All those who embrace a progressive internationalist foreign policy must oppose John Bolton's nomination for UN Ambassador. Liberals have been criticized, fairly and unfairly, for having a muddled message on national security and foreign affairs. Bolton's nomination is an opportunity for us to clarify our positions, both to ourselves and to the public.
Everything that we are for, the Helms acolyte Bolton is against. Strong multilateral institutions - he opposes. Strong arms control agreements - he opposes. The concept of international law - he opposes. Diplomacy before war - he opposes.
We are for cooperating with our allies. We are for strong inspection and verification provisions in arms control agreements. We are for strengthening international institutions capable of legitimately responding to military and humanitarian crises. We are for the idea that war is a last resort. We are for these ideas both because they are morally right and because they strengthen our national security.
The Bolton nomination is a unique opportunity for progressives. He is the latest of many appointments that would be comically insane, were this a laughing matter. Condeleeza Rice as Secretary of State, Al Gonzalez as Attorney General, John Negroponte as Ambassador to Iraq, Elliot Abrams as Undersecretary of State for Democracy Promotion. While we have meekly acceded to these appointments, there is a growing sense that Democrats must draw a line in the sand. Bolton's nomination has crossed that line.
We have been gaining political capital on domestic issues, particularly the Social Security debate. Now is our chance to thicken that capital by broadening our effort to international affairs. The people's trust in the Democratic Party is rising - now we need to prove that we deserve it across the board. We have strong progressive activists and scholars that are on the sidelines of the social security debate because they focus on national security and international affairs. Passionate, grassroots opposition to Bolton will help pull them into the political debate.
We can win the fight against Bolton. He was only narrowly confirmed by the Senate for his previous position, 57-43. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is the last bastion of moderate Republicans, and winning one vote - Lugar, Hagel, or Chafee - would keep Bolton bottled up in committee, provided Democrats hold the line. Lugar's reception of the nomination has already been decidedly lukewarm, and Chafee is wavering. Grassroots pressure on the whole Senate will play a major role in the decision of committee members.
Even if we don't win the fight against Bolton, we have much to gain, including a rare chance to articulate our foreign policy vision. Conservatives like Peter Beinart, in calling for us to be purged, decry the lack of progressive foreign policy "seriousness." Opposing Bolton is a serious matter. Read the Congressional Record [PDF: 1, 2] from the first vote on Bolton if you want a serious articulation of Democratic foreign policy values. If we build strong grassroots opposition to Bolton, such words of wisdom won't evaporate into the ether like before.
If Bolton is confirmed, our international credibility will take another hit. The willingness of the rest of the world to differentiate between the American people and their government is waning in the wake of the 2004 elections and Bush's ensuing appointments. Bush travels the globe speaking out of both sides of his mouth, frittering away the hard-earned national reputation that he should be holding in trust for the people. Strong, clear opposition to Bolton will help, at least a little, to mitigate the damage his confirmation would do to us. It's not much, but we owe it to our future to demonstrate to the world that the American people are sane.
There are several opportunities for action. Bolton's not expected to come up in the Foreign Relations Committee until sometime in April, so we have a little time. The first step is to go to Steve Clemons' blog, thewashingtonnote.com, and answer his call for help. Steve is a centrist voice, with real credibility, who's outrage at Bolton's nomination is a harbinger of things to come. The second step is for us to contact our representatives to see where they stand. We need to identify targets for persuasion and advocates of sanity. The third step is to persuade other progressive organizations that this is a fight worth undertaking. Bolton's voice isn't ours, his positions don't represent Americans, and we need to ensure people, both here and abroad, realize that.
Even if you do nothing else about Bolton, read Sidney Blumenthal's piece in the Guardian.
Editorials
Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial, John Bolton at the UN: Wrong Man for the Job, March 10, 2005.
Atlanta Journal Constitution Editorial, Bush's UN Choice a Loose Cannon, March 7, 2005.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune Editorial, John Bolton: A UN Enemy Representing US?, March 10, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial, Anti-Diplomat Goes to the UN, March 9, 2005.
USA Today Editorial, Curious Pick for UN Post, March 8, 2005.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial, United Nations: Sending Mixed Messages, March 10, 2005.
Los Angeles Times Editorial, Bolton, Out of the Blue, March 8, 2005.
New York Times Editorial, The World According to Bolton, March 9, 2005.