Opinion editor's note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Why aren't more Republican senators opposed to Pete Hegseth's nomination as secretary of defense, particularly in light of new allegations, delivered in a sworn affidavit this week by his former sister-in-law, of excessive drinking and "abusive" behavior in his second marriage?

The obvious answer is party loyalty. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush picked John Tower, a former Republican senator from Texas, to serve as secretary of defense. Like Hegseth, he was a military veteran who had been dogged by charges of womanizing and heavy drinking. Unlike Hegseth, he had top-level experience in defense matters, including the chairmanship of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

A history of heavy drinking should be disqualifying in nearly any leadership role, never mind one with responsibilities as vast and consequential as the Pentagon's. Even so, only one Republican senator — Kansas' Nancy Kassebaum — voted against Tower, who went down in defeat, 47-53. If Hegseth's candidacy, which could come to a vote as early as Friday, is opposed by any Republican, it will most likely be from another independent-minded woman, Maine's Susan Collins.

(Through his lawyer, Hegseth has denied his former sister-in-law's claims and denied as well that he has issues with alcohol. In a statement to NBC News, his ex-wife said, "There was no physical abuse in my marriage.")

In the case of Hegseth, the power of party loyalty is compounded by three additional factors: fear of President Donald Trump, the cult of MAGA and the boomerang effect of liberal scorn.

As to the first: At least Kassebaum didn't have to fear a social media fusillade from Bush, and Bush would have been too much of a gentleman to do more than fume in private over her vote. Today, any Republican senator who defies Trump risks not just public mockery and belittlement from the president, but threats of a primary challenge, too.

Then there's the MAGA cult, whose bro culture Hegseth typifies: the big tattoos, womanizing and fervent Christian piety. When Hegseth questions the capacity of women to serve in combat, or when he is quoted as having once drunkenly chanted, "Kill all Muslims! Kill all Muslims!" (which Hegseth said last week was an anonymous false charge), it doesn't dim his star in MAGA world. Instead, it signals that he's reliable. That's a bond that neither Trump nor most of the GOP caucus will want to mess with.

But nothing will do more to persuade Republican senators to support Hegseth than the torrent of scorn now pouring over him from the organs of the perceived establishment. In December, the New Yorker's Jane Meyer published a devastating expose on Hegseth. In a different era (say, 10 years ago) the article would have destroyed his chances. Instead, it resuscitated a candidacy that, for a brief moment, looked dead on arrival in the Senate. Similar unflattering reporting by other news organizations only further abetted his comeback.

That doesn't mean journalists shouldn't do our jobs. It just means that, in this moral and intellectual climate, we shouldn't expect it to make a whit of political difference.

This article originally appeared in the New York Times.