John Bolton Takes Page Out of Communist Chinese Leadership Book on Rewarding Friends with Access
On Friday, February 10, President Bush sent to the Senate nominations for Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England (replacing Paul Wolfowitz); Stephen Goldsmith to serve on the Board of the Corporation for National & Community Service; C. Boyden Gray to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union (replacing Rockwell Schnabel); Floyd Hall to serve on the board of AMTRAK; Tracy Henke to serve as Executive Director for a Department of Homeland Security State and Local Government coordination directorship; July Myers to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security; Ellen Sauerbray to be Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration; and 12 other individuals for various executive appointment jobs.
ALL of these individuals were previously appointed via "recess appointment" -- but John Bolton is unlikely to find himself on such a list of the "resubmitted."
But let's give John Bolton the benefit of the doubt for the moment and argue that he's "trying" to be a good ambassador on behalf of the American public, even those who don't like him and don't see him as their legitimate voice in the United Nations. . .but just for a moment, let's give him a break.
There are just some realities that even a John Bolton "should" be respectful of when it comes to transparency in American democracy and engagement with American civil society. Even the President of the United States will walk into a room -- on occasion -- with media whom he expects are going to ask probing and tough questions. Not every member of the media can work for Fox News.
My question today is whether Bolton sees himself as the Ambassador of just those people who "like him" -- or whether he is purporting to be an Ambassador representing more than his flack-ish supporters.
The reason that this is important is that Bolton won't meet the New York Times correspondent assigned to cover his work and the U.S. Mission to the U.N, Warren Hoge.
Bolton meets lots of other reporters -- and many of these attended an exclusive reception in Bolton's Waldorf-Astoria apartments last August. Hoge wasn't invited then either.
John Bolton is doing what the Chinese Communist leadership has done for decades in its interactions with U.S. government officials.
Richard Solomon, a former RAND analyst and government official in the Nixon and Reagan administrations, once wrote a super-classified study that documented all interactions between high level Chinese communist and American senior government officials over time. What Solomon discovered is that China did a great job of providing increasing access to officials, business leaders, and media who were "friendly" and constricted and demoted access to those who were deemed to be objective, or "unfriendly".
Former Los Angeles Times correspondent and Rise of the Vulcans author James Mann sued to get this study into the public -- and an unclassified version of the many thousand paged document was eventually condensed into Chinese Negotiating Behavior: Pursuing Interests Through "Old Friends".
Bolton is providing access to those in the media he hopes will write favorably of him, and he's cutting off those who don't, or won't in his view.
I have not asked for a meeting with John Bolton yet, but suffice it to say, despite the major role that The Washington Note played in elevating John Bolton from an obscure State Department bureaucrat to a well-recognized "name", I wasn't invited to the fancy Waldorf reception either.
But I do expect him to say "yes" when I do ask for a press meeting. I will behave honorably -- and ask high-road questions that probe at what he is doing, and I expect honest, forthcoming answers.
Warren Hoge though is writing for the New York Times -- and its far more outrageous that Bolton doesn't think that he needs to speak to or meet with the key correspondent from that flagship paper because of his alleged view that the Times "is too liberal".
Bolton Watch plans to keep reminding the public of Bolton's choices -- the media he meets and those he won't; the organizations that he will speak to and those he won't. . .until he does meet with the New York Times.
Steve -
Are you leaving out the possibility that Bush will just re-recess appoint him in January 2007? Is he able to do that between Congresses? His appointment ends when the current Congress ends. But, unless this is going be the battle of the lame ducks, Annan vs. Bolton, it's something to be worried about.
February 12, 2006 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has been the most common theme of this administration. If you do not agree with them you relinquish all right to any participation in the political process and in fact, your rights as a citizen. This distortion of democracy is the single most consequential feature of this administration and is at the core of why the U.S. has taken such a hit in the eyes of the world community. The same applies domestically. All people are either citizens of this country or citizens of the world. That we have in common. And that commonality requires that we all have a voice, with a right to be heard. And the very reason why political dialog in this country is at such a low ebb is precisely the one you have established. Dissent is totally forbidden.
thepeoplechoose
February 12, 2006 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty over the top rhetoric you got there. It's not enough to point out that the administration expects loyalty and unity of message within, like in a corporate structure. But you have to take it over the top and say
Got any examples of that thing about being forced to give up citizenship for criticizing the Bush regime? Last I looked, Colin Powell was still a citizen. And
John McCain would disagree with you. And this website has not been closed by the government yet.
I was tempted to rate your comment a "2," but then I would no doubt be accused of being a clandestine toady of the Bush regime. But sheesh, comments like this are the ones that make it so easy to paint liberals as wacky out of control with anger and as incapable of nuance as the religious right.
February 13, 2006 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is undemocratic for someone holding public office to refuse access to the press, especially a major news outlet like the NYT.
In the past, Bolton never complied with Congress's request for important documents. His pattern of undemocratic behavior and secrecy should not be tolerated in a high-level government position.
The NYT should file complaints with the State Dept. and the White House. It should also publish an editorial about Bolton denying access to some press.
February 13, 2006 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a corporation. It is a democracy. There is no CEO or board of directors that gets to call the shots. Loyalty and unity of message are fine in private enterprise but it isn't appropriate for what we (theoretically) have. It is understood that in private enterprise you must give up some rights but that is not true in a democracy. The administration restricted entry for specific persons to various venues last year when Bush was touring the country in order to sell his Social Security reform. I call that a serious infringement upon the rights of citizens. The events were financed by public dollars and the administration was way out of bounds refusing entry to individuals that didn't support the 'company line'. Ms Sheehan was booted from the SOTU address for wearing a shirt that expressed disagreement with the administration but it was later decided the action was unlawful. Dissent at the decision making level (where it counts) is unheard of under this administration. Rigid ideological conduct is all that is understood.
And I don't give a damn what rating you want to apply to my comments or if you agree with me or not.
thepeoplechoose
February 13, 2006 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink