Bleeding Hearts for Bolton
Posted by Suzanne Nossel
Heather's concern is shared by Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly who writes:
However, one thing that occurs to me after yesterday's dramatic events is that I'm getting increasingly uneasy about the focus on Bolton's "abuse" of subordinates. Don't get me wrong: the guy sounds like a prime grade asshole, and it might do a world of good to send a message to ambitious DC bureaucrats to rein in that kind of behavior. On the other hand, let's be honest here: if everyone who abused subordinates were blackballed from senior positions in Washington, the city would be a ghost town. I'm a little fearful that this line of attack could end up accomplishing little except elevating the politics of personal destruction — on both sides — to ever pettier and more vicious levels.
This is not a trivial point, but - putting aside everything I've outlined below about why he is the wrong man for the job - let's focus just on the question of abuse of subordinates. There are at least four kinds of bosses in this world:
1. Those who don't abuse subordinates at all - The best
2. Those who abuse, but only with a valid justification - Understandable at times, but not very nice
3. Those who abuse for no reason at all - I think most of the people Kevin is talking about actually fit into this category.
4. Those who abuse for an invalid justification - for example race, gender, sexual orientation, disability OR for whistle-blowing to uncover fraud OR retaliation for putting forward valid intelligence information.
I don't think the stance taken on Bolton can be extended to anyone apart from those who fit into category 4,
Now my husband and I have been debating tonight whether someone's status as a sexual harasser ought to ipso facto disqualify them from high office.
I guess I am hesitant about citing certain shortcomings as blanket disqualifiers without regard to individual circumstances and competing facts, qualifications and attributes. Now I did say last week that I agreed with Senator Dodd that Bolton's attempts to get intelligence analysts removed for taking positions that differed from Bolton's own should be grounds for disqualifying him from the UN post.
But as set out here, I feel this way because questions of biased intelligence, inappropriate political influence over intelligence, and unwillingness to tolerate dissenting views within the intelligence community have emerged as such glaring problems with grave consequences. In this context, with broad agreement that these serious problems must be addressed immediately and thoroughly, I do see Bolton's conduct in this regard as a disqualifier. So its a qualified disqualifier.
I honestly don't think we face a dilemma here over whether to take the high ground. Heather's right that Bolton's essentially done himself in. But the question will come back when the Senate grapples with judicial nominees; do we stoop to a "whatever works" sort of mudslinging to tar nominees whose views we find repellent? Or do we take the high ground, knowing that the result will be (in the case of judges, lifetime) appointments for people bent on circumscribing and up-ending principles and values we hold dear (and that the favor will never be returned)?
Those are hard questions. But as Heather points out, we can thank John Bolton for the fact that his nomination does not raise them.