One thing I love to point out to people who dismiss my home state of Nebraska as being automatically red is that we aren’t your typical red state. Most Nebraskans I know have a pretty strong independent streak. We don’t much like being tossed into groups without our consent, nor do we think much of arguments based chiefly on popular opinion or what a large group of people believe. This has led to some interesting conversations with my wife, who was born and raised in Alabama. Alabama, and much of the southeast, tends to be much more hierarchical; sometimes it almost feels like they have a functional aristocracy. We don’t know much about this in Nebraska, where most everyone that lives here is either the descendent of a homesteader, an immigrant, or is an immigrant themselves. That sort of backdrop to a state has a flattening effect, I think. We tend to think that just about everyone here has what they do because they’ve worked damned hard for it or their parents or grandparents did–or both.
Anyway, Nebraska’s independence has a way of showing up on the national stage. True, we do occasionally produce some partisan hacks. (I’m looking at you Lee Terry… well, I’m actually looking at the dictionary entry for “corrupt political hack.” Your picture just happens to appear where the definition should be.) But we also produce some real free-thinking gems. Most famously, we’ve produced Bob Kerrey, Ben Nelson, and Chuck Hagel. Jeff Fortenberry has also shown a more independent streak, as one of the few Republican congressman not kowtowing to Norquist.
But anyway, back to Hagel: When I heard Obama was looking at him for Sec. of Defense, I was thrilled. Hagel’s nomination is great news for any foreign policy realists who hope to see a less aggressive, less interventionist brand of American foreign policy. Predictably, of course, the hawkish wing of the GOP has gone after Hagel in a big way. My hunch–and hope–is that in doing so they’ll once again demonstrate how extreme their bloodlust has become so that they’ll become even more marginalized than they already are. In any event, their day seems to be fading. If David Brooks is right–and I hope he is–Hagel will preside over a shrinking Pentagon that is going to have to learn to live with less (just like everyone else is).
If you want more reading on the Hagel nomination, you will not do better than the always-excellent Daniel Larison. If Hagel is approved, this will likely be the opening chapter of a new less intrusive, less arrogant, less destructive brand of foreign policy. I hoped it would come with the Obama administration, but, as irony would have it, it looks like the new era will actually begin with a Republican in charge of the Pentagon. Go figure.
The Obama Cabinet is not changing for the better; Obama is just elevating the ideologues of the past term by replacing the current administration puppets who are escaping the failing policies of socialism.
Like you, Jake I’m thrilled by the appointment of Chuck Hagel. Another TAC article from Larison that I found helpful:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-to-fix-the-gops-foreign-policy-problem/
So why exactly is everyone thrilled by a Senator who thinks we should engage with terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah? That sort of thing used to be a disqualification for someone heading up our national security.
Joe – Can you point to something specific regarding that? What do you mean by “engage”? I’m thrilled b/c I think this marks the beginning of a less expensive, less interventionist approach to foreign policy. That said, the other side of a less belligerent approach is the possibility that you’ll disagree on who to give diplomatic acknowledgement to, how to relate to them, etc. This is an old problem in US foreign policy though. (See: Taiwan v mainland China.)
Here’s an example from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/politics/hagel-defense/index.html):
“Hagel has supported Israel entering negotiations with Hamas, the Islamist movement that oversees parts of the Palestinian territories and is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, while also insisting that Hamas end terrorism and accept Israel’s right to exist. He also was one of 12 senators who refused to sign a letter to the European Union trying to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.”
I’m thrilled b/c I think this marks the beginning of a less expensive, less interventionist approach to foreign policy.
I think there is a real danger (expressed most prominently by TAS) of swinging too far in the direction of non-interventionism. Americans have always let the last war fought have an outsized influence on their thinking. Because of Vietnam, many assumed the Persian Gulf War would be a bloodbath. Because of the Persian Gulf war many assumed the Iraq War would be a cakewalk, etc.
Today, we have become so war-weary that we are willing to let Iran get nuclear weapons—despite the fact they have expressed and interest in wiping Israel off the map. Even those who hate Israel should be concerned with the use of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
I’m not saying we need to go to war with Iran. We still have a lot of diplomatic tools left in our bag of tricks. But we are in danger of making naive judgments based on a strict adherence to an idealogical position (non-interventionism) that is as bad as neo-conservate idealism.