Soccer Dad

Bolton for the door

According to the Moderate Voice.Joe Gandelman President Bush has failed his first test of bipartisanship

In other words, repeated attempts to get Bolton in place by political consensus (a vote) failed so Bush did what he has done in other vital policy decisions that could and/or should have involved Congress: he just used executive power to the fullest to do it anyway, not bothering with a trifling thing such as garnering widespread political support....which coincidentally ensures that decisions enjoy widespread accepted legitimacy and don't polarize.

Gandelman is at least gracious enough to note that Bolton hasn't destroyed the UN. But how has President Bush failed the test of bipartisanship by forwarding Bolton's name again? The whole Senate was never given the opportunity to vote on him. The Democrats and two Republicans held up his nomination in the Foreign Relations committee instead of allowing it to a floor vote where he, undoubtedly, would have won. (And I see that not every contributor at the Moderate Voice is in agreement.)

Martin Peretz wrote:

But the fact is that Moynihan and Bolton were cut from the same cloth: a bit pugnacious in their patriotism, realistic about the moral and practical limits of world-organization diplomacy, clear-headed about the fact that some nations sitting across the table from us at the United Nations are actual enemies. Bolton understands, as Moynihan did, the futility of the U.N.'s. grand bureaucracies and plastic procedures. When there is a crisis, the U.N. apparatus is mobilized to pass a resolution. A resolution is almost the be-all and end-all of the United Nations. No one seems to pay much attention to the consequences or whether there are consequences at all. Like Resolution 1559, passed two years ago. It stated quite clearly what was supposed to happen in southern Lebanon — namely, the disarming of Hezbollah and all other militias. And let us not forget its requirement that the secretary-general make a report "within thirty days" on progress toward the resolution's goals. Of course, he couldn't have reported more than nothing. This instance of impotence is not an exception to the rule; it is the rule.

An honest U.S. ambassador recognizes the logic of U.N. decision-making. Fred Iklé called it "semantic infiltration." You undermine your position by adopting your adversaries' language. What the U.N. is most often discussing is wording — wording that bridges positions. But these wordings that bridge positions are, as Moynihan understood and Bolton understands, often deep falsifications.

Outside the Beltway.Steven Taylor argues against confirming Bolton. I understand his point about minority brakes on majority action, and if Bolton had been fillibustered, I could accept that point. But Bolton wouldn't have been fillibustered, which is why the his nominaiton was killed in committee.

Republicans, in general, have been more deferential to Democratic presidential power than vise versa. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was overwhelmingly confirmed and didn't face the kind of challenge that John Roberts and Samuel Alito faced. (And she certainly didn't suffer the fate of Robert Bork.) I'm not sure that I buy into the hypocrisy charge.

Is Bolton replaceable? No doubt he is. But will his replacement be as effective?

Bolton hasn't just been an effective proponent of American policy (at least as represented by the Bush administration) he has also been an advocate for change at the hopelessly corrupt UN and a voice speaking up against the genocide in Darfur. The Heritage Foundation has a nice roundup of the work he's done and how effective he's been. (via Crossing the Rubicon3 via the Democracy Project)

But if the UN is hopelessly corrupt why is the identity of America's ambassador there so important? Because if there's any hope that the organization will be changed it will have to come from American pressure.

Right now the organization is dominated by dictatorships who see some sort of moral vindication by voting in majorities though it is a right they will never grant their own people and the bureaucrats who enable them. This status quo should be challenged and, if possible, be reversed.

Appointing Bolton isn't an ideological issue. It's an issue of an effective appointment being allowed to finish the job he started. Apparently the Democrats aren't interested in looking at results but on their own preconceived notions. Good for Gates of Vienna for working towards his appointment.

One last note. The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) recently launched a PR campaign claiming that the Republican Jewish Coalition was putting partisanship before Israel. Why has the NJDC been quiet on one of the most pro-Israel Amdassadors to the UN the United States has ever had? Surely if supporting Israel crosses partisan lines, Bolton deserves the support of pro-Israel Democrats. I see that Marvin Schick has changed his mind. Surely some other pro-Israel Democrats could acknowledge the same.

UPDATE: Fellow Maryland Blogger Alliance blogger, Kevin Dayhoff gives a nice local flavor to the Baltimore native John Bolton's confirmation troubles at the Tentacle.

Technorati tags: John Bolton.