Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Bolton? And Why?

I’m trying to figure out what it is about John Bolton that irritates the liberals so much. They’ve made it pretty clear that they don’t believe he’s the right man to be the United States Representative to the United Nations, but the underlying reason for it has me puzzled. I’ve tried to work it out, but none of it makes sense. Let me walk through some of what I’ve been thinking about.

First, the possibility that Mr. Bolton will offend some member nations of the UN. Well, if he as a person is found offensive by some of the members, I think that’s no big deal. I’d be willing to bet that no one delegate to the UN likes all of the other delegates.

So if some people are personally offended by him, so what? Now, if other nations are offended by him because he represents the United States, I wonder if it’s because they think he shouldn’t represent our country. Well, other nations are not responsible for choosing our delegates (at least not yet), so that shouldn’t be an issue. If they’re offended by the United States, well, we’re already aware of the fact that we’re not universally loved, and we don’t need to pick our delegates to that not so august body to please them anyway.

Second, the possibility that Mr. Bolton might do something horrible to the UN. Are they afraid that the UN will collapse or something, if he walks through the doors? Is it some “sinner in the church” thing? If the UN is that weak to begin with, that he can cause its destruction, maybe they need to evaluate the UN instead to decrying Mr. Bolton’s nomination. Take for example, how long he will be there. Well, if a Democrat gets elected President in 2008, we can pretty much count on the fact that Mr. Bolton will be gone from the UN in 2009, pretty early in the year, in fact. So the longest he will hold the position is less than four years. Is the UN so weak that it can’t survive Mr. Bolton for four years? We’ve survived some pretty screwed up Presidents in this country, who’ve served for four years or more. I won’t go into the good Presidents vs the bad ones, it’s all a matter of opinion, anyway. The point is, if we can survive a bad President, who holds the position of leader of our country, surely the UN can survive Mr. Bolton, if it was meant to.

Third, maybe the liberals have a problem with Mr. Bolton’s personality. Among other things, he’s being called abrasive. Well, I’m trying to find out what’s wrong with that. Strong people make enemies as well as friends. Of course, there’s the usual he said/she said about alleged sexual proclivities, but those sorts of accusations would come to the fore if Mother Theresa was given an appointment by a Republican President. So I’ve come up with a litmus test. Let the liberals pick ten delegates to the UN (currently serving) of THEIR CHOICE and give all ten the same kind of background screening they want for Mr. Bolton. If all ten pass, Mr. Bolton goes home. If one or more fails (and we pretty well know the failure list will be closed to ten than one) then the issue gets dropped.

Fourth, they might be afraid that Mr. Bolton will upset the UN so much that we’ll be kicked out. You know, if the Good Lord were to give me another sixty years on this planet, and if He let me win the lottery so I’d never have to work again, and I could just sit around contemplating getting kicked out of the UN for sixty years, I still don’t think I could come up with a negative side to it. Just as an aside, it wouldn’t break my heart if we were to tell the UN that their lease is up, and they have thirty days to move out because we’re not gonna renew it. But I digress. Even though it wouldn’t bother me at all to see us not a member of the UN, or to see the UN moved to a foreign country like Somalia, or Syria, or California, let’s get back to Mr. Bolton. There’s one more thing that comes to mind, when I think about the liberal attitude toward his nomination.

Fifth, maybe the liberals are afraid that Mr. Bolton will hold his post for more than four years. Of course, the only way that’s likely to happen would be if our next President is also a Republican. That’s the only way I can see, offhand, that Mr. Bolton would be able to remain in the job more than four years. Are the liberals afraid that they won’t be able to elect a President in 2008? Are they afraid that Mr. Bolton will be able to wreck the UN in that time? Are they afraid that he will ruffle the wrong feathers? Whose feelings in the UN are they afraid he might hurt? Let’s review. Mr. Bolton might offend other member nations. Guess what? Many of the member nations find us offensive already. Some find our strength offensive, some find our attitude offensive, some find our very existence offensive. They can get over it or cry about it, or quit. Mr. Bolton might make the UN collapse. So what? If the UN is that weak, it won’t be missed. Of course, Mr. Annan’s son might have to get a real job, but what the heck? My sons did! Mr. Bolton’s personality is not to the liberals liking. Get a life, folks! He’s been appointed by a Republican! He’s not supposed to satisfy you. Mr. Bolton might upset the UN. Considering the UN’s performance the past few years, that would be a plus. Looks like they could use some upsetting. And the possibility that Mr. Bolton might be in his post more than four years. Are the liberals that unsure of their ability to elect a President in 2008?

In short, there’s a strange underpinning to the reasons behind the liberal antipathy toward Mr. Bolton. It appears very much political. So, next time you’re chatting with a liberal, and he/she pulls out that index card and starts reviewing why Bolton shouldn’t get confirmed, take the card, tear it up, and ask “What are you really afraid of?”

NOTE: Copyright© 05/28/05 by Dave Hoffman

Use granted to all who identify author.

Beneficium accipere libertatem est vendere.