What to Make of the Pete Hegseth Nomination

A few things can be true at once about Pete Hegseth and his nomination for Secretary of Defense.

I believe a lot of the accusations coming at him are false, and when they are anonymous and lacking evidence, they are, as far as I am concerned post-Kavanaugh, as good as trash. There are also allegations that have not even been denied, which is quite upsetting. It sounds like Pete admits to past carousing, drinking, and post-combat problematic behavior.  It doesn’t seem a stretch to believe that some of these allegations are made up whole cloth, are personally or politically motivated, and represent dirty tricks from a media that has shown itself incapable of feeling shame over what it will do to shame people, even innocent ones.  I will add that Jane Mayer is as reputable of a source on anything as Michael Avenatti, Roger Stone, Walter Duranty, or Eric Menendez.  As far as I am concerned, she is a disgrace to her profession, and the messenger matters when an entire article is unsourced. 

That said, it also seems abundantly reasonable to believe many of these things are true.  Some are not even denied, and while there appear to be substantial reasons to doubt the assault allegations of the 2017 hotel incident, his own version is hardly encouraging.  I don’t know everything Pete Hegseth has ever done, and neither do you, but the fact that he “used to be” a heavy drinker and carouser seems indisputable.

I also am told by multiple sources, which I trust a great deal, that his life has dramatically reformed over the last 5-6 years, and I am inclined to believe it, being a recipient of the same transformational grace of God that Pete says he has been covered by. "Such were some of you" - and I have no problem believing that (a) Pete used to be a bad guy, and (b) Is no longer one. I hope that is the case, still.

So where does that leave us?  Do we need to dig in deeper to see if he is still a philanderer?  If that becomes the criteria, all indications are that he will be confirmed.  Do we need to dig in deeper to see if he used to be?  I don’t think so – it seems obvious, and it is not a likely criterion for this role (or to be one of the most heralded Democrat Senators of all time, even with killing a girl thrown in). 

Rather, the question here, absent evidence that the “Pete is a changed man” narrative is false, is about his qualifications for the role.  On that front, the confirmation hearings need to happen, and private Senatorial meetings need to happen so Pete can make his case for overseeing hundreds of thousands of employees and hundreds of billions of dollars.  This is a serious role, and Pete needs to make a serious case for it.  I am undecided if he can persuade those tasked by the Constitution with “advice and consent” duties that he is the man for this job, but that is the question before us.  Another five stories in the next 48 hours from unnamed sources that he got drunk at a bar and came on to women in 2016 will not change it.  I wish he had behaved better in 2016.  But no, the saving grace of God does not become less believable because of a high-profile political appointment.

But neither does the saving grace of God in Pete’s personal life address the underlying question: Is he ready for this job?  I am listening.