Chuck Hagel: Rightwinger

In case this isn't clear, check out Cenk Uygur's post on Chuck Hagel -- if you look at his record in the Senate, what you'll see is an honest to God conservative Republican representing the state of Nebraska. You'll also see a guy who's said a lot of very tough and smart things about the Iraq War and George W. Bush's policies in the region in general. But he's not a moderate Republican by any standard; on a whole wide range of issues he's a very orthodox conservative. He doesn't seem to be a particularly enthusiastic culture warrior, but he votes with the Christian right all the time and their issues, and with business on their issues.

He's not, in short, really a Republican Joe Lieberman -- not someone with a whole array of stick-it-to-the-base notions. Outside of the foreign policy realm, there's not much to like here from a liberal point of view.

Comments

I'd much rather have someone who was a down-the-line conservative on domestic issues and rational on foreign policy issues, such as Hagel, than someone who is more moderate on domestic issues but nutty on foreign policy, like McCain.

If you look at the damage Bush has done with just one foreign policy issue, the Iraq war, its orders of magnitude more than any damage he could have done even if his entire domestic agenda, including social security privatization, had been enacted.

Posted by Jim W | January 31, 2007 9:42 AM

Two comments. First, doesn't that make him a republican Joe Lieberman? Votes with the party on issues other than the war.

Second, the perception of Hagel as a centrist or even left of center demonstrates a phenomenon that's been around for awhile. Right and left have become pro-war and anti-war. You're either a signatory on the neo-con program or you're a loony lefty endangering the troops and our country.

Glenn Greenwald is a must read today, as he prints quotes of Republican opposition to Clinton's intervention in the Balkans.

Posted by jayackroyd | January 31, 2007 10:21 AM

1. Yeah, I'm not sure where you get this idea that Lieberman has "a whole array of stick-it-to-the-base notions", especially if you are only talking about voting record and not rhetoric (which is where you also find Hagel deviating).

2. One difference between them is that Hagel routinely votes against excessive agricultural subsidies. A pretty principled stand, considering that he represents Nebraska.

Posted by Tony V | January 31, 2007 10:28 AM

Which is awesome, he's undeniably (although they try) one of them, but he doesn't buy their bull on Iraq.

Posted by aleks | January 31, 2007 10:52 AM

I actually like Hagel quite a lot, but I agree people are too eager to see him as anything other than what he really is: a good, old-fashioned paleo-conservative. Kind of a novelty at this point, and I think this is why people are so blown away by him. He fits that classic mold of someone you could have a heated, energetic argument with but still like afterwards. I'd say "have a beer with afterwards," but considering what Bush has done to that little trope, I won't go anywhere near there.

I have a lot of respect for him and appreciate what he's doing, but he's really most effective on the other side of the aisle. He'll be able to cause some mayhem in the Republican primaries but, honestly, won't stand much of a chance. He's a good speaker and a quick thinker, and would make for some very entertaining debates if he ever made it to the general elections. A debate between Hagle and either Obama or Edwards would definitely be one to see.

Hopefully he'll get some more power and help build a reasonable, intelligent opposition party, as opposed to either the poisonous, hyper-ideological Delay-style Republicanism or simpering, collaborating, Lierberman-style *coughs* "bipartisanism."

Posted by L Boom | January 31, 2007 10:54 AM

If you look at the various Senate rankings, you'll see that Hagel and Lieberman are really quite similar. Take the National Journal senate rankings for example. Hagel was the 37th least conservative Republican, and Lieberman was the 38th least liberal Democrat, in 2005 (the NJ rankings are, I think, the most respected among these type of rankings).

In BOTH cases, you can find "a whole array of stick-it-to-the-base notions". For Hagel, besides Iraq, for example, he opposed the Family Marriage Amendment, he is pro-immigration, he opposed the NSA spying plan, he supports direct negotiations with Iran.

Lieberman = Hagel. Hagel = Lieberman. Pretty simple formula.

Posted by Al | January 31, 2007 10:58 AM

But on the issue of the day, Iraq, Hagel is reality-based whereas Lieberman is with the neocon pod-people.

Posted by Jim W | January 31, 2007 11:00 AM

As far as his positions go, I think he's actually pretty consistent with the ideals of an old-style Goldwater conservative, things like low taxes, keep the government out of people's private lives, and a pragmatic foreign policy. You're right in that this out of touch with the modern Republican base, but it's pretty much in line with the more libertarian, corporatist, Reagan-fetishizing wing of the party. He's not so much screwing the modern, more theocratic base as he is playing to a largely extinct part of that base.

And in Hagel's defense, I think we can at least say he's honest and, as sad it is to have to tack this on, he's sane. If you disagree with him (And I do. On many, many issues), you can at least understand where he's coming from and believe that he's arguing in good faith.

The same cannot be said for Lieberman, who's a morally bankrupt, fundamentally dishonest asshole.

Posted by L Boom | January 31, 2007 11:14 AM

Al again is wrong. Lieberman goes on any show to talk about how bad Democrats are, Hagel does not do the same. Hagel has yet to come out and say he won't vote for the Republican nominee nor has he left the party.

Posted by Rob | January 31, 2007 11:19 AM

Outside of the foreign policy realm, there's not much to like here from a liberal point of view.

I couldn't repudiate more the notion that Hagel's souring on Bush's war is in any way indicitave of his politics otherwise. It buys into the Bush Cultist frame that "liberal" == "disagrees with Bush," and that's the last frame Bush's opponents need to succor.

The point is, Bush's war is unpopular with Americans from across the political spectrum, and only the true dead-ender Bush cultists support it. Far from imagining Hagel as a moderate, we should point out the fact that he's is in fact a conservative Republican and still calls bullshit on Bush's Folly.

Posted by Gregory | January 31, 2007 11:50 AM

That's fine, Matt, and if you take being a Democrat to be the most important thing, don't vote for Hagel. But, given that Hagel is right on the most important issue right now, he deserves somewhat more respect than you seem to give him. I'd vote for Kerry, even though I don't agree with him on anything but the war.

I've been saying this very thing every since Hagel started talking tough about Iraq. They guy's old school conservative, and while that's better than the new variety, he shouldn't be canonized as some paragon of moderation due to one issue.

Of course, no one ever listens to me, so ...

:-)

Posted by Unholy Moses | January 31, 2007 11:56 AM

Personally, I think the fact that he's a straight-up old school conservative opposed to the war in Iraq and not quite in the social conservative camp, as opposed to Brownback who is the ideal candidate for the religious right, is all the more reason he should run for President. He will be unique among the others in the race. I also think he offers the Republicans a candidate conservatives can be satisifed with and who has a conceivable chance of winning the general election.

I think he's hesitating to enter the rance because he's not quite sure he wants to be President. Which is always understandable -- he might prefer legislating, he wants to work for Nebraskans, although he may think he can be a good President, he's unsure if he'd enjoy it -- and even more understandable considering the next President has to inherit Bush's war. As Spock once remarked, "It has always been easier to destroy than to create."

www.matthewstruhar.blogspot.com

Posted by Matthew Struhar | January 31, 2007 12:33 PM

The unique thing about Hagel is that he always says what he really thinks and doesn't just give the latest spin. His voting is very conservative, but for the last couple years he's always seemed to give his honest opinion and never the party line, and so is usually worth listening to.

Lieberman is exactly the opposite: he jumps right to the most egregious spin, and was quick to pick up Bush's implications that those who oppose the war favor our enemies, etc.

I think this explains why Lieberman with a 80% liberal voting record causes such revulsion (more than say, Ben Nelson, or Evan Bayh, or others who are more conservative historically than Joe), and someone with an 20% liberal voting like Hagel is much more tolerable

Posted by Dan O'C | January 31, 2007 1:57 PM

than someone who is more moderate on domestic issues but nutty on foreign policy, like McCain.

Senator McCain is an extremely conservative Republican. He supported South Dakota's abortion ban. He supported Arizona's antigay amendment. He (now) supports making all of President Bush's tax cuts permanent. Senator McCain is not a moderate, any more than Senator Hagel is a heroic critic of the Bush administration for making a speech about a nonbinding resolution. Senator Hagel had numerous chances to substantively oppose heinous actions by this administration over the last six years; feel free to point out one time that deeds followed words. Bolton? Nope. Warrantless wiretapping? Nope. Torture? Nope. Only Arlen Specter stands between him and the title of "Most Likely to Roll Over for this Administration after Talking Tough for the Cameras." But at least he filibustered a straight minimum wage increase, along with voting to abolish the federal minimum wage entirely. Must we keep finding reactionary conservative Republicans to worship for putting on a good media show? Hey, I hear Senator Brownback opposes the surge; because of this, I think it would be swell for him to occupy the Oval Office, despite his recently restated desire to see Roe v. Wade eradicated.

Posted by mds | January 31, 2007 2:01 PM

Aren't we forgetting last year's Hagel-Martinez act to bring in another 100 million or so immigrants? I know the slaughterhouse owners in Nebraska are worried that they may have to raise wages by two bits an hour unless Something Is Done, but Hagel-Martinez seemed a bit like overkill... I mean, it would have been cheaper and better for the American citizenry just to give every meat packing plant owner in Nebraska a solid gold Rolls-Royce than to pass Hagel-Martinez.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 31, 2007 9:47 PM

Not a week ago Chuck Hagel voted with 27 other GOP senators to end the federal minimum wage altogether.

He is not only not moderate, he is a movement conservative extremist.

How may of our parents and grandparents and uncles and aunts could survive without Social Security? How many would be forced to sell their homes or could not even pay their rent? How many would be eating cat-food, and only twice a day? How many would be found dead of hypothermia because they can't afford heat? How many could afford medical care without Medicare and Medicaid?

The social democracy issues, on which the movement conservatives are the most bitter and relentless enemies of the American people, are life-and-death issues, too. And it's the life or death of grandma, not of somebody on the other side of the world. It may be tough to hear, but that counts.

I am not a Democrat. I am a registered Green, and I voted for Ralph Nader, and the way things are going I may do so again.

But I can think of any number of Democrats I would rather see in the White House than this slightly-off-the-reservation but bitterly orthodox conservative.

Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, tax progressivity, the strength and integrity of government regulatory agencies, labor rights, the minimum wage, universal health care, universal access to education, the diabetes and obesity epidemics, the lingering power of the tobacco interests, global warming, the general degradation of the environment, global overpopulation, the dangerous decline of fisheries with the degradation of the oceans . . . it just goes on and on.

And most of these are life-or-death issues, and many are global in impact.

Hagel is better on Iraq than GW? So he is. So are lots of Democrats. And they are all better than him on all of the above.

And then there is always Ralph Nader.

Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus | February 1, 2007 8:00 AM

Where are all these Democrats that are better than Bush on Iraq? Certainly not running for President, unless you count Kucinich who as usual isn't getting any press. Edwards is a hawk on Iran, which is the next front in the great perpetual war scam. Hillary is a hawk by any sane standards. Obama appears to have no opinions of his own at all, but he's not an overt dove in any meaningful way.

Hagel leaves alot to be desired, but if foreign policy is the key issue, and you are anti-war he's certainly a better candidate than pretty much anyone in the field so far.

Posted by Dylan Hales | February 1, 2007 6:52 PM

Hi, I'm a conservative Republican who cut my political eyeteeth campaigning for Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms in the 70's and 80's. Today Chuck Hagel is one of only a few Republicans I would vote to be President. But I have two words for you liberals who worry about Senator Hagel's record on social issues: "States' Rights". For you, Roe v. Wade is about abortion rights. For me, it is and was always about States' Rights. This is why I switched my registration from Democrat to Republican when I was in law school (in class with John and Elizabeth Edwards, no less!). For all my life, I have decried left-wingers on the Supreme Court telling the people of the fifty states they know better than them how to order the social policies of their states. Now, in recent years, right-wingers in Congress have been trying to do the same thing, what with Terri Schiavo, partial birth abortion and gay marriages. I say, "a pox on both their houses"! Chuck Hagel opposes abortion and gay marriage and a lot of other things liberals like to call "rights". But more importantly, he fundamentally believes what the Constitution says - that these questions are reserved to the states to decide, each one for itself. If "blue" states want to pass liberal laws on abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage and what have you, he believes they have the right to do so, just as "red" states have the right to do the opposite. If Democrats hadn't supported the anti-democratic agenda of the Supreme Court in robbing the states of these prerogatives, they wouldn't have created the Christian Right, who were never interested in what Washington did in foreign policy or tax policy or welfare spending, as long as they were free in their own communities to live their lives according to the laws they always had. Except for this, you would still be winning elections as you were in the days of FDR, JFK and LBJ. So wise up! Join us "real" conservatives in electing Chuck Hagel, who has more courage than your candidates do to get us out of foolish foreign wars, and in overturning Roe v. Wade and the other Supreme Court decisions that put issues of personal morality on the national political agenda, and I guarantee you, as much as we conservatives may hate it, within ten years you will be back to enjoying the majorities in Congress you need to vote for high taxes, free medical care, and antipoverty programs to your hearts' content!

Posted by William Dalton | February 3, 2007 2:08 AM