Bloodless Coup

A Pointless Brooks Column on Bolton

Ugh. For something that wants to be the paper of record, The New York Times sure does print a lot of columns that are more useful at the bottom of a birdcage than they are at seriously considering the issues of the day. The columns of David Brooks are but one example, but it's columns like this that show why his work frequently merits inclusion in that ignominious group. The column would appear to be about Bolton, but really it's about this stupid straw-man argument that if we don't have a loudmouth yelling at the top of his lungs to stop things, the UN is going to take over the world. How said loudmouth will stop such an occurence is unclear (as is why Bolton would be an effective loudmouth ... just being a bully doesn't mean you can actually stop things, and there's precious little evidence that Bolton is even remotely effective when it comes to achieving outcomes congruent with the national interest). And who exactly are these people who want to make the UN a world government? I read about them all the time in the speeches of the black helicopter set (and now Brooks) but I've never come across one who worked for any part of this or any other government. Really this is just pointless name calling that 1) fails to really get at the root of the problems of the UN 2) totally overlooks its successes and 3) has little to do with Bolton, his potential effectivess in the post he's nominated for, or his pathetic failures in previous government posts. And it's filled with blatant inaccuracies and misleading comments. The UN didn't restrain Saddam? All the evidence is that, yes, it did. It "liberates the barbaric"? There are several people who've been convicted of war crimes that would obviously disagree. And what is this silliness about the US people refusing to accept global governance? In terms of trade - they already accept it. But in terms of non-economic matters, who thinks the level of sovereignty shift he implies is even a remote possibility that merits discussion? No one outside the Jesse Helms alternate reality set. And, in any event, if the American people are so united and unchanging in that regard ... well, what does it matter who's at the UN parroting that line? Why do we need Bolton then? If things are so clear, perhaps we should confirm an actual parrot.

I could spend more time on this and rip it apart logically, but it's such a mess it hardly seems worth the effort. This looks more like something written the night before to turn in a 10th grade social studies class than something that should be in what hopes to be the country's greatest newspaper.