You're doing great work and we all appreciate this blog. But, for someone who keeps insisting that he is only one player among many and should not receive exclusive accolades for the stop-Bolton effort, why the need to dramatically highlight in your blog every word of praise that comes your way?

Your comment is fair etcheverry -- and the fact is that I don't do so...but when a reference appears in National Journal, I need to respond. And did. Many thanks though for your comment.

In the blogging world, which is full of slipperiness and quicksand...and landmines, we need to make decisions about what we write, and how we position ourselves in very short periods. I appreciate the praise of my blog -- and want that -- but I also don't want anyone to think that this battle is even nearly over.

My focus is on Bolton and hope yours is too. ;-)

best regards,
Steve Clemons

Dear Steve:

The thing that bothers me about this whole Bolton reforming the United Nations is the fact that it is the United NationS--plural. How is one man, even a blunt-talking one from the USA, supposed to take on the rest of the world and reform it? Makes no sense to me.

Keep up good work. And do you have a follow-up cause in mind?

Leigh

"When Bush was counseled about the fact that his comments "were not helpful" to the process, George Bush actually STOPPED making such references and stopped undermining the efforts of his national security bureacracy to try and get something done with the North Koreans."

Ya mean like when Bush said last night that Kim Jong Il "starves his people."

"'Bush described Bolton as someone who will not be "afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations." '"

Isn't that what we are all afraid of; that Bolton will speak HIS mind at the United Nations, a mind that has been found to have often spoken against the diplomatic interests of the United States. Is Bolton supposed to be speaking HIS mind, or what the government of the United States has in mind. Bush complimenting Bolton as being one not "afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations," is like saying he admires the way he goes "off the hook."

So I guess what Bush said last night is that he likes Bolton's crazy shoot from the hip style and that is one of the reasons he nominated him for the postion, thus the Committee can't shoot him down for being undiplomatic because that's a quality in Bush's eyes, and that's what's needed for the US at the UN at this time.

Talking about UN reform, Dan Kervick posted this
in Matt Yglesias's blog. Very informative.

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/04/not_even_a_sing.html#comments
Kervick writes:

Matt, you and Friedman appear deeply uninformed on this issue and need to do some more homework. Friedman doesn't know what he is talking about if he thinks UN reform is some "conservative mantra". In fact it is liberal internationalists around the world who have been most engaged in the UN reform movement. UN reform is not "small potatoes" at all.

You seem not to understand what the phrase "UN reform" entails. We're not just talking about streamlining the bureaucracy. There are a number of important and very serious proposals out there, including those in the report issued by the Secretary-General's High Level Panel, the panel on which Brent Scowcroft sat. These reports have recommended very major changes in the constitution of the Security Council, the power of the Secretary General, the replacement of corrupt, dysfunctional organs like the Human Rights Commission, financial reform, a very important expansion of the role of the IAEA, the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission that would integrate the work or the UN with that of the World Bank and IMF to manage post-conflict situations, etc.

The UN Ambassador from the United States will play an important role in this work, in addition to his ongoing duties in representing US positions to the world. So, do we want someone who is going to work to make the UN more effective, or someone whose aim is destroy the UN and replace it with a sort of Student Council in Manhattan, a toy-government debate club for the kids, completely under the thumb by Principal Bush? The latter is the UN reform agenda of the radical right.

I actually think the notion of Bush senior as UN Ambassador is an excellent idea; other pro-UN Republicans like Scowcroft would be equally solid choices.

Read:

http://www.un.org/secureworld/

http://www.globalpolicy.org/reform/introindex.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/reform.htm

In my above post, Italics did not take to the end of the post. The entire comment to the end was from
Dan Kervick.

George Bush also knows the difference between theatrical and flamboyant toughness -- versus effectiveness.

Where is the evidence in the last five years to support this statement? I've seen none.

The first reaction I had to the President's "he's blunt, but you say it like it's a bad thing" endorsement of Bolton was a sinking feeling that maybe Bush endorses Bolton's previously stated views on the UN.

If this were true, the Senate must ask itself, "Since the President didn't campaign on UN reform, does the President's view really represent the view of thePeople of the United States on *this* issue?" I know of no mandate from the electorate to cripple or abolish the UN, nor even majority support expressed in polls.

(Side Note: If the President's use of the term "reform" for the UN equates to his use of the term when applied to Social Security, then "reform" would translate to "phase out.")

No elected official has a blanket mandate from the electorate soley by virtue of winning an election, else there would be no explicit checks and balances built in to our Constitution and we would just elect a Dictator. Elected or appointed officials in each branch of our government must do their own due diligence to live up to the oath of office to defend and protect our Constitution.

No elected official has a blanket mandate from the electorate soley by virtue of winning an election, else there would be no explicit checks and balances built in to our Constitution and we would just elect a Dictator.

Dale, you make an excellent point. The White House and Republican leadership have made quite alarmingly clear their lack of respect for and intent to weaken if not destroy the system of checks and balances. And Bush explicitly stated (in an interview with Jim Van den Hei of the Wash.Post just before the inauguration) that he had the seal of approval for everything he had done and would do by virtue of those 100,000-plus votes in Ohio: "We had an accountability moment. It's called the election."

Someone who thinks that accountability is not ongoing in the American system of government, but is only a "moment", is thinking like a dictator. And he's acting like one on a whole range of issues, from Bolton to Iraq to Social Security.

Nell -- You are spot on. Bush stated publicly -- not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES -- that governing the U.S. would be easier if it were a dictatorship, but "just so long as I'm the dictator."

I see no reason not to take him at his word. He was NOT joking.

Dale,

in a way, you are hitting the nail on the head with your comments. If you are interested in the views of both the American public and its political leaders regarding US foreign relations and the role of America in the international system, have a look at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations' Global Views 2004 report. The highly respected CCFR has been conducting quadrennial reports since 1974.

Just as illuminating, if not more, is another report the CCFR put out recently -- the Perceptions 2004 Report which looks at the views held by the public as well as by administration officials in relation to the way Congress voted on those issues.

I would urge you, as I have done elsewhere on this site, to download both the Global Views report as well as the Perceptions Report in their entirety and make up your own mind.

You'll find that the views of John R Bolton are not only completely opposed to the views held by the public, but they are also opposed to the views held by more than two thirds of the administration officials.

Let me quote from pp 5-6 of the Perceptions Report:

Multilateral Action

The public and leaders show strong support for a greater emphasis on multilateral action in US foreign policy, and even a readiness to accept multilateral decisions that are unfavorable to the US. Asked whether they agreed or disagreed that “When dealing with international problems, the U.S. should be more willing to make decisions within the United Nations even if this means that the United States will sometimes have to go along with a policy that is not its first choice,” 66% of the public and 78% of the leaders agreed that the US should. Within the sub-sample of administration officials, 66% agreed with this position. Among Congressional staffers, 63% agreed. In virtually all the leader categories, very large majorities agreed with this position—ranging from 73-87%. The one exception was Republican staffers: only 38% agreed while 62% disagreed.

Asked whether the US should participate in the International Criminal Court, 76% of the public and 70% of the leaders said that it should. (In 2002, a similar majority of 66% of leaders had supported participation in the ICC.) Perhaps most striking, 68% of administration officials also thought the US should participate in the ICC. Congressional staffers differed, however, with only 43% supporting participation in the ICC (52% opposed). Preferences varied by party with 74% of Democratic staffers favoring participation, while among Republican staffers just 15% said the US should participate in the ICC. For all other leader categories support ranged from 60% among business leaders to 87% among educators. Congressional legislative action has been contrary to this public consensus. In the most recent instance (July 2004) the House of Representatives voted on the “Nethercutt amendment,” which actively sought to weaken the ICC be ensuring that all US nationals would be exempt from its jurisdiction. Specifically, the amendment prohibited foreign aid to any ICC member country that has not signed a bilateral agreement with the US to exempt US nationals. The Nethercutt amendment passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 241 to 166.

I heard news anchors on a DC radio station interviewing Chris Matthews today. They asked him if perhaps Bolton was really getting too hot an issue for Bush and would this be damaging to Bush. Chris gave Bush a complete pass and blamed Bush's team of advisors for not vetting Bolton well enough before allowing the prez to proceed with the nomination!!! Matthews claimed Bush's advisors didn't do their jobs! Either Matthews is an idiot or Bush really has his number -- probably both.

Just in case you have difficulties accessing the report:

Perceptions and Misperceptions in the Congressional Foreign Policy Process

Key findings

1. Public-Elite Consensus and Congressional Votes
On a wide variety of foreign policy questions there is broad consensus among both the American public and American leaders. However, in many cases Congress has voted in ways that are inconsistent with these consensus positions.

2. Leaders’ Perceptions of General Public
Americans in all types of leadership positions, including Congressional staffers and high level members of the executive branch, misread the attitudes of the general American public on numerous foreign policy issues, especially in regard to participating in multilateral efforts. Leaders generally underestimate the consistency between their views and the general public.

3. Public Perceptions of Congress
Overall Americans’ assumptions about how Congress overall votes on foreign policy issues are often incorrect. Americans tend to assume, often incorrectly, that Congress is voting in ways that are consistent with how they would like Congress to vote.

4. Congressional Staffers’ Perceptions of Constituents
Congressional staffers widely misread the attitudes of their constituents on foreign policy issues. While staffers’ perceptions of the attitudes in their districts or states were highly varied, actual constituent attitudes were remarkably homogeneous. Curiously, staffers whose views were at odds with the majority of their constituents showed a strong bias toward assuming, incorrectly, that their constituents agreed with them, while staffers whose views were actually in accord with their constituents more often than not assumed this was not the case.

5. Public Perceptions of Their Member of Congress
Americans’ assumptions about how their own member votes appear to be frequently incorrect. The assumptions of Americans who lived in districts of members who voted in favor of various pieces of foreign policy legislation were only slightly different from Americans who lived in districts of members who voted against them. In other words, the way that their member actually voted had very little influence on their assumptions. Rather, in the absence of information, it appears that Americans tend to assume, often incorrectly, that their member is voting in ways that are consistent with how they would like their member to vote.

I thought you might want to see this.

btree - WOW! That is amazing information. Now I'm going to have to download those reports. What I'm curious to know is if they have an explanation for how this situation has arisen. My immediate gut-level guess would be that a few individuals have been able to manipulate the system to get these (desired) results in both congressional voting patterns and perception. But I'll look to see if someone's done work to get at the real answer.

This is especially remarkable: "The one exception was Republican staffers: only 38% agreed while 62% disagreed." The most dramatic numbers, though, are the almost exact correlation of the public view on the ICC with Dem staffers (74%/76%) in contrast to Rep. staffers (15%!!!). How can the Dems get the message out?

I'd also be curious to know if this group studied beliefs/perceptions of journalists versus corporate OWNERS, because this has direct bearing on getting the message out.

Thanks for the posts, and the links!

pol - What Chris Matthews is describing is now termed the "Bernard Kerik defense." Kinda like "the twinkie defense."