September 11, 2019

John Bolton Out

Editor's note: We couldn’t be more proud of one of our teammates, Isaac Rose-Berman, who penned his first op-ed this week in USA Today: “How college students can bridge American divides: 'Study abroad' in Alabama or New York.” Please give it a read, and share far and wide!

“President Donald Trump on Tuesday abruptly forced out John Bolton, his hawkish national security adviser with whom he had strong disagreements on Iran, Afghanistan and a cascade of other global challenges.” AP News

See past issues

From the Left

The left is cheering Bolton’s departure, but worried about Trump’s chaotic impulses.

“A rigid ideologue, Mr. Bolton has a long record of championing military action against U.S. adversaries, which Mr. Trump resists, and opposing negotiation with the likes of North Korea and Iran, which is the president’s natural instinct. He didn’t alter those views to suit Mr. Trump, and instead battled those who catered to the president’s wishes…

“Yet Mr. Bolton, who served in previous Republican administrations, can hardly be blamed for the falling-out. His ultra-hawkish views and habit of bureaucratic infighting were well known, even notorious, in Washington when Mr. Trump hired him in April of last year. But the president, in the hunt for his third national security adviser in just 15 months, simply disregarded the facts. Apparently Mr. Bolton was picked because Mr. Trump had enjoyed watching him on television. The result was to compound the chaos that has characterized the administration’s foreign policy and left Mr. Trump without meaningful accomplishments.”
Editorial Board, Washington Post

“Experts have said that Iran is no closer to denuclearization than it was two years ago. Just two days ago, Iran announced that it would speed up its already restarted uranium enrichment. And far from being restrained, Iran has seized tankers, shot down a drone, and continued its support for militias across the Middle East. Bolton’s policy record is equally unimpressive on Venezuela, where the Trump administration seeks the ouster of President Nicolas Maduro’s regime and has thrown its support behind self-declared ‘interim president’ Juan Guaido. Bolton said the U.S. military needed to be ‘ready to go’ in Venezuela. But since a planned May 1 uprising dubbed ‘Operation Freedom’ by Guaido fizzled into a series of street protests, Maduro’s position appears as strong as ever.”
Alex Emmons, The Intercept

“Some have openly worried about what Bolton’s departure could mean for U.S. national security. Senator Mitt Romney lamented the loss of Bolton’s ‘contrarian’ voice. At a time when the administration has been censoring contrarian views—including factual ones—telling the president what he needs to hear, and not just what he wants to hear, is an asset…

“But painting Bolton as a heroic truth teller is missing the point. Bolton was a hugely ineffective national security adviser. He didn’t occupy the role in any substantive way and failed to carry out the basic tasks that NSAs are expected to do—including holding regular national security policy meetings and getting through to the president. While he was ignoring his job, he instead focused on building up his own ego, publicly airing his disagreements with the president and pursuing his own policy convictions… Let’s hope that the next national security adviser does a lot better than Bolton.”
Samantha Vinograd, Politico

“Mr. Bolton’s singular achievement was to dismantle a foreign-policymaking structure that had until then kept the president from running foreign policy by the seat of his pants. Mr. Bolton persuaded Mr. Trump he didn’t need the National Security Council to make decisions; it is no surprise that the president eventually felt confident deciding he did not need a national security adviser, either. Whether Mr. Trump names a replacement for Mr. Bolton does not matter: No one is going to convince the president he needs a system now, let alone the one that existed for 70 years.”
John Gans, New York Times

Some argue that “As wrong as Bolton has been on many matters — his fingerprints could be seen on plans threatening American military intervention in Iran and Venezuela — his presence at least provided a healthy corrective to a president naively disposed to aligning with the some of the world’s worst authoritarian regimes, provided they butter him up. With no illusions, Bolton saw Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and their ilk for who they were — as tyrants and enemies of American values. That an impulsive president has now dispensed with him in order, apparently, to be more comfortably surrounded by sycophants means America’s role in the world will be that much more at the mercy of the whims and ego of a mercurial president. Hold on.”
Editorial Board, New York Daily News

Regarding the Cadillac tax, “high-premium employer-based plans raise the cost of health care for everyone by encouraging the overconsumption of expensive services. This means that even Medicare and Medicaid face higher prices. Quite aside from its benefits for the health-care market, the Cadillac tax would also have the effect of expanding the tax base and making the tax code more efficient. It would raise revenues by about $15 billion a year… Rather than killing or delaying the Cadillac tax, Democrats should be trying to make it operational. The tax would raise revenue, lower costs, increase the efficiency of the tax code and give the Obamacare individual market its best chance at success.”
Karl W. Smith, Bloomberg

“The two issues with which he is most often associated, support for a balanced budget and opposition to free trade, put him at odds with both of our major political parties. An old-fashioned, soft-spoken Southerner, he nevertheless held views on so-called ‘social issues’ that would be to the left of the mainstream of the Republican Party, both then and now. He was a fervent supporter of the Vietnam POW/MIA movement in the late '80s and early '90s, but he was not in any sense a hawk. Never mind 2003. Perot opposed the first war in Iraq in 1990… Perot's death should be mourned by all Americans who regret the fact that it is no longer possible to make reasoned, non-ideological arguments about questions of public import, and by the devolution of our political life into mindless partisan squabbling.”
Matthew Walther, The Week

From the Right

The right is divided about Bolton’s departure.

From the Right

The right is divided about Bolton’s departure.

“Yes, all cabinet offices serve at the pleasure of the president, and when the president and his top national-security official disagree so strongly, the president is entitled to ask the adviser to leave. But anyone with two eyes can see that the temperamental, erratic Trump keeps getting fed up with staff who tell him things he doesn’t want to hear, particularly in the realm of national security… When the president’s agenda includes inviting the Taliban to Camp David, reinstating Russia into the G-7, buying Greenland, nuking hurricanes, and slowing down assistance to Ukraine, it’s not hard to understand why members of the military and intelligence community would have friction while working with Trump.”
Jim Geraghty, National Review

Some argue that this “must delight North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, Iran’s Hassan Rouhani, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro… Mr. Trump thinks every security issue can be boiled down to a negotiation, and that every other head of state wants to do a deal like he does. The terms matter less to Mr. Trump than the art of the deal. Mr. Bolton had the thankless task of telling Mr. Trump that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and that strategic ground must be prepared in advance and over time if you want to get a good deal. In this role Mr. Bolton saved Mr. Trump more than once from his worst negotiating instincts.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal

But “there’s no reason to expect swings in foreign policy now that Bolton is out the door. When Tillerson, Mattis, McMaster and Kelly were senior advisers, some claimed they led an ‘axis of adults’ that oversaw foreign policy. Yet, all of them are long gone, and today’s policies don’t look all that different.”
James Jay Carafano, New York Post

Supporters of the move note that “while Bolton and Trump’s views align in certain respects, especially their skepticism of the United Nations and multilateralism in general, the two have never been on the same wavelength. Bolton is the Washington insider whose record as an uber-defense hawk is as uncontested as his career in government service is long. You can’t find a more strident, unapologetic advocate for the use of U.S. military force, whether it be in Iraq, Libya, Iran, or North Korea… For the first time in nearly a year and a half, Trump will have the opportunity to explore diplomatic solutions to tough problems without a vociferous opponent of diplomacy breathing down his neck.”
Daniel DePetris, Washington Examiner

Trump has made the right decision to replace Bolton. It is critical now, however, that the next national security adviser not follow in Bolton’s footsteps. The right person for the job cannot be another in the long line of establishment figures stuck in the last two decades of foreign policy failure… It is easy to destroy things. But good foreign policy demands the more difficult work of constructive, pragmatic diplomacy. Bolton has demonstrated great skill in abrogating agreements and preventing wars from ending. He has shown neither the inclination nor ability to build anything, to negotiate any new agreements, or to end unnecessary wars.”
Daniel L. Davis, USA Today

“President Trump has a pattern of keeping people around for the unique tasks only they can achieve, then swapping them out for new people. There is no question we would not have had as strong a policy on Iran without Bolton. It is also undeniably true that Bolton helped reshape U.S. policy towards the United Nations, China, Venezuela, and the Palestinians in ways that were long overdue. And he did it without launching any wars, as critics said he would. But now that Trump wants to advance on peace talks in North Korea and Afghanistan, he needs a different set of skills…

“Where change will happen is in the areas that President Trump feels showing a softer face might help. Foremost among these is North Korea. Bolton’s tough stance was a challenge from the beginning: though Trump and Bolton played good-cop-bad-cop with some success, it became clear that North Korea wanted to see more compromise from the U.S. before making additional concessions. The chances for a deal — good or bad — are now improved.”
Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart

“NBC and MSNBC embraced Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts in the first debate of Democratic presidential candidates Wednesday night, treating her like the star of the show. The debate led off with Warren, who had a huge popularity advantage from the start… NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie started it off sounding more like Warren’s press secretary. ‘You have many plans – free college, free child care, government health care, cancelation of student debt, new taxes, new regulations, the breakup of major corporations,’ Guthrie said, before teeing up an economy question. Guthrie even used Warren’s plan to break up tech companies as the foundation for a question for Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey… the round-robin final comments also ended with Warren, as Maddow asked her for the ‘final, final statement.’ That let NBC bookend the entire debate with Warren and Warren.”
Dan Gainor, Fox News

President Trump should be happy. As much as Warren is articulate, obviously intelligent, and energetically supported by Democrats, she would also be far easier to defeat than Joe Biden… Considering Trump's economy, the president is well placed to defeat Warren.”
Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner

A libertarian's take

“Why did Modi pick this moment to do something so radical? Violence in Kashmir had been trending downwards for the last year, after all. The main reason, besides President Donald Trump's alarming offer to mediate a settlement, is that he wanted a distraction from India's mounting economic woes. India's GDP growth dropped from over 8 percent to 5.8 percent over the last year, and it is widely expected to dip further. Just as ominous has been the crash in consumer demand. India's usual problem has been an insufficient supply to meet its voracious appetite for vehicles, cell phones, and other similar goods. But sales figures for all consumer goods have posted a precipitous decline, slamming businesses that are dramatically scaling back investments.”
Shikha Dalmia, Reason

On the bright side...

Get troll-free political news.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.