In the midst of some of the most pitched partisan battles in congressional history, this Democratic president has nominated a Republican to secretary of defense. Selecting former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel is a thumb in the eye of Obama's opponents – and not just because Hagel holds apostate positions on Iraq and Guantánamo Bay. The timing of the nomination reminds the GOP of the limits of their legislative power, and it has forced them to pick public fights over Middle East policy – regarding both Israel and Iran – that will only serve to remind voters that neither side has a very good answer to the questions raised.

Hagel has, in the past, voiced brusque misgivings about pro-Israel influence on American foreign policy – a reasonable sentiment shared by none other than Dick Cheney. Hawkish Republicans have also deemed him insufficiently bloodthirsty when it comes to Iran: his preference for a political solution to a military one is probably less offensive to them than his dismissal of those in the Bush administration who "want[ed] some excuse to take military action".

These sins might have undone a nominee in the past, but Hagel's own record of military service and, even more to the point, the deep reservations Americans now hold about the use and abuse of their country's military power make trumpeting these supposed flaws more risky for Republicans than before.

Largely because of his outspoken opposition to the continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Chuck Hagel's name surfaced as a possible Obama cabinet member on foreign policy almost as soon Obama took office. This despite Hagel having also been whispered to be a possible vice-presidential pick (or cabinet member) for John McCain; and before that, he had even been rumored to be considering a run for the GOP nomination himself.

In fact, Hagel already did become a member of the Obama administration: he is currently co-chairman of the president's intelligence advisory board, a position obscure enough that no one thought to protest his presence – or view his selection as a particularly confrontational gesture.

His elevation to secretary of defense, on the other hand, has thrown Republicans into something resembling hysterics, throwing unconnected, dated criticisms at him like a spurned lover. Hagel's blunt assessment of Middle East politics has provided the most spectacular rhetorical excesses from Republican critics. Senator Lindsey Graham (of South Carolina) declared that, if confirmed, Hagel would be "the most antagonistic secretary of defense toward the state of Israel in our nation's history".

The party's desperation to bring down Hagel has even brought many conservatives to a position that neither the rest of America nor moral logic could before: outrage over insensitivity to sexual identity. In 1998, Hagel objected to James Hormel's nomination to be ambassador to Luxembourg because Hormel, Hagel said, was too "aggressively gay". At the time, there was little – and by that I mean no – organized Republican protest to the remark. Hagel has made a fortuitous recent apology, but that hasn't stopped conservative fire-starter Matt Drudge from drumming up outrage, while the pro-gay rights Log Cabin Republicans have taken out full-page newspaper ads decrying the nomination. Hormel himself has graciously conceded that, timing aside, "the words themselves are unequivocal: they are a clear apology". He said he is willing to suspend criticism and let Hagel prove his commitment to LGBT rights.

Progressive commentators and gay activists, as well as other Democratic operators such as Barney Frank, seem just as willing to forgive Hagel. Clearly, the White House has. You can chalk this up to political expediency, certainly, but there's more satisfying explanation to be had.

In a post "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" world, whatever Hagel feels about gays and lesbians isn't as important as his willingness to do as he's told. Forget whether he's a good leader; is he a good soldier?

This is a question worth asking because Hagel's record is an uncomfortable fit with a Democratic administration in several ways – though few of them as cheaply camera-ready as his Hormel remark. It's an affirming sign of the times that criticizing Hagel's LGBT sensitivity is politically cost-free, but what about issues too complex or too morally murky to be targeted by a newspaper ad or settled by an apology?

In the confirmation hearings to come, will Republican senators quiz him on his anti-affirmative action votes? Will Democrats? What about his 100% rating by the National Right to Life Committee – he supported a ban on abortions at military facilities – or his "A" rating from the NRA? These are not irrelevant issues to today's politics: the distance between Hagel and the administration on them must be acknowledged, even if it's to say that, as secretary of defense, Hagel will not be weighing in on them.

Obama could find another nominee who is against the expansion of "the war on terror" as well as more expressively and progressively for the expansion of civil rights. He could also make a pick that would be at least slightly less antagonistic to congressional Republicans. There are names we have never heard of who would pass muster: not every high-level cabinet secretary needs to come with a cable news clip reel.

It's satisfying, in the wake of a hard-fought campaign, to watch Obama throw down the gauntlet to congressional Republicans: this is a fight he didn't have to have, and will probably win. But Hagel's nomination is also a more implicit challenge to both the media and progressives, who have lately enjoyed a period of blissful Schadenfreude watching notable Republicans attack their own. What are we willing to forgive as the price for that pleasure?