December 10, 2007
Book review: Striking title, shame about the content
A controversial stint as American ambassador to the United Nations can be a good career move. Both Daniel Moynihan in the 1970s and Jeane Kirkpatrick in the 1980s became famous for their fierce anti-communism and outspoken defence of Israel.
John Bolton - who served as US ambassador to the UN in 2005-2006 - stands very much in this tradition. He will certainly not disappoint his conservative fan club with his scathing criticism of the "high-minded" and self-serving elite who he believes runs the UN. They are not the only objects of his scorn. The US state department gets it in the neck, so does the "Eastern Establishment" and the EUroids (his term for European diplomats), with their tiresome obsession with multilateral diplomacy.
But Bolton is a much less interesting figure than either Kirkpatrick or Moynihan. His illustrious predecessors were genuine intellectuals. Moynihan did pioneering work on the welfare state; Kirkpatrick developed important ideas on the distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Bolton, however, is not interested in ideas - and his book suffers as a result.
This is not to say that Bolton is stupid. He has a lawyer’s tenacity and command of detail. But, while he is prepared to devote pages and pages to listing the reactions of individual senators to his nomination to the UN, he spends frustratingly little time explaining his approach to the world. Perhaps his principles - American nationalism and a distrust of international institutions - seem so self-evident that they require no elucidation. But it means that Bolton will often make striking statements and then fail frustratingly to expand on them.
The remainder of this review can be read here. Comments can be made below.
As Mr. Rachman says, the book sounds like a load of rubbish so I hope folk here won’t enrich the despicable Mr. Bolton by buying it.
Let’s be ethical in our choice of xmas shopping.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 10th, 2007 at 4:24 pm | Report this commentGideon Rachman’s review is the closest I will ever get to reading Bolton’s book. But what is Mr. Rachman talking about when he refers to Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s “important” and “intellectual” distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” governments?. This “distinction”, in practice meant that it was OK for the “authoritarian” dictators in Argentina and for Pinochet in Chile to make anyone who was pro-democracy “disappear” (often by being dropped from an airplane and almost always after torture), because these murderers were on “America’s side” in the cold war against the “totalitarian” Soviets, and were practicing Milton Friedman’s brand of “free market” ideology - meaning big bucks for America’s largest corporations. If that is Mr. Rachman’s idea of an “intellectual”, maybe I should read Bolton’s book after all. At least Bolton doesn’t pretend to be a thinker - being a bomber is good enough.
Posted by: algasema | December 11th, 2007 at 12:56 am | Report this comment“But Bolton is a much less interesting figure than either Kirkpatrick or Moynihan. His illustrious predecessors were genuine intellectuals. Moynihan did pioneering work on the welfare state; Kirkpatrick developed important ideas on the distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Bolton, however, is not interested in ideas - and his book suffers as a result.”
****
Maybe not. Kirkpatrick and Moynihan had some rather stupid ideas on world affairs. Former Yugoslavia was a special weak point for Kirkpatrick. At times, Moynihan appeared to accept some of the bigoted ideas like the one believing that the USSR was created for the benefit of Russia at the expense of others.
Bolton appears to understand why Kosovo independence isn’t such a good idea
Posted by: Michael Averko | December 17th, 2007 at 7:27 am | Report this comment