The contentious confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense is a vivid snapshot of the broader culture wars and political dysfunction in Washington. It also underscores the pivotal questions America faces about the future of its military and national defense. The hearing was as revealing as it was disappointing. Both Democrats and Republicans failed to rise to the moment, leaving us to ponder what truly matters in selecting a leader for the Pentagon.

A Flawed but Courageous Nominee

First, let’s address the elephant in the room: Pete Hegseth is no James Mattis. The man who once led the Pentagon with the nickname “Mad Dog” had a career of military leadership and strategic expertise that commands respect, regardless of political affiliation. Hegseth, by contrast, has a background as an Army National Guard veteran and Fox News commentator—not the traditional pedigree for a Secretary of Defense. Does this mean he’s inherently unfit for the role? Not necessarily.

Hegseth’s critics harp on his lack of high-ranking military command experience, yet his firsthand knowledge of the realities facing today’s enlisted soldiers is valuable. He understands the human cost of war, something the generals in D.C. sometimes lose sight of while playing bureaucratic chess. His unapologetic critique of “wokeness” in the military—his term for the overemphasis on diversity initiatives—resonates with many conservatives who recognize that these programs are distractions from the military’s core mission: defending the nation.

The Senate’s Circus of Inquisition

The confirmation hearing itself was a mess. Democratic senators like Tammy Duckworth and Mazie Hirono seemed more interested in scoring political points than in substantive inquiry. Duckworth grilled Hegseth on auditing organizations, a topic better suited for accountants than defense strategists. Hirono’s hypothetical scenarios—like seizing Greenland—would have been laughable if they weren’t such a waste of time. This approach not only undermines the credibility of legitimate concerns but also reflects a troubling tendency to politicize every aspect of governance.

Meanwhile, Republicans largely gave Hegseth a free pass. Where were the probing questions about military strategy, modernization, or his vision for the future of America’s armed forces? Senators on both sides of the aisle failed the American people by focusing on theatrics instead of pressing Hegseth on real issues, such as how to handle the growing threats from China and Russia or the urgent need for AI and drone advancements.

Character Concerns: Red Flags or Political Smears?

The allegations of sexual misconduct and financial mismanagement leveled against Hegseth deserve scrutiny. These are serious accusations, and the fact that the FBI’s investigation was reportedly incomplete is troubling. However, these claims should not be weaponized for political gain without concrete evidence. If Hegseth is guilty of wrongdoing, that must come to light—but not through trial by media or partisan mudslinging.

One important area of discussion is Hegseth’s past views on women in combat. He now affirms that women should be able to serve if they meet the same rigorous physical standards as men—a position that prioritizes the readiness and effectiveness of our military while maintaining fairness. This perspective reflects a commitment to ensuring all service members are held to the same high standards, essential for the challenges of modern warfare. While some have questioned the evolution of his stance, it’s clear that his current position aligns with the principle of merit-based inclusion, a topic that deserves thoughtful consideration rather than partisan bickering.

What About the Mission?

The most glaring failure of the hearing was the lack of focus on America’s military mission and strategy. Critics like Kevin Drum of Jabberwocking and the Los Angeles Times editorial board rightly pointed out that Hegseth wasn’t asked serious questions about NATO, China, AI development, or nuclear modernization. How does he plan to maintain U.S. military supremacy in an increasingly volatile world?

Instead, the debate centered on “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives. While these programs are worth examining, they should not overshadow the pressing need to address outdated equipment, cybersecurity threats, and global alliances. As Christians and conservatives, we believe in the biblical principle of stewardship (Luke 16:10)—a value that should extend to managing the resources and priorities of our military.

A Christian Conservative Perspective

From a faith-based perspective, leadership matters. Proverbs 29:2 reminds us, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” Hegseth’s focus on unity and shared purpose within the military aligns with the idea that strength comes from working together toward a common goal. However, unity cannot be achieved if serious moral or ethical questions linger unanswered.

It’s also worth noting that while Hegseth’s critique of “wokeness” resonates with many conservatives, we should be cautious about dismissing diversity outright. The Bible teaches us that every individual is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and fostering an environment where all service members feel valued can strengthen our military, not weaken it.

Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity for Both Sides

Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing was a missed opportunity to have a meaningful dialogue about the future of America’s military. Instead, it became another episode of partisan theater, with Democrats and Republicans both failing to ask the hard questions.

Hegseth may not be the ideal nominee, but he is the one we have. If confirmed, he will need to prove that his priorities—unity, strength, and focus—can translate into effective leadership. And as citizens, we must hold him and all our leaders accountable, remembering the words of 1 Timothy 2:1-2: “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”

Let’s pray that Hegseth’s tenure, if confirmed, will honor these principles and serve the nation well.