The Hang-Chadian Nature of Divorcesque Confirmation Hearings
Does Pete Hegseth have the right maturity, experience, character, and personal constitution to be U.S. Secretary of Defense?
Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Confirmation Committee argued over whether this particular American son was ready to protect the family estate. Except in this case, the partisan parenting philosophies were reversed. The Republican Party was the indulgent, permissive parent for their party nominee’s demerits while Democrats were all about discipline and moral principles in re Mr. Hegseth.
From another angle, Pete Hegseth may not deserve to be Secretary of Defense not because he doesn’t have the talent, scars, and experience enough to bring a unique perspective, but because given his background he may have wounds, moral injury, and personal chemistry that the pressure of the top job would make worse. Would Pete Hegseth be a better fit for an advisory assistant or deputy SecDef role focused on his longest or best quality experience and education? Would it be innovation? Process reform? Fielding and testing of systems? Where would he serve with greatest effect?
Bible Belts Worn in Committee
There was coached testimony, right things said on deterrence and innovation, gotcha questions, worst demerits denied, and everything negative deemed forgiven by Jesus and Mr. Hegseth’s wife, implying that Hegseth is as good for the SecDef job as anyone else who needs forgiveness and redemption. Whereas Christian scriptures include everyone as falling short of the glory, what does that mean in the context of filling the top Defense post?
Is Mr. Hegseth as qualified as any other combat veteran with distinguished service records, leadership experience, strategic training, and less overall baggage? Was there not a better SecDef nominee from among all qualified combat veterans willing to serve? Of course there probably is, but POTUS 47 likely remembers when he was POTUS 45 how he discarded decorated combat experienced geo-strategic leaders of theater-wide operations, roundly respected appointees who knew more than he did. He had coated them with lollipop flattery during their appointments, then dropped them in the dirt and excrement he tracked into the halls of government tweet after classless tweet.
Even the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board wrote about the lack of substance in Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation hearing, noting the statements of what the nominee is “for” without his specifying how he would accomplish the historic defense priorities faced by U.S. Armed Forces today. Yet in Mr. Hegseth’s defense, few who are questioned publicly for sensitive strategic positions should get into the granularity of planning for all to hear, although they should give sound-enough answers to show they know the job they are nominated for.
Senators Play at Religion in Service to Political Ideology
Amendment One reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” and yet majority senators on the Confirmation Committee divined that nominee Pete Hegseth’s representations that his leadership demerits are redeemed by Jesus make his potentially disqualifying acts and words no longer relevant to Senate screening.
In American governmental history, Jesus’ saving grace is usually reserved for morale building fireside chats, stumping in evangelical territory, criminal sentencing hearings for convicted persons, or parole hearings. Not confirmation hearings for Secretary of Defense.
Hegseth’s Case for Hegseth
Pete Hegseth made his case for serving as Secretary of Defense with the following basic arguments, denials, and assertions:
(1) innovation and competition whether in defense contracting or in leadership reform will best serve warfighters and the people they protect (true);
(2) that he is not bigoted toward women or minorities in military service but believes in high standards related to the jobs involved while seeming to deny his more extreme past statements on the subject (predictable mixed truths and denials);
(3) deterrence should be proportional to the threat and he acknowledged that Russia and China are building their nuclear arsenals yet without spelling-out his vision for meeting deterrence goals. Hegseth may have said less because he was not asked enough about how the President-elect’s foreign policy, immigration, and domestic security policies will affect deterrence; and
(4) the several serious allegations against Hegseth for bad character, abusing personal power, assaulting women, alcohol abuse, making extreme statements about fellow Americans as enemies, and incompetent non-profit leadership are mostly from anonymous sources and therefore irrelevant. Real, confirmed bad judgment was ‘not being perfect,’ for which Jesus and his wife have forgiven and redeemed him.
Upshot
Mr. Hegseth argued standards for combat service should be high, and if women can meet the high standards alongside men, he implied that they are welcome to serve in combat roles. Yet if those standards are high for troops in the field, how much higher should the standards be for trustworthiness, mental maturity, and character of the one who would lead and serve them all?
The cynical use of religion in a Senate confirmation or other government hearings on fitness for leadership posts belies the reason why character, temperament and judgment issues are brought up in the proceedings. If there is a history of bad character, temperament, and judgment for a SecDef that recurs after appointment, what could adversarial powers do with that? What would it do to morale in the Armed Services? How would it reflect on the tradition of a professional military? How would it affect unity in the ranks? Based on those questions, how would it affect U.S. national defense?
If after considering letters in support of Mr. Hegseth’s nomination from fellow veterans, evidence showing a significant span of time free from the influence of his personal demons over his actions, the Senate Confirmation Committee votes to confirm this particular nominee, the man will need the country to remind him of the higher standards and better lights he expects of others wishing to serve.
