Bolton, the Beltway and the real world

One of the fun things about the two-party system is you get to watch one side or the other sputtering with indignation every two minutes or so about something they did themselves two minutes before.

Take the recess appointment of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations.

Democrats - in particular, Democratic senators - have been apoplectic over President Bush sticking with his nominee and using a recess appointment to give him the U.N. job for at least the next 17 months.

But what grounds do they have for their anger? It was they themselves - the Democratic senators - who stalled a vote on the nominee. Let's not forget that President Bush appointed Bolton to this job on March 7, nearly five months ago. Do the Democrats really think they should have veto power over every presidential decision even if they don't have the votes needed?

Truly, that is political arrogance at its worst. Especially, when you remember that President Clinton made 140 such recess appointments and that President Reagan made 242 such appointments. Many of those appointments were judges and ambassadors.

And if you don't think presidents make such appointments for the most important jobs in government, guess again. President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court with a recess appointment, as well as justices William Brennan and Potter Stewart. Those appointments were clearly of huge significance, certainly more so than the appointment of a U.N. ambassador. In addition, President Kennedy used a recess appointment to install Thurgood Marshall as a circuit court judge, thus paving the way for the first black man to sit on the Supreme Court.

There is no evidence, in other words, that using a recess appointment is an abuse of power, as the Democrats claim. It is, in fact, a constitutional power explicitly given to the president by the Founding Fathers.

Face it, a few liberal Democratic senators just don't like John Bolton because he intends to carry out the president's policies. All the hoohaw about Bolton's supposed temper and his authoritarian management style is just more obstructionist whining. Indeed, two of the most admired U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations were noted authoritarians who didn't suffer fools gladly. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick, one a Democrat and one a Republican, were both noted for their stern stuff - and for getting things done.

So is Bolton, despite the party line against him.

One of the main complaints against Bolton is that he told some intelligence analysts to go back over their data and double check their conclusions. Some of those folks apparently felt insulted or bullied. But in the real world, outside the Beltway of Washington, D.C., insisting that a subordinate do his or her work right should not be seen as bullying; it should be seen as the mark of a boss doing his own job well. Indeed, much of what Bolton is being criticized for by Democrats is exactly what the bipartisan 9/11 Commission urged from government officials: Take the time to challenge intelligence assessments and don't merely accept them at face value.

Taking things at face value is the last approach we need at the United Nations, especially at a time when scandal, bureaucratic incompetence and political manipulation threaten to bring down the whole institution.

So give Bolton his chance. He will have nearly a year and a half to sink or swim, which by the way is three times longer than the most recent ambassador lasted. But does anyone even remember John Danforth's tenure?

The last thing we need right now is another forgettable face at the U.N. So let's put the politics behind us, and get on with solving the problems that have become so evident in recent years. Bolton's direct diplomacy (aka blunt talk) may be just what's needed to bring reform to the United Nations.

If that happens, he will go down in history for much more than his recess appointment.