DO REPUBLICANS BELIEVE HEGSETH'S TOXICITY IS A BUG OR A FEATURE?

Benjamin Wittes tells us that Trumpism is a "cult of unqualified authenticity," embodied in Donald Trump himself, but also in Pete Hegseth:

You can see in it so many of the central tenets of Trump’s approach to governance: the contempt for expertise and traditional qualifications; the insistence that the only real qualification is authenticity—and that authenticity is somehow wrapped up in performative masculinity; the belief that sounding tough and being tough are the same thing; and the conviction that complexity necessarily reduces to weakness.

It’s all right there in the nomination of a proudly unqualified individual who frames his lack of qualifications as qualification of a different, more authentic, variety.... And this idea has the apparently silent assent of all of the Republican members of the [Senate Armed Services] committee and a few, at least, enthusiastic takers.

I'm not sure there's a consistent worldview in the GOP. Marco Rubio's hearing is taking place as I type this, and he'll sail through his confirmation process because he is seen as traditionally qualified. Every Republican in the Senate will vote for both of them. But Republicans aren't shy about using one argument in a given situation and exactly the opposite argument in another situation.

Wittes can imagine circumstances under which Hegseth won't be confirmed:

In exchanges with Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Hegseth denied as “anonymous smears” any suggestion that he had shown up drunk for work or engaged in sexual misconduct....

Unless some evidence emerges that Hegseth’s denials are false, he will—I suspect—certainly be confirmed....

All bets are off, however, if Democrats produce the goods and show that not merely are the allegations true but that Hegseth was less than candid in his testimony.

No, Hegseth would survive that. I mean, sure -- if you had him on video unambiguously committing a violent act against a woman, maybe that would be enough to take him down. (I don't believe that even clear video evidence of day drinking in the past would matter, because Hegseth's narrative is that he's a changed man now, thanks to his current wife and Jesus.)

If Wittes means that testimony by a woman Hegseth has hurt could change the outcome, he should talk to Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford, and E. Jean Carroll. Even credible testimony of sexual misconduct, if it's from a woman and isn't accompanied by video, means nothing to most of the American public. Hegseth could easily survive that.

The Bulwark's Jonathan Last thinks Republicans are embracing vice as a virtue:

My theory is this:

Republicans embrace vice not because they believe that the accused Republican figures are innocent, but because they believe they are guilty. And so these voters exist in the hope that their champion will go on to hurt their enemies on their behalf.

After all: If a guy is willing to rape a woman, surely he can be counted on to visit destruction on Democrats, or woke generals, or whoever.

I don’t know. Maybe you have a better theory.

That may be true for some of them. For others, I think what's happened is that the GOP under Trump has become The Firm in John Grisham's novel -- you join, realize that its real purpose organized crime, and then you can't leave because no one who tries ever leaves alive. (In the case of the GOP, what's inevitable is political death. For instance, Senator Joni Ernst, who's up for re-election in two years, correctly fears the Elon Musk-funded primary challenge she would have faced if she hadn't agreed to support Hegseth.)

I'm sure most Senate Republicans would be happier with qualified nominees whose closets aren't full of skeletons. Republicans aren't strutting around boasting about Hegseth's toxic masculinity -- notice that they refused Democrats' request for a hearing of the customary length.

Republicans refused to allow for a second round of questions for Pete Hegseth. The entire hearing for the position of Secretary of Defense lasted just 4 hours and 15 minutes.

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1.bsky.social) January 14, 2025 at 1:50 PM

Which is why Democrats should have been pounding the table about Hegseth for weeks. They did a fine job in yesterday's hearings. But they missed the opportunity to define Hegseth.

An NPR/PBS/Marist poll conducted before the hearing suggests that Hegseth isn't widely known. Overall, he has a 19% favorable rating and a 26% unfavorable rating; 55% of respondents are unsure or have never heard of him.

Even among Republicans, his approval rating is only 37%, with 54% unsure. According to this survey, Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy Jr. poll in the 60s among Republicans, and at 37% and 40% overall, respectively.

It's possible that this poll has a liberal lean, but still: Hegseth appears not to have gone into his hearing as a MAGA superstar. He's been a Fox host, but not in prime time. He was vulnerable. But now he's almost certain to be confirmed.