Bolton, the Latest Bush Objectivist

My brother sent me an email asking me what I think about John Bolton’s nomination and why I haven’t said anything about it. To answer the first part of the question: I don’t think too much of it at all. To answer the second part: well, read the rest of the post – you don’t want me to spoil the surprise ending do you?

It’s nice to see some of the sheen wearing off of President Bush. Honestly, he got way too much from a gutless Democratic minority in his first four years because he just happened to be reading to kids while we suffered the worst attack on American civilians in history. Personally, I don’t think that should be something to brag about. I also don’t think it’s any reason to suck your testicles all the way back into your stomach and vote like a Republican dog.

I don’t think that Bolton’s nomination battle is what it’s being made out to be. Actually, it should be more. After all, we are going to send a man to represent us at the UN that doesn’t believe there should be a UN at all.

This isn’t about his lack of easy-going personality. It’s about being a part of an inner-circle of Objectivists that don’t believe in government. Since they don’t believe in government, they don’t believe that government has any responsibility to tell the governed (that’s you and me) the truth. They believe that the government is there to maintain a monopoly on power and to use that power to outright destroy any opposition.

It’s just the latest in a series of appointments that backs up the Objectivist position. Why else would he name Christie Todd Whitman, the governor of New Jersey who didn’t prosecute a single environmental case during her administration, as head of the EPA? Why else would he follow her with Utah Governor Mike Leavitt?

The same is true for the judicial nominations that are locked up in the Senate. Texas Supreme Court Justice (a position gained through election – not through any ability to apply law) Priscilla Owens, for example, doesn’t believe that a court should be able to grant a minor the right to pursue an abortion without telling her parents. (I don’t think minors should be able to walk in and get any medical procedure, but I do believe they should be able to appeal to a court if their parents refuse to give consent for a procedure. The court doesn’t have to say yes, but it should be able to do so.) She tried to insert – from her position as Texas Supreme Court Justice – an amendment to the law which would require religious counseling for the court to proceed. This action prompted Alberto Gonzales (yes, that Alberto Gonzales) to call her actions, “unconscionable . . . judicial activism."

So it isn’t about “conservative judges” or “activist judges”, it’s about wanting the government to be run more like a church. In other words, it’s about not having a government at all. It isn’t about “being qualified” for sitting on the bench or at the UN or the EPA– it’s about what you will do with that power once it is given to you. It’s about upholding the public trust – from a public that cannot possibly keep track of what the government is doing – and being a faithful public servant.

It’s about having a real government.