by Damozel | Hagel says he won't endorse McCain. (Bloomberg) Not only that, but he'd consider serving as secretary of defense in an Obama administration (Bloomberg). He emphasizes that he has policy differences with both candidates, but thinks his views align more with Obama's than McCain's (Bloomberg). He does plan to remain a registered Republican. He hopes that the party can reincarnate itself in its earlier somewhat more pragmatic form.
Hagel said his disagreement with the Bush administration and his view that the Republican Party ``has veered and shifted, and come loose of its moorings'' don't mean he has given up on the party.
The ``Republican Party is bigger than George Bush or Dick Cheney,'' Hagel said. ``I'm an Eisenhower Republican and the party today is not an Eisenhower Republican Party. Will it come back? I don't know.''
I know what he means, but I think he's filtering it through Fifties-style pastel-tinted cat glasses. When I think of Eisenhower Republicans, I admit I think straightaway about Joseph McCarthy. I don't actually think the Republican party Hagel nostalgically cites ever really existed.
During my lifetime, anyway, it's always apparently remained attached to the view that preemptive military action ever serves American interests over the long term and that being required to pay tax to the federal government was an unfair form of exploitation and a theft of property rather than a perfectly reasonable requirement that people contribute to the community in proportion as they've profited from the many benefits of living in a free society. It's also been chronically afraid of opposition and resistance and given to making 'enemies lists' and blaming the victims of poverty for being poor.
But then again, I was born to be a Democrat. No argument of any Republican, starting with my father, ever made a lick of sense to me, even during my Carolina childhood, when the only Democrats I ever met were African-Americans. I was a Democrat by the time I was seven, and we started to have court-ordered busing.
So I don't know what Hagel and other well-meaning Republicans are clinging on to. But I hope they can fix their party.
I admire Hagel for taking a stand against the Iraq war. I admire him for the same reason I used to admire McCain and still do admire Arlen Specter: refusing to follow the party line if it violates his principles.
Sadly, as McCain had to learn, those who don't fall into line don't a chance at the big prizes. I wonder what Hagel would do.
As Libby at Newshoggers notes, it would be nice if we could trade Hagel for Joe Lieberman.
BooMan was interested by Hagel's views on McCain war policy.
Should McCain become the next president, a Democratic Congress and popular sentiment against the war will likely force him to back away from his current support of the Bush administration war strategy, Hagel said.
``We know where the American people are on Iraq,'' Hagel said. ``And if McCain is elected, I believe he is going to have to adjust to that reality and find a way out of Iraq.''
My colleague Deb Cupples has said the same thing, except in reverse: she doesn't think either candidate will be able to get out of Iraq.
In anny case, McCain seems to reverse himself as easily as...well, as easily as Barack Obama. I believed Hillary when she said she'd get us out; I don't know if I believe Obama about anything at all.
But between the guy who says he will get us out of Iraq and the guy who isn't committing to anything, I'm going with Door Number One. If Obama's elected, at least the people who elect him will be prepared to put serious pressure on him to keep his promises.
And there's an easier way to choose between them. Between the guy who endorses Bush administration policies, and the guy who doesn't, I'm going with the one who doesn't, every time. No Democrat should allow the GOP to believe that the last eight years have been acceptable, or even forgivable. And that's the best reason of all to vote for Obama.
Pearlstein at WaPo: This Recession is a Mean One, and It's Not Going Away
The Federal Marriage Amendment Lurches Back Out of Its Lair
Hostile Witnesses: Ex-White House Staffers Dodged Questions with Attitude
While Lieberman and Hagel are both at odds with their (caucus) party on issues of foreign policy and national security, they are aligned with their party when it comes to most social and domestic economic issues. So I'm not sure swapping them really accomplishes anything.
I admire Hagel's courage of conviction, though, and I think he would make a good token Republican in an Obama cabinet. Secretary of veteran's affairs seems like the obvious choice (I wouldn't want a Republican as SecDef or SecState).
While I don't agree with either Hagel or Lieberman over a broad range of issues, I like the idea (in the abstract) that a politician's views aren't entirely determined by the letter next to their name. Unfortunately, our system of primaries and general elections with first-past-the-post voting tends to force every candidate to line up in a linear political spectrum. If we had proportional representation an/or one of many systems that allowed voters to express their second or third preference, it's possible we would see more elected officials who stake out positions that don't fit neatly within the Republican or Democratic "coalitions".
Posted by: Adam | June 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM