"To question your government is not unpatriotic - to not question your government is unpatriotic.” This sentence rings true throughout the annals of American history; the country was founded upon political dissent. Take a guess at who would say such a quote: a political philosopher? A product of the 1960s New Left? Nope. The answer is a conservative politician who yearns for the days when the Republican Party truly adhered to the political philosophies of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The answer, ladies and gentlemen, is the senior Senator from Nebraska and potential Republican primary candidate Chuck Hagel. Hagel’s conservative credentials are extremely sound: he has consistently voted against abortion, downplayed the need for even more money to be put into public education programs without organizing the tremendous amount that’s already there, supported reforming Social Security so the nest egg doesn’t dry up in the very-near future, etc. The list goes on and on. Yet surprisingly, Mr. Hagel is increasingly being seen as a “maverick” Republican, a RINO (Republican In Name Only), or most surprisingly, a liberal. Much of this criticism comes from the far right, which levies its attacks on Hagel based on his views of the Iraq War.

Hagel has been featured on news programs quite a bit lately, due to his vehement opposition to President Bush’s call for 20,000+ more troops in Iraq. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he also cosponsored a resolution opposing the “surge” with Democratic Senators Biden and Levin. Some Republicans have doubted his commitment to his party. However, Hagel has responded with the statement that he swore an oath of office to the Constitution, and not one to a party or particular ideology. I greatly admire and respect this; Hagel seems to be a voice of reason in a conservative base that is increasingly straying from its intellectual and traditional roots. He simply wants to question an administration that has erred. We have been involved in Iraq for quite some time now. The administration’s proposals must be questioned by Congress. Otherwise, why would a separate but coequal executive and legislature be necessary? The senator is not an advocate of the “cut-and-run” strategy, nor has he any desire to undermine the troops. Rather, he simply advocates the moral consequences of sending another 20,000 young people into a conflict that seems to be spiraling downward into total civil war. A fundamental recurring point throughout history is the necessity that policy match strategy. Hagel’s invocation of both terms recently in regards to Iraq seems both salient and wise. Without a sound policy, a change in strategy becomes extremely difficult and improbable.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve spent a decent amount of time researching Hagel and his potential run for President. His courage is clear: not only is he a decorated Vietnam veteran, but he possesses enough respect for the American political system to realize that he should not be married to every Republican policy. He only suggests that we stop and think before involving ourselves even deeper in the conflict, and it disappoints me that members of my party condemn him for doing this. In a Republican Party that has become corrupt and estranged from its values, he seems to be a genuinely good and honest man, who is unafraid of alienating himself based on stringent party lines. He favors curbing government expenditures. He favors cutting down the federal bureaucracy. He favors maintaining a strong military and strong American standing in the world. But most importantly, he knows the necessity of examining policy initiatives with scrutiny, and believes all politicians owe this to the American people. So Chuck Hagel for President in 2008? Let’s take a look at his competition.

As a Republican viewing the potential prospects of the 2008 race, my prospects are very grim. Most would agree that the top tier consists of John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney. McCain is an attractive candidate in several ways, but I don’t like his idea of bringing 100,000 new troops into Iraq, and I think this will greatly hurt his potential to win a national election. Furthermore, his age (he’d be 72 years young upon assuming office) is a bit of a turnoff. Frankly, I don’t see much viability in his candidacy. Rudy Giuliani would obviously push his leadership in the aftermath of 9/11 in his candidacy, but the country may be too far removed from the disaster for him to effectively play this card. Furthermore, as a social conservative, I – and other Republicans – don’t care for his views on abortion and gun control. That leaves good old Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.  As the media delves deeper into his past, it seems that he is little more than an old moderate who is portraying himself as right-winger to court the Republican’s conservative base. I see right through it, and am opposed to someone who significantly shifts their political beliefs to contend in an election. As far as the Democrats go, I could never imagine myself even thinking of voting for Hilary Clinton, and I believe the Barack Obama hype is largely unwarranted: 17% of the people polled in a recent survey regarding the Democratic primary said they would vote for him, and it’s probably not a stretch to say that very few people know where he stands on any issues at all! From what I see regarding his Senate voting record, I’m not pleased, and I also think that he simply does not have the political experience necessary to govern in the United States’ current complex situation at home and abroad.

Given the not-so-flattering field of current candidates, Chuck Hagel could put up an interesting run that could return the Republican Party to its heritage of anti-government sentimentality. Naturally, Hagel still needs to make much headway in the forthcoming months, but much time still remains. Naturally, I also realize that Hagel’s baggage with the Iraq War will be a tough load to bear. However, in a country that is alarmingly discontent with the administration’s handling of the war, this guy might actually have a shot. I encourage you to go to YouTube and search him. Hear what he has to say. Judge his sincerity and his pragmatism. You just might become a believer.