Thursday, April 14, 2005
The Real Debate : Bolton or Global Governance?
There has been a lot in the news about how the Senate should treat Presidential nominations and, more recently, about the hearings on John Bolton's nomination to become American Ambassador to the UN. It seems to me that these hearings and Senate procedures are being grossly overdramatized - and for all the wrong reasons. They strike me as more about publicity and partisan interest and obstructionism than national interest.
As an example, this brief statement by James Taranto in his WSJ Best of the Web Today column captures the essence of the Bolton nomination Senate Hearings : "The Washington Post's Dana Milbank gives the game away, though:
"Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies and disparaging the very organization he would serve."
That would be the U.N.--but of course the American ambassador to the U.N. is supposed to serve America, not the U.N."
Of course, some may have a different view of the American Ambassador's prmary duty - i.e. to promote the coming of "global governance". That view is discussed by David Brooks in today's New York Times OP-ED .As he says, regarding John Bolton : " it is ridiculous to say he doesn't believe in the United Nations. This is a canard spread by journalists who haven't bothered to read his stuff and by crafty politicians who aren't willing to say what the Bolton debate is really about.
The Bolton controversy isn't about whether we believe in the U.N. mission. It's about which U.N. mission we believe in.
From the start, the U.N. has had two rival missions. Some people saw it as a place where sovereign nations could work together to solve problems. But other people saw it as the beginnings of a world government.
This world government dream crashed on the rocks of reality, but as Jeremy Rabkin of Cornell has observed, the federalist idea has been replaced by a squishier but equally pervasive concept: the dream of "global governance."
Mr. Brooks goes on to give five good reasons why Americans will never subscribe to the "global governance" model and that Bolton is the right man to make these American points. I would add that Bolton's appointment comes is at the right time to help the UN to reform itself into a relevant and useful player on the world scene. Or as Brooks says about Bolton : " Time and time again, he has pointed out that the U.N. can be an effective forum where nations can go to work together, but it can never be a legitimate supranational authority in its own right.
Sometimes it takes sharp elbows to assert independence. But this is certain: We will never be so seduced by vapid pieties about global cooperation that we'll join a system that is both unworkable and undemocratic."
Sounds good and realistic to me. I think the debates on this nomination and those on judicial nominations reflect a deep divide between those who believe the world is better if we keep our national soveriegnty and and strength and those who don't; and between those who believe in the exercise of government power under democratic elections and constitutuional safeguards and those who favor enacting new policy by judicial adjudication rather than by representative legislation.
It seems that Presidential nominations are being treated as publicity opportunities by the minority party rather than as an honest exercise of advise and consent responsibilities. I wonder whether our political parties are really reflecting that great philosophical divide or actively exagerating and fostering it. There is a line between resposible minority oppostion and partisan obstructionism. It may not be an easy line to distinguish, but one sign of the crossing may be the extent of personal vituperation and emotionalism employed by the minority. I think we have been seeing too much of that lately.
Well, in this case, I find it easy to vote for Bolton over global governance and I think he will do America's work at the UN. As he should.
As an example, this brief statement by James Taranto in his WSJ Best of the Web Today column captures the essence of the Bolton nomination Senate Hearings : "The Washington Post's Dana Milbank gives the game away, though:
"Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies and disparaging the very organization he would serve."
That would be the U.N.--but of course the American ambassador to the U.N. is supposed to serve America, not the U.N."
Of course, some may have a different view of the American Ambassador's prmary duty - i.e. to promote the coming of "global governance". That view is discussed by David Brooks in today's New York Times OP-ED .As he says, regarding John Bolton : " it is ridiculous to say he doesn't believe in the United Nations. This is a canard spread by journalists who haven't bothered to read his stuff and by crafty politicians who aren't willing to say what the Bolton debate is really about.
The Bolton controversy isn't about whether we believe in the U.N. mission. It's about which U.N. mission we believe in.
From the start, the U.N. has had two rival missions. Some people saw it as a place where sovereign nations could work together to solve problems. But other people saw it as the beginnings of a world government.
This world government dream crashed on the rocks of reality, but as Jeremy Rabkin of Cornell has observed, the federalist idea has been replaced by a squishier but equally pervasive concept: the dream of "global governance."
Mr. Brooks goes on to give five good reasons why Americans will never subscribe to the "global governance" model and that Bolton is the right man to make these American points. I would add that Bolton's appointment comes is at the right time to help the UN to reform itself into a relevant and useful player on the world scene. Or as Brooks says about Bolton : " Time and time again, he has pointed out that the U.N. can be an effective forum where nations can go to work together, but it can never be a legitimate supranational authority in its own right.
Sometimes it takes sharp elbows to assert independence. But this is certain: We will never be so seduced by vapid pieties about global cooperation that we'll join a system that is both unworkable and undemocratic."
Sounds good and realistic to me. I think the debates on this nomination and those on judicial nominations reflect a deep divide between those who believe the world is better if we keep our national soveriegnty and and strength and those who don't; and between those who believe in the exercise of government power under democratic elections and constitutuional safeguards and those who favor enacting new policy by judicial adjudication rather than by representative legislation.
It seems that Presidential nominations are being treated as publicity opportunities by the minority party rather than as an honest exercise of advise and consent responsibilities. I wonder whether our political parties are really reflecting that great philosophical divide or actively exagerating and fostering it. There is a line between resposible minority oppostion and partisan obstructionism. It may not be an easy line to distinguish, but one sign of the crossing may be the extent of personal vituperation and emotionalism employed by the minority. I think we have been seeing too much of that lately.
Well, in this case, I find it easy to vote for Bolton over global governance and I think he will do America's work at the UN. As he should.
