost anything that could happen in Iraq.  Even if Hagel were really right on Iraq, which he isn’t, it could not make up for his abominable position on what is arguably an equally important, if not more important, issue. 

When exactly has Hagel shown real political courage?  When it became conventionally acceptable to begin whinging about administration failures, he whinged.  When it became acceptable to criticise Rumsfeld, he criticised.  When it became acceptable, post-midterms, to start talking a bit tougher to the administration about its failures, Hagel talked a bit tougher.  When it became acceptable to start challenging the executive with the bold stroke of a non-binding resolution (Dick Cheney must be laughing at this one), Hagel strode forth and supported the Biden resolution in all of its non-obligation.  In other words, Kaus is right–Hagel isn’t being brave, and he hasn’t been terribly brave, politically speaking, over the past few years.  Perhaps now he thinks he can make up for lost time and actually force a change in policy–all I can say is that it’s about time.  Yet I have not seen this supposed change in policy that Hagel actually proposes to force Mr. Bush to consider. 

Doing something substantive here would involve a real change in policy, rather than this quibbling over how many Americans will remain in Iraq to hold the coats and watch the backs of sectarian murderers.  When Hagel starts pushing for something that looks remotely like a substantive change in Iraq policy, which he isn’t really doing right now, then I will begin to approve and acknowledge the political risk he is taking (assuming that he is taking a political risk in a country where a majority now opposes the war!).  In a Nebraska where Democrat Scott Kleeb could pull over 40% of the vote in a massively overwhelmingly Republican district, discontent with the current state of affairs is obviously strong.  If Hagel does not run for President, he is up for re-election.  Perhaps he knows that he is going to launch an ’08 campaign, and so is willing to roll the dice, hoping to tap into antiwar fever, or perhaps he thinks that his political career is over and wants to retire, in which case doing something that will be remembered takes on a new urgency.  The argument could be made that Hagel is the epitome of the politician who simply follows his constituents and has shifted his position according to the mood of his state.  That might well be a worthy and respectable attribute in a representative of Nebraska, but what it is not is courageous.

This brings me to the vexed question of so-called political “mavericks.”  When liberals fell in love with John McCain because he had adopted their pet issue of campaign finance reform, everyone could see through the deceit of calling McCain a “maverick.”  Maverick meant “a politician who does what I, the observer, like, regardless of the political fallout.”  Actual, hard-core mavericks or radicals have no place in this universe of “mavericks,” because real mavericks frighten the political and chattering classes.  Real mavericks cannot be controlled or cajoled with the usual methods.  When warmongers and interventionists treated Joe Lieberman as if he were the founder of a new religion for his unremitting commitment to belligerence and stupid foreign policy no matter the cost (mainly to others), many of us pointed out that his status as an “independent” and the frequent comparisons to McCain’s “maverick” reputation were the most appalling lies when Lieberman was otherwise an amazingly conventional left-liberal on everything except when it came to killing foreigners who had never done anything to us.  On this, at least, the “maverick” and the “independent” could agree–killing the foreigners was a good idea. 

I now must say quite seriously that antiwar rightists who begin gushing about Hagel’s “maverick” independence from Mr. Bush will not only be quite wrong on the substance of the matter (his supposed independence is focused heavily on process and methods, not on goals or strategy), but they will have fallen into this same shallow habit of virtually deifying a mediocre politician because he happens to seem to agree with them on a single issue.  The saddest thing is that Hagel doesn’t even really agree with the antiwar right about Iraq or foreign policy generally, as I said last time, so the Hagelites are abasing themselves at the shrine of Chuck without even being right about their chosen one’s single-issue appeal. 

No, I take that back–the saddest thing is to treat the media’s hype about Hagel as if it were the pure channeling of an “authentic” opposition figure, as opposed to the media-created “hype” surrounding Obama and Edwards’ actual antiwar positions.  Say what you will against these two powdered buffoons (and I have and will say a great deal against both), but when it comes to the war they actually oppose it rather than mumble about how it “isn’t working” or how we need a “debate.”  Oh, yes, Chuck, let’s debate!  We should have had a real debate in 2002.  That was when Hagel and Edwards could have made some greater difference, but when it counted they were to be found with the administration in favour of aggressive war.  Failing that, they could have at least voted against the authorisation resolution, but that vote was on the eve of the Khaki Election when the Decider was riding high and opposition on a matter of national security was considered to be “irresponsible.”  Obama meanwhile had the luxury of representing a state senate district that was 99% against the war in a state that was overwhelmingly against it, so he could speak out strongly against it with no concern about his political future.   

Even so, Obama, ridiculous neophyte that he is in so many ways, has actually contributed something to the debate with his withdrawal legislation (maybe his legislation is terrible, maybe not, but it is an actual bill that would compel policy changes).  Meanwhile, Hagel yelled at his colleagues on national TV (because he’s so authentic) and then voted for a non-binding resolution.  That’s pretty heady stuff, let me tell you.  Get out the placards and sign me up to start canvassing Davenport for Chuck!  Well, actually, maybe not.   

Once again, let me say that I do prefer Hagel’s weak, belated turn against the administration to the even more gutless embrace of whatever the administration serves up that is more typical of the GOP in Congress (John Cornyn, this means you).  I would rather that Hagel take a much more Feingoldian approach to the entire question, but the obvious impossibility of his doing any such thing underscores my objection to antiwar rightists’ treating him as if he were the second coming of Bob Taft and Bob La Follette rolled into one.   

If Hagel were the compromise candidate who stood the best chance of rallying both antiwar and disillusioned internationalist views under one banner in the hopes of ending the Iraq war once and for all, you could make an argument why antiwar conservatives and libertarians should overlook his unimpressive record on other important things (e.g., immigration, drug war, etc.) and his rhetorical hostility to deeply religious people and explain why they should support his candidacy (if there is actually a Hagel candidacy to support).  That would force us to be single-issue voters, but according to Raimondo Iraq is the only issue. 

I would not make such an argument, and I would probably not be persuaded by such an argument were it made, but it would be a much more serious argument than pretending that Hagel is somehow the embodiment of all that we might ever hope for, our proverbial white knight, when he is at best the squire on a donkey.  Unlike Howard Dean, an actual antiwar candidate who famously flamed out and in whom some of us invested far too many expectations, Chuck Hagel isn’t even what I could call antiwar.  To be antiwar, you have to oppose a war.  I do not know of anything Sen. Hagel has ever said about Iraq that would lead me to think that he actually opposes it.  How can he rally antiwar Americans to his cause when he doesn’t even accept the premise of their resistance to the administration and probably, as a veteran and an internationalist, regards most antiwar people with a vague contempt?  Watching non-interventionists, mainly libertarians at that, throw themselves at Chuck Hagel like the Japanese girl from Babel is just depressing, because it reveals the depth of their, our, desperation and represents the total and complete failure of the opposition to the Iraq war even at this late stage.  Fundamentally, it is an error because it invests this entirely conventional Red Republican pol with an importance he does not possess and an integrity in defending the Constitution and the American interest that he has not demonstrated.  We should never trust princes, but neither should we praise them when they have done literally nothing to deserve it.  That way lies the disgusting servility and abasement of the legions of Bush-adoring collaborators.  It does not yield a more free people nor does it yield a more just government.