The idea | Pete Hegseth Is the Right Secretary of Defense

First let me hit you with some facts:

• NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, said that the West is not prepared for the challenges that will come in the next five years and that it is time to “change to a wartime mentality.” Kori Schake, who directs foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, writes that while World War III has not yet begun, “world war is looming.”

• America's recent defense strategy is based on the optimistic assumption that we will only have to fight one war at a time. But the close cooperation between China, Russia, Iran and North Korea makes joint attacks easier, meaning we may have to fight three or four regional wars at once.

• The weak industrial base of the US has blocked America's strength. China's shipbuilding industry has more than 230 times the capacity of that of the United States. When experts recently conducted war games with China, the United States ran out of long-range missiles within three to seven days.

• The Chinese are building giant fishing vessels like this one that they will use to attack Taiwan. They have developed a powerful microwave weapon that has the power of a nuclear explosion and can disrupt or destroy the electronic components of our weapons systems. HR McMaster, former national security adviser, recently said, “I think China is laying the groundwork to be able to fight the United States for the first time.”

• In 2023, the RAND Corporation released a report on the “power and influence” of the US military. Here's how it unfolded: “The US defense strategy and posture is failing. The tasks a nation expects its military forces and other elements of national power to perform around the world exceed the means available to accomplish those tasks. “

Now, if you've been to the hearings for the incoming secretary of defense, you might think you might want to ask him about these pressing issues. Or you might come up with some serious questions: How are drones changing the way we fight? How will artificial intelligence change the way we fight? How do we move from a defense policy built around counter-terrorism to a policy built around world wars? If you're a Democrat trying to sink your nomination, you'd think you'd want to ask life-or-death questions like these to expose the nominee's ignorance and ineptitude.

But did this happen in Pete Hegseth's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week? If you thought those kinds of questions would dominate the forums, you must be living under the delusion that we live in a serious world.

We don't know. We live in a serialized world. We live in a social media/cable TV world. In our culture you don't want to focus on boring policy questions; he wants to engage in the kind of endless culture war that makes voters nervous. You don't want to focus on topics that may require reading; he focuses on easy-to-understand images and stories that produce immediate visceral reactions. You don't win this game by thinking too hard; you win by checking your posture – by striking a pose. Your job is not to develop an argument that will help the country; your job is to go viral.

Pete Hegseth is a living, breathing person of this tradition. The world is on fire and what is his obsession? Military awakening. I went through high school trying to make a mistake in the classroom after not studying, and in Hegseth, I see a master of the craft. During the hearings, Hegseth repeatedly said that he would defend the noble state. What kind of meritocracy is it for a Fox TV host to become secretary of defense? Perhaps in the one beloved by Caligula when he thought of making his horse an ambassador.

Several Republican senators are happy to play along with the war game that has risen. In addition, Senator Kevin Cramer used his valuable question time to praise Hegseth for having the courage to use the words “Jesus Christ.” (If we had used this concept during World War II, Father Fulton Sheen would have ordered the D-Day invasion.) I've also learned that talking about climate change in a Republican gathering is like throwing a side of bacon at an Orthodox minyan – they react with great outrage.

Hegseth is in no danger of rising to the level of mediocrity, but next to some who questioned Democracy, he looked like Carl von Clausewitz. Democrats have played their own cultural war games. Especially at the beginning of the trial the thing they were most interested in was the women in the war. (Like everyone in my social class, I support women in combat, but I don't think it's as important as failing to prevent World War III.)

Senator Elizabeth Warren sent more than 30 pages of written questions to Hegseth before the hearing. They had to deal with things like drinking, accusations of sexual harassment, threats to LGBTQ rights and veterans' benefits. I have a lot of respect for Warren, but he hasn't shown much interest in topics like how to prevent and fight war – which is the core of this committee.

Senator Tim Kaine tried to play a game of demoralization, focusing on Hegseth's various infidelities. Since the Democrats failed to defeat Donald Trump with this strategy, I like their potential for continued losses.

The scenes got better as they went on and more young senators spoke. Senator Mazie Hirono was excellent, asking practical questions: If the president can order you, can you order the military to shoot protesters in the legs? Can you follow the order to use the military to evict the masses? Senator Tammy Duckworth was prominent, too, asking about major job responsibilities: Does Hegseth know anything about ongoing international negotiations? Do you know which countries are in the ASEAN bloc? (Answers vary.)

The lesson for Democrats over the next four years is clear: Don't shy away from moral outrage every day. Focus on Trumpian incompetence.

Overall, Republicans were the most critical party in these negotiations. The chairman of the committee, Senator Roger Wicker, noted that we live in the safest place since World War II. Senator Tim Sheehy talked about shipbuilding. Senator Ted Budd asked about fighter jets. Senator Eric Schmitt asked about drones.

But, as you can tell, I'm done watching cases that make me sick to my stomach. I also came away thinking that we need to come up with a better way of thinking about professionalism. Hegseth's main populist belief – repeated ad nauseam – is that the grunts know what they're doing and the geek-necks in air-conditioned offices just write the stupid, disturbing laws. This man spent years at Princeton and Harvard where he could have learned everything he knows by watching that speech by Colonel Jessup at the end of “A few Good Men.”

We don't want to live in a populist paradise where technology is frowned upon and ignorance is a virtue. And we don't want to live in an elitist world where experts try to rule the world. As political scientist James C. Scott points out, experts are too quoted from the truth to see what is happening.

We need to settle in an environment where professionals are respected and informed about decision-making, but citizens make the ultimate calls. In a healthy democracy people value great learning about important issues; they understand that the world is too complex to be captured by bite-sized slogans; but they also value the wisdom that comes from practical experience and know that many tough calls must be made in light of the deep values ​​that have made America what it is.

All this has been ruined by the battle for short-term attention. In the 19th century we had the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Today will be the Lincoln-Douglas TikTok battles followed by “Three Takeaways from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates” followed by a panel of experts (like me) analyzing whether Stephen Douglas helped swing voters in DuPage County.

Can this type of country survive the conflict of global systems? Maybe, but maybe not.