Chuck Hagel Is Shocking Evidence That Obama Disagrees With Republicans


Jonah Goldberg wonders aloud why President Obama has nominated Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense:

Is it a bridge across the partisan divide? Or is it an “in-your-face” nomination (South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s words) aimed at eliciting a fight with Republicans?

At least from the perspective of nearly everyone on the right, it’s the latter. Whether it’s payback for the scuttled non-nomination of Susan Rice to be secretary of State or whether it’s simply of a piece with Obama’s efforts to divide and conquer the GOP that were on display throughout the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, the consensus in much of conservative Washington is that Obama is making this nomination at least in part out of spite.

Fascinating! Apparently presidents are now required to nominate only people whom the minority party approves of wholeheartedly. If he doesn’t, the reason just has to be pure spite.

Well, politics is everywhere, and I’m sure Obama had some political motivations for his choice. For example, maybe he wanted to remind the country that, once upon a time, the Republican Party included traditional conservatives like Hagel, not just tea party lunatics. But guess what? Hagel is a longtime ally and advisor. He’s on Obama’s side on most important defense issues. I know how ridiculous this must sound, but it’s just barely possible that Obama nominated Hagel because he likes the guy, respects his views, and thinks he’ll do a good job of running the Pentagon and implementing Obama’s policy agenda. Plus, he probably figures that presidents ought to get to choose their own cabinet.

If Republicans want to go to the mattresses to fight Hagel, that’s their choice. “Divide and conquer” only works in this case if the GOP continues its hysterical insistence that Hagel is some kind of raging anti-Semite who will destroy America’s ability to defend itself. If that’s the road they choose, they have no one but themselves to blame if they end up being split down the middle.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.