Voters in Concord and the rest of New Hampshire's 2nd Congressional District have only one means of registering their disapproval with what has transpired in Iraq: to cast their ballots for Paul Hodes.

This is not entirely fair to the incumbent, U.S. Rep. Charlie Bass, who in several important ways has served his constituents well and who in other years has been deserving of re-election. But neither is it a new spin on American democracy for a member of Congress to have his fate tied to the actions of his party.

Bass arrived in Washington 12 years ago on a wave of disgust with the governing choices of the Clinton administration and a Democratic Congress. The case for replacing him similarly intertwines with the Republican Party's monopoly on the foreign policy choices and oversight responsibilities of the federal government for the entirety of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The political persona Bass has cultivated in his six terms stresses his willingness to break with his party. He demonstrated such independence by helping to pass a stem-cell research bill; working to oust former House majority leader Tom DeLay from his leadership role; maintaining his opposition to oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and rejecting a call to insert a ban on gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution.

Yet on the biggest issue of the day - of the past two congressional terms, really - Bass asked few questions, raised fewer objections and still acknowledges nary a mistake. Iraq is the issue where New Hampshire residents have most needed someone to represent them in Washington: to challenge the assumptions, predictions and decisions of the president and his war cabinet.

Indeed it doesn't matter today that Charlie Bass voted to authorize the war in Iraq, or even that he remained initially optimistic about the potential for a desirable outcome. What matters is that 3½ years after the U.S. invasion, at a time when even some of the most hawkish proponents of remaking Iraq see that events have spun out of control, Bass remains a bystander in the corridors of power.

What good is his courage to challenge the party line if he can still look at the situation in Iraq and see no cause for alarm?

Paul Hodes is alarmed by Iraq. He was already alarmed two years ago, when he first ran against Bass. Now he argues that the continued presence of U.S. forces is actually stunting the development of the Iraqi forces - the people President Bush says must stand up so we can stand down. Hodes believes it's important that the United States demonstrate its strength by facing up to a failed strategy and changing it.

Of course, Hodes cannot single-handedly change U.S. foreign policy; only the president can do that. But Hodes would bring to Washington much-needed skepticism: a quality that's been lacking from the Republican majorities in the House and Senate. A similar eagerness to ask questions will be vital when the next Congress examines the administration's tax policies and education policy, particularly the No Child Left Behind law.

Because of its mix of liberal and conservative residents, the 2nd District is not an easy one to represent. If rewarded with the voters' trust, Hodes had better make sure his skepticism extends to both parties' agendas. It's a balancing act that in years past Bass managed to pull off.

Unfortunately, when it came to Iraq, he lost his balance. Hodes deserves the chance to try to do better.

------ End of article

Monitor editorial