Another Argument Against John Bolton

Democrats are correct to oppose John Bolton as the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations. He is brazen, tactless, and incompetent; exactly the wrong characteristics needed in a diplomat whose duty, presumably, will entail the fostering of a new world perception of the United States. John Bolton’s job, if voted as ambassador, will not entail the propagation of the very same stereotypes and hatred we will try to dissolve, however this is exactly what he’ll do. It is my firm belief, as well as the very vocal belief of Congressional Democrats, that John Bolton is precisely the wrong person for the job, and his defiant unilateralism, flagrant arrogance, and complacent indifference are precisely the wrong characterizations that are needed to represent the United States on a global forum. John Bolton said that if the United Nations' building in New York, “lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.” How, I ask you, can a person who disregards the principals behind an organization, ever work to effectively within it?

However, it’s also my belief, that if Democrats truly want the sympathy of the masses, they need not target Mr. Bolton on multilateralism (we know how that worked when John Kerry tried it), they need to cater to the priorities of the electorate: terrorism. Fortunately for Congressional Democrats, John Bolton is an easy target.

The University of Michigan's important National Election Studies just recently corroborated what is already known: Bush was reelected because people felt, with Bush in office, they were safer from terrorism. In fact, 42% of voters named terrorism as their most important concern, and 70% of those voters cast their ballots for Bush. Rather than only targeting John Bolton because he doesn’t play nice with the world, and because he is (as Barbra Boxer, California state senator, has said) "contemptuous of the U.N.," Democrats should target him for making our country less safe by failing at his job. With that, we can win.

As a government official, Under-Secretary of State to be exact, John Bolton’s position deals largely with the curtailment of the proliferation of WMDs. However, in his tenure, exactly the opposite has happened. For example, more weapon grade nuclear material was secured by the United States in the two years before 9/11, then in the two years after it, under Bolton’s supervision of course. Under his watch, North Korea has gone from having a dangerous two nuclear bombs, to having a devastating eight. As Warren Bass of the 9/11 commission puts it, of Bolton, “two bombs is a deterrent; eight is a commodity.” In fact, Mr. Bolton is widely credited with the termination of the Biological Weapons Commission, and the major funds cut in the Nunn-Lugar program, a program to decrease the dissemination of nuclear material out of former Soviet Union. On both accounts, John Bolton is compromising the safety of the United States.

There are many examples, and many more I’m sure still to be uncovered. Let’s hope Democrats realized that by charging Bolton of unilateralism, they are empowering him as a crusader for the United States’ best interest, not pinning him as the global renegade which he is. Let’s hope that Democrats realize: unless people understand it is John Bolton who has hurt us domestically through the perpetuation of terrorism, he will most likely have the privilege of hurting us internationally through the denigration United Nations.