Ed Morrissey is concerned that President Bush is giving away his authority over foreign policy:
Two changes in the Bush administration’s key foreign policy posts make it appear that the White House has signalled a full retreat on its executive prerogative. Ambassadors John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilizad have tendered their resignations, from the UN and Iraq respectively, withdrawing from the two most controversial posts in the foreign service. Following the abrupt departure of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, the Bush hardliners seem to be exiting stage right in reaction to the mid-term losses for the Republicans.
There is lot to be said about this assertion/concern. First, the notion that this president is surrendering executive authority is an odd one, given that this administration has asserted broad Article II powers in terms of the War on Terror and especially when it comes to domestic security(many of which have been dubious in my estimation). Second, personnel come and personnel go, that is the nature of cabinets and executive government. Indeed, the average term of a SecDef is less than three years, as such, Rumsfeld’s tenure is extraordinary in its length. Further, that Khalilizad would be ready to leave the field after a tour in Afghanistan and a year and a half in Iraq strikes me as, well, human. The man is probably tired–not to mention he probably isn’t leaving the administration anyway. And while one can argue that the Bolton move is one of pure politics, to that I say: welcome to Washington, D.C. (And I would continue to note, it simply isn’t the big deal that it is being made out to be in some quarters, both in terms of Bolton proponents and Bolton opponents).
Going beyond these three, I would note that the Bush administration has actually seen less turnover in major offices than is the norm, not less.
Third, it is healthy for there to be accountability in government. There is no denying that Iraq has been a failure. It certainly has not gone as promised. One of the main “promisers” has been Rumsfeld. As such, it is hardly out of the bounds of normalcy for him to leave.
I must confess, I find the notion that any of these people are somehow indispensable to be disturbing. We should not get wrapped up in individual personalities and persons in government, especially in a democracy. For that matter, policy isn’t people, per se; policy is abstract. There is absolutely nothing that states that a given president has to have specific individual persons in given offices to be able to execute his policies.
Of course, I will note, that given the course of policy at the moment, taking the changes in personnel as an opportunity to make some policy changes is likely a good idea. Additionally, there is something to be said about new blood and new ideas.
Ultimately I find concern over personnel changes, or even the idea that the President may not get everyone he nominates for office to be highly misplaced.
Later in post, Morrissey states:
Pardon me, but the presidency carries with it certain prerogatives, among them the power to determine the foreign policy of the United States. In fact, it’s one of the chief responsibilities of the office, and normally Presidents are given the leeway to determine the people best suited to carry it out. The treatment of John Bolton was unprecedented — the rejection of a political appointment in the foreign service not because of any disqualifying event, but because the Senate didn’t like the policy of the administration.It’s a serious breach of the separation between the branches of government. Congress does not dictate foreign policy nor should they veto ambassadorships unless the nominee has no qualifications to the position.
Well, to be honest, this assessment is off the mark. First, the Constitution in Article I, Section 8 does give the Congress important roles in foreign policy. Second, the treatment of John Bolton was far from unprecedented–there have been numerous other presidential appointments blocked by minorities. While I think Bolton should have had an up-or-down vote, the fact that he didn’t get one is hardly an affront to the republic. And again, what is it with the assumption that John Bolton, and only John Bolton could be an effect UN Ambassador? Such a position defies logic.
Also, I am at a loss as to how one blocked nominee and two retirements equals the utter surrender of foreign policy by the President to the Congress.
And again, I would note that policy is not people, it is ideas. While a given person may be more efficacious at executing a given policy than someone else, the real issue is whether there are good ideas being deployed. As such, the proof of serious change (good, bad or indifferent in quality) of Bush’s foreign policy will be in the ideas that are utilized, not the faces of the people attempting to execute them.
James Joyner also comments on Morrissey’s post.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Is Bush giving up on foreign policy? I do think that he may have finally reached a healthy point of questioning his policy. The one ray of hope in Iraq is that Bush and the gang of neocons might actually entertain some doubt about their worldview and policy.