The Heartland Dissident - New York Times

The Heartland Dissident - New York Times

February 12, 2006
The Heartland Dissident
By JOSEPH LELYVELD

"With a bluntness that seems habitual — and more than occasionally strikes fellow Republicans as disloyal — Senator Chuck Hagel started voicing skepticism about the Bush administration's fixation on Iraq as a place to fight the Global War on Terror more than half a year before the president gave the go-ahead for the assault. What the senator said in public was milder than what he said in private conversations with foreign-policy gurus like Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser in another Bush administration, or his friend Colin Powell, the secretary of state, who thought he still had a chance to steer the administration on a diplomatic course. The Nebraskan wanted to believe Powell but, deep down, felt the White House wasn't going to be diverted from its drive to topple Saddam Hussein. When he rose on the Senate floor that October to explain his vote in favor of the resolution authorizing force — he'd persuaded himself that his vote might strengthen Powell's hand — he gave a speech that would have required no editing had he decided to vote against it. What sounded then to the venture's true believers like the scolding of a Cassandra sounds fairly obvious three and a half years later, which is to say that Hagel's words can reasonably be read as prescient: "How many of us really know and understand Iraq, its country, history, people and role in the Arab world?. . .The American people must be told of the long-term commitment, risk and cost of this undertaking. We should not be seduced by the expectations of dancing in the streets." The president had said 'precious little' about post-Saddam Iraq, which could prove costly, Hagel warned, 'in both American blood and treasure.'"

Of course this type of politician would be seen as "disloyal." He dares to think, reason and offer something other than the party line. While we do not have to agree with Hagel's ideas, at least he approaches them with a level of integrity that breaks out of a pre-fab ideology. At least he has thought through an issue and spoken to the issues he found to be present in the process. It even sounds like he has read the Constitution.

I can disagree with a person but respect the process and ideals they work through... if there is integrity of the person and the process. But most Republicans--and it appears all ultra-conservatives--dare not speak out against proposals offered by the president and/or the congressional leadership. Whether this is true from some false sense of loyalty, a thoughtless committment to party leadership, or political blindness, very few of our current crop of Republicans have the courage to stand on independent thinking, personal integrity, and constitutional principle. Hagel seems to have enough of these qualities. Occasionally John McCain has some backbone, but then seems to kowtow to the leadership. Arlen Specter seems to have it more often than he gets credit. But we see very little in the way of genuine leadership among the Republicans, especially those owing their office to the ultra-right Christian voters.

IT is not that we see much in the way of integrity, independent thinking or constitutional principles from many Democrats either. In the case of the Democrats, they have such a small voice in our government these days that they might as well be mice that know how to roar.

Our nation is thirsting for leadership. We are thirsting for principled leadership and representation. We do not want ideologues in office any more. Our nation has been led away from the first principles of the Constitution for long enough. We need leadership and representation that can use and ideology as a guide, not as a hard and fast set of rules and irrevocable party loyalty.

Fundamentally I see things quite differently from Hagel. I believe government is a servant of the people. I believe that there is a responsibility of the government to be fiscally wise and to spend our tax dollars in fulfillment of the six purposes of government outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution. I believe we have an outrageous imbalance of spending on foreign aid, subsidization of big business, and within the defense industry. We spend too much on developing weapons through private enterprise when we could do it for less if we paid for engineers and scientists to go to school if they commit to a term of service for the military of government. We allow too much waste and corruption by defense contractors. We do not hold those doing business in our nation to high enough standards. We need to allow justice--not only law, but justice--to prevail in our courts.

Despite seeing things differently than Hagel, I could work with him on the basis of personal, professional and leadership integrity. There is always room to work when people of principle--geuine principle--gather together. Unfortunately, integrity is for sale in our government, and has been for some time.

"As the months and years wore on, Senator Hagel's public musings on Iraq became less measured, as if his gorge rose a little higher with each day's casualty report. He would say that the White House was out of touch with reality, that the reconstruction effort in Iraq was "beyond pitiful," that he had lost confidence in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, that we were losing the war and had destabilized the Middle East, that the United States was getting "bogged down" in Iraq the way it had been in Vietnam. Some of these observations flew into print during the 2004 presidential race, and one of them, the "beyond pitiful" line, was seized upon by John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, in his second debate with President Bush...."

Give the man a cigar... and if you're planning on voting for a Republican, at least vote for one that dares to speak his mind, live by principles, and will stand up and be heard for more than power, wealth and influence. Whether Hagel is that type of person you will have to judge for yourself... but at least he has the fortitude and insight to speak out against some of the crap this administration has been selling full-force.