Chuck Hagel - Villain or Hero?

Party politics is again rearing its ugly head. On March 27th, the Senate defeated Thad Cochran's (R-MS) amendment to H.R. 1591, a supplemental appropriations bill. The amendment would have removed language imposing a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Given that only 32 percent of Americans currently favor the war (CNN), why is this a hot topic?

Chuck Hagel (R-NE) voted "against his party" to defeat the amendment. The final tally was 50-48, making Hagel's vote the vote that pushed the amendment into the defeated pile. According to a CNN poll, 15 percent of Republicans oppose the war, so many are upset because it seems that Hagel violated his supporters' trust. At first blush, Hagel is the villain of this story. Perhaps this vote will strengthen his ability to win a Republican presidential primary. (He has not announced his candidacy, but the amount of time he has spent in the spotlight makes this voter think he will.) Upon closer examination, however, is he really the hero?

Each state elects two members to the United States Senate. When the houses of Congress were first created, the intent was for the Senators to represent the states. In fact, it was not until 1913 that the Seventeenth Amendment called for senatorial elections to be voted upon by the state's citizens. Prior to that time, the state legislatures chose who went to Washington, DC. There was concern upon the passage of this amendment that the Senate would just become a smaller House of Representatives, the house meant to pay close attention to public opinion. Senators, however, serve six-year terms and are, therefore, shielded from the whims of short-term public opinion.

It has been more than four years since the war began. Opinions on our country's presence in Iraq have shifted greatly over that time period and public opinion on the topic certainly can be considered long-term. So, is Hagel not simply doing as he is supposed to do by representing his constituents' opinion of the war? Is it not those who continue to believe their citizens support this effort who are defeating the purpose of representation?

Not too long ago, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), John Warner (R-VA), Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) publicly hoped for legislation to express opposition to the Administration's war strategy and to set goals for the Iraqi government. While Collins and her Republican colleagues voted in favor of the amendment, the Senator from Maine made it clear that her vote should not be taken for more than its face value.

"My vote against this rapid withdrawal does not mean that I support an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq," Collins stated after the vote.

Hagel agrees with Collins and many other Senators who voted in favor of the amendment. He is just a bit more passionate about it. "We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam," said Hagel.

Ben Nelson (D-NE), Hagel's Nebraskan counterpart in the Senate has pushed for establishing measurable benchmarks, or "conditions for staying in Iraq", for the Iraqi government to meet in order for continued U.S. military presence since he visited the troops in Iraq in the fall of 2004.

Two Senators abstained from the vote, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. Johnson was not present because he is still recovering from brain surgery. So, to me, the important question in this story is not why did Hagel vote against the amendment? The answer is that he was representing his constituents' desires. The more important question is: Where was Enzi?

What do you think? Chuck Hagel - villain or hero?