RIGHT, MIGHT, and the AMERICAN WAY

                   TO CONFIRM or Not to CONFIRM

                              JOHN R.BOLTON

The battle over the confirmation of John Bolton to be the United Nations Ambassador is destined to be a watershed event in American history. What makes it so critical is that it defines the core attitudes that America adopts vis a vis the world.

While there is notable disagreement as to the wisdom of nominating Mr. Bolton  for this important post there is no disagreement among supporters or detractors as to what Mr. Bolton stands for as well as familiarity with his style of getting what he wants.

Supporters believe that Mr. Bolton is the perfect man at the right time for this sensitive position. For them his strength lies in his firm unwavering convictions, his tough command of his troops, and his apparent Teflon immunization from criticism of both his policies and his leadership style.

Detractors believe that Mr. Bolton is nothing short of a dangerous bully who often sets himself up as a truculent leader who abuses authority by frequently overruling his own ad visors demonstrating fealty only to the principle that might is right.

There would probably be no public discussion of this undisguised conflict if it wasn't for the fact that a few key Republicans such as Senator Voinovich, have expressed a crisis of confidence. In so doing they are exercising their right {and responsibility} to be governed by their conscience instead of the usual automatic submission to partisan politics. In so doing they have openly forced the doubts about Mr. Bolton to become front and center for careful scrutiny risking and indeed being attacked for their "disloyalty".

How best to settle this matter? I think the answer lies in carefully examining the key concepts surrounding this position.  These core concepts include diplomacy and loyalty.

The definition of diplomacy should act as an objective guide in determining the qualifications of the nominee. The definition of loyalty should act an objective guide in determining the practical politics's surrounding this choice.

Websters dictionary defines diplomacy as " (l) the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations; {and} (2) skill in  handling affairs without arousing hostility."

Unless I am missing something vital - I have never read about a human being who has and continues to arouse such enmity as Mr. Bolton. Additionally, as a psychotherapist I know that character is destiny. Human beings are largely creatures of habit. Although it is true that significant change can occur - it is also true that it only happens when there is both a readiness and a willingness to change. I have heard no such intentions from Mr. Bolton nor would I expect him to do so.

Assuming that Mr. Bolton, if appointed, continues to be himself - we can reasonably expect him to be the same as he has been. Thus we can reasonably expect him to try to overpower whatever nations he wishes into utter uncompromising submission. If the art of diplomacy is persuasion, we can reasonably and predictably expect Mr. Bolton to contribute to the present un United Nations to becoming even more disunited  escalating the increasing disarray and chaos. Unfortunately, an atmosphere of hostility and fear breeds nothing but counter hostility and dissension. This fact, brings us to a consideration of the practical "political" issue of loyalty.

Presently there are virulent ad homonym attacks on Senator Voinovich and others who have dared to oppose the party line by expressing doubts about the wisdom of affirming Mr. Bolton for this sensitive post.

As is typical in such matters - an attitude, that holds true for all groups of people- is, an appeal to party loyalty. Here again Websters is helpful in attempting to objectify this seemingly unresolvable problem.

Websters defines loyal as: "unswerving in allegiance" {with the following qualifications} "(a) faithful in allegiance to ones lawful sovereign or government (b) faithful to a private person to whom Fidelity is due (c) faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product."  A further definition is associated with fidelity. "Loyalty implies a faithfulness that is steadfast in the face of any temptation to renounce, desert, or betray ."

A careful examination of these definitions clearly indicates that there is a narrow and broad view of loyalty. The narrow way always votes for simple minded partisanship; the broader way votes for the more complex and noble that appeals to what is highest and most valuable.

I would like to believe that as a nation - despite our diversity  - Americans are collectively loyal to the values of fairness, reasonableness, the rule of law, respect for others, civility, decency, and a sincere sense of humility.

In this connection I was pleasantly surprised to read a speech this morning by Tom Delay called:

To Serve Well is to Serve Humbly; Asks for Prayers for Congress on National Day of Prayer

WASHINGTON, May 5 / U.S.Newswire/ -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today delivered remarks on the importance of humility in public service and asked for continued prayers for the U.S. Congress at the annual National Day of Prayer service. Below are excerpts from his remarks.

"No man or woman of any faith or of no faith can truly love, truly serve, truly persevere, truly dare mighty deeds, truly hope for the future or truly honor the past, without a humble heart.

"So it is for humility, then, that, on behalf of the legislative branch -- both houses, both parties -- I ask for your prayers today. Because the only way we can serve well is to serve humbly, as servants both to God and our nation.

While I have serious issues concerning Mr. Delay I think he makes a good point. If his admonition  be used as a criterion for objectively evaluating the nomination of Mr. Bolton it is clear what the outcome would and should be.

Comments

[Fran]

Very interesting and balanced writing, Dan. I don't visit here often, but when I do, I'm always impressed. I'm extremely distanced from national politics right now. The current administration simply scares the living hell out of me and I feel helpless to do a damn thing about it. So, I'm waiting out the lame duck administration and hoping they don't do too much irreversible damage in the time left to them. As for Bolton, I don't really know that much about him personally, but the U.N. itself seems pretty powerless. Seems like nobody listens to them anyway. I am connected with local politics and my choice for Redondo Beach mayor was elected yesterday. Halleluia!

[MJ]

The administration wants to not only bully the UN but end it, and that's why Bolton was chosen, of course. Pit bull diplomacy.

[Dan Zukowski]

Excellent analysis. Bolton is the wrong person for the job because he is hostile to the very entity he is supposed to serve as ambassador. At a time when this Administration needs to repair the damage it's done to our relationships around the world, sending Bolton to the U.N. is sending precisely the wrong signal.

Bolton is a bully, and there is no place for that in any workplace, organization or other social environent. You would be an idiot to hire him or to work for him, knowing that.