The Political Argument Against Pete Hegseth

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on Monday reintroduced articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Slippery Peter survived the Tuesday night vote in the House, which referred the impeachment to a committee and effectively killed it, but it is not inconceivable that the new, Democrat-heavy Congress will take another shot in the new year. The articles covered a fair bit of ground, but the nut of the argument was that Congress did not declare war against Iran or otherwise authorize the use of force, so Hegseth’s prosecution of the conflict has been unconstitutional and hence constitutes the “high crimes and misdemeanors” underpinning an impeachment case.

The conventional wisdom holds that this development does not look so good for the White House, politically. Having one of your cabinet officials impeached is embarrassing; even if the process ends in an acquittal by the Senate, it still gums up the works. It’s not a great way to recover from the hangover from last Tuesday’s midterm blowout.

But the conventional wisdom does not account for the art, science, and mystery of political judo. Consider that the administration has decided it doesn’t like the war very much—not just Vice President J.D. Vance, but also the principal, President Donald Trump, who sounds less than eager to return to the exertions of earlier rounds. Wrapping the thing up is the sticking point, though. A sudden, full-administration about-face would be damaging domestically, and the Iranians do not seem inclined publicly to take a generous line. (And no wonder—their calculus, after the 12-Day War and earlier episodes of kabuki-style proportional military responses, is that going ape is the only way to deter further attacks.)

Allow me to introduce into this unhappy broil our aggressively coiffed scapegoat, Peter B. Hegseth.

Let us remember that Hegseth has not been an optimally competent and PR-neutral official, even before he started howling for blood on live television. His Defense Department has been a staffing clown-show, largely self-inflicted; his high-profile reprisals against staffers, some of whom were his longtime friends and allies, in the end turned on entirely baseless accusations of leaking. He did not cover himself in glory during l’affaire Signalgate, although the preponderance of the responsibility fell (justly) on one of the administration’s other telegenic hominids, Mike Waltz, who was summarily exiled to the cocktail circuit in Turtle Bay. Hegseth has been subject to bimbo eruptions and weird TV appearances, and his signature efforts to bring the culture war to the Pentagon have received mixed reviews. And then he became the face of blowing up fishermen and schoolgirls, and posting hype videos about those activities. We’re not talking about hanging Doug Burgum out to dry here; Hegseth has been a liability machine from the start.

So why not pin this stupendously unpopular, difficult to resolve war on him? This is obviously an argument of expediency, not justice (mostly). The buck stops with the president, and there’s plenty of blame to go around among the other creatures of the camarilla, but that is for future historians to itemize. Here and now, there is an endangered official very publicly attached to a very unpopular policy. The president is no stranger to writing off distressed assets. Why not Hegseth? By his own admission, the war is why the GOP lost midterms. If he does not take the political credit for firing his stiff-haired pit bull, it will accrue to the members of the congressional party who break with him by voting for Hegseth’s ouster—something that is detrimental to party discipline, to say the least. 

It should be underlined that this need not change policy; even a boring secretary of defense will do what he is told to do from on high. But if, behind closed doors, this is presented to the Iranians as a substantive change, that could be useful in brokering a deal. The Iranians have an idiosyncratic and, by my lights, often defective understanding of the American political system; getting rid of the fellow who blows up schoolgirls and crows about it on the television could conceivably cultivate a more reasonable attitude in Tehran.

The other option, of course, is standing by your man. This approach is often vindicated in American politics, at least as far back as the Clinton impeachments. But a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. There’s quite a lot of upside to getting rid of Hegseth; yes, the downside is giving away a hairgel-laden scalp, but it is a scalp of diminishing value while still attached to its unpopular skull. It is perhaps time to say goodbye.