« Monday Miscellany [Because Stephen must be spent] | Main | The Die Is Cast »

July 22, 2008

Single Issue Emphasis Brings Us This

Without the Iraq War, the idea of Chuck Hagel as Obama's Secretary of State would die a fast, welcome death.  But Hagel's been getting quite a bit of love from (male)* progressives for some time now; I wrote about it in February of 2007.  Hagel's appeal has been predicated solely upon his willingness to offer rhetorical opposition to Bush's foreign policy.  That's right, "rhetorical opposition."  He's never actually done anything to hinder George Bush's extreme policies.

Aside from Hagel's maverick facade on foreign policy, the man is a down-the-line social conservative.  As I wrote in my previous post, Hagel

  • has a 0% rating from NARAL
  • has a 100% rating from Christian Coalition
  • Voted against allowing Medicare to negiotiate drug prices
  • Voted for limiting medical liability awards
  • Voted to allow drilling in ANWR
  • Voted against $100 million for reducing teen prenancy through education and contraceptives
  • Voted for Alito and Roberts
  • Voted for Bush's tax cuts and extending them
  • Voted for Patriot Act and extension

This is not a man who needs to be running America's foreign policy.  Nor is he someone who should be in a Democratic President's inner circle.  BooMan thinks having Republicans on a Democrat's cabinet can be a good thing, and he cites FDR and Clinton as examples.  My only response is that I cannot understand how people can look at what the Republican party has become and think creatures like "moderates" still exist. 

A vicious war is being fought in Washington, DC.  The casualties of this war are dead and injured soldiers, dead, injured, displaced and tortured Iraqis, young girls getting pregnant because they have been denied education and access to sound medical care and advice, babies born into poverty and disease, homeless families, laid-off workers, and the steady destruction of Constitutional rights and the rule of law. The Republican party has shown by its words, and more importantly its actions, a total commitment to restructuring American society into an oligarchy. 

There is nothing ignoble in recognizing this and acting accordingly. There is much that is foolish in continuing to ignore this and including in the highest levels of government those who would undo all we seek to accomplish.



*There is nothing more foundational to liberalism than individual liberties.  People like Hagel, despite pretty words about one current issue - as important as it may be - support government control over the bodies of fully half the citizens of the world.  And I've noticed that those liberals whose control of their own bodies is up for discussion tend to be resistent to Hagel's charms.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hear, hear.

The notion of letting this asshat anywhere near the cabinet, much less a position like Secretary of State (or VP as has been suggested by some male pundits)is pre-fucking-posterous.

By they way, I'm completely on board with this. Hagel should endorse Obama because of his stance on the war, while Obama should promise him ... bupkus. Maybe he can appoint him to a Commission on executive Warmaking Authority. Appointing him to State or Defense just feeds the "Democrats can't do foreign policy" meme.

Wait... So half the people in the world are pregnant? Although you don't actually mention abortion, that seems to be what you're implying in your footnote.

I agree with the post completely. It's fine to cross party lines to fill a cabinet position, and it is probably helpful politically, but a nominee should not be at odds with the president on so many issues. The Secretary of State, in particular, should reflect liberal values because the State Department sets policies for foreign aid and a lot of social programs.

Even Condi Rice seems more liberal than Hagel.

CSC - Abortion is not the only thing that social conservatives are trying to control.

For the most part I agree, but I have one quibble. Yes, there is nothing wrong with recognizing that the republicans want to turn the country into an oligarchy (and an imperial oligarchy at that), and it is good to act accordingly. However, many otherwise decent/misguided people are not aware of this, and I think continuously pointing out that the side they have been supporting is actually evil will probably alienate them from your side (I mean actual human beings here, not politicians). Acting in a way that suggests you don't view a person's previous leaders are monsters might be useful in drawing them over to your side. The degree to which Hagel is useful is dependent on such considerations.

Also, I think Booman's discussion is based on whether or not Hagel's unpalatable/abhorrent views are irrelevant to his possible post (and I think it is silly to argue that Booman is ignorant of Hagel's vile views). You can argue that Booman's opinions are wrong, but to do so you need to show how Hagel's views are relevant to the proposed positions (and Booman seems to be arguing that they are not, I think).

You can argue that Booman's opinions are wrong, but to do so you need to show how Hagel's views are relevant to the proposed positions

Access to contraceptives and abortion has been a big issue in American foreign policy for some time now. There's also how the Bush administration was working with the Taliban before 9/11. After 9/11, of course, one of Bush's talking points was how an American invasion would be so great for Afghanistan's oppressed women.

Female genital mutilation is a big problem, as is the practice of "honor killings." In fact, in nation after nation around the world women are treated little better than farm animals, if they even reach that status. We simply don't need Secretaries of State who don't care about the rights of women, who are willing to work with governments that brutally oppress them, who will use the rather large amount of discretion given to a SecState to advance policies that hurt women.

Acting in a way that suggests you don't view a person's previous leaders are monsters might be useful in drawing them over to your side.

The last time there was a major shift in party allegiance was when the Dixiecrats ran into the warm embrace of the GOP. Attitudinal change happens in this society because people die, not logical arguments or trying to meet the other side halfway.

Wait... So half the people in the world are pregnant?

Reproductive freedom, in addition to only being realized in societies that recognize other basic rights and freedoms for women, is about much more than what happens after a women is pregnant.

You had me at, "R-Nebraska".

I don't get this love for Hagel at all. I don't hear people going goofy over Walter Jones. Is Hagel any better than Sam Nunn? And I don't hear anyone from the lefty blogostan pining for Sam Nunn to be VP(It's the TradMed bringing his name up).

The comments to this entry are closed.

ActBlue

  • Goal Thermometer
    Bob Roggio (PA-06) $
    Sam Bennett (PA-15) $
    Josh Zeitz (NJ-04) $
    Joshua Segall (AL-03) $
    Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03) $
Blog powered by TypePad