Earlier this month, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, took the Senate floor to give what would be his final floor speech in the chamber and his tenure in Congress.

Brown reflected on his time in both the House and Senate, focusing on accomplishments he was particularly proud of, such as the PACT Act, the bipartisan bill to aid veterans whose health was impacted by toxic burn pits, and the CHIPS Act, similarly bipartisan, and which will greatly benefit Ohio toward a future economy and developments such as Intel’s massive computer chip manufacturing facility planned for the state.

But two areas he touched on, which date back to his time in the House, were particularly illustrative of the kind of legislator he has been for the state and the nation.

One was the 2003 launch of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

As opinions on that war have shifted so greatly in the decades since, it is worth noting, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, just how fervent many in the media and politics were in their desire to go to war.

Those who opposed the war or questioned the case for it, whether the faulty claim of weapons of mass destruction or a quickly-disproven claim of a link between Iraq and 9-11, were demonized by pro-war pundits.

As such, taking a stand against that invasion was an act of political bravery that put an officeholder’s future on the line.

Brown, it should always be remembered, was one of those who spoke out and voted against the invasion.

In the following years, it has become widely viewed that decision to invade Iraq was a foreign policy blunder by the Bush administration. And many have tried to revise history to pretend they were against the invasion (including the current president-elect), but Brown is one who can actually point to a record of opposition.

Similarly, Brown was prescient on another issue, far ahead of his time.

In the 1990s, it was pretty much a bipartisan consensus among many in politics to shove through so-called “free trade” legislation and rubber stamp what big business sought.

These politicians passed agreements such as NAFTA and permanent most favored nation trading status for China, and largely ignored the warnings of opponents who saw massive labor, environmental and human rights deficiencies in these packages.

In recent years, the topic has been revisited, as much of the U.S. manufacturing base was lost to overseas in the wake of these agreements.

But Brown can also point to being on the right side of history on this issue as well. A staunch ally of organized labor, he voted against all of these bills and was one of their strongest critics.

A true leader will go against the popular sentiment and take a stand for what the facts show, and that is precisely what Brown did on both Iraq and trade. It is the kind of thinking we need more of in Washington.

While Brown did not win re-election this year, largely due to a massive misinformation ad campaign targeting him in the final months of the election, he leaves behind a solid legacy of forward thinking and an ability to work with the other party.

In the closing of his speech, he noted, “This is my last speech on the floor this year, but it is not – I promise you – the last time you will hear from me.”

We at The Tribune have been clear of our respect for Brown. We commend him for his long record of public service, as Ohio’s secretary of state, as a U.S. representative and as senator, and hope we will see him hear his distinctive gravely voice speaking out on the issues facing our nation.