John Bolton Is the Model of a Trump Sellout
He is a
creature of the administration, not a critic of it.
By John Gans
Dr.
Gans is the author of “White House Warriors: How the National Security Council
Transformed the American Way of War.”
·
June 18, 2020
The first time I ever saw John Bolton
in person, he was sitting all alone.
In spring 2005, we were both in the
State Department cafeteria and hoping for new jobs: He was a hawkish under
secretary of state trying to become ambassador to the United Nations and I was
a young kid looking for a break into foreign policy. As I sat getting advice
from a friend of a friend of a friend at the department, who kept getting
pulled away from our conversation by eager colleagues, my eyes kept drifting
back to Mr. Bolton, reading papers undisturbed across the room.
That image has come back to me often
over the last year. First, as Mr. Bolton, then the national security adviser,
fell out of favor with Donald Trump; then when he failed to step forward in any
meaningful way during January’s impeachment trial; and again this week as
revelations from his book “The Room Where It Happened” rocked an already
shellshocked Twittersphere.
At a moment when everyone is looking
for heroes, Mr. Bolton’s lonely, self-interested crusade against Mr. Trump says
volumes about where Washington finds itself.
I
spent the last few years researching and writing a book about the National Security Council, and I have
had a lot of time to think about what makes John Bolton tick. Like many others,
I wondered whether he’d testify in the impeachment hearing into Mr. Trump’s
misconduct with Ukraine; whether his book would ever come out; why he was seen randomly
walking around Doha, Qatar; and what each of his cryptic tweets
(and retweets) meant.
Every time I thought I understood him,
he would surprise me — like when he quietly tipped off Congress
about Mr. Trump’s alleged misdeeds regarding Ukraine. And yet Mr. Bolton kept
quiet when everyone was listening during the impeachment proceedings in
January. What was his game?
Whichever way Mr. Bolton wanted to go
public with what he knew — a network interview, a press conference at the end
of his driveway, an epic Twitter thread, an early launch of the book — a big
disclosure would’ve guaranteed that he never again ate alone in Washington. Yet
January, and impeachment, came and went without much more than a peep from him.
There were a few factors that surely
contributed to his taciturnity. There was and remains a clear risk of legal
jeopardy, including potential criminal and financial penalties for revealing
classified information. He also had a book to promote and paid speeches that
pay more for exclusivity. And he dreams of being the future of Mr. Trump’s
Republican Party, not a darling of either the resistance or the Democratic
Party.
Yet, aside from Mr. Bolton’s
idiosyncrasies, his no-show when it mattered says something about what
Washington has become in 2020. It is hard to see any more in Mr. Bolton’s
crusade beyond self-interest: for vengeance, attention and sales of the book,
which cravenly opened for pre-order in the hours after the first story with
details from his manuscript went live.
Maybe
Mr. Bolton is unique in that regard, but I don’t think so. Mr. Trump has so
upended the way Washington works. Mr. Bolton and many others have struggled
amid the anarchy and been reduced to the mere pursuit of self-interest. That’s
one of many reasons Mr. Trump has been able to get his way so often.
In the book, Mr. Bolton writes about
how Mr. Trump “second-guessed people’s motives, saw conspiracies behind rocks,
and remained stunningly uninformed on how to run the White House, let alone the
huge federal government.” But all of this was clear the day Mr. Bolton entered
the White House in 2018.
Regardless, Mr. Bolton was willing to
work for Mr. Trump, willing to destroy the governmental structures
that could check the president and willing to take notes during
vulgar episodes like the president’s endorsement of China’s concentration
camps, as long as he got to stay in the room where it was happening and pursue
uber-hawkish foreign policies.
When Mr. Trump grew tired of Mr.
Bolton’s company and policy ideas, he was out of the White House, texting reporters “I
will have my say in due course.” As the world waited, the same selfish dynamic
played out.
Mr. Bolton was willing to feed
information to the Democrats, but not side with them. He was willing to leak to
reporters but not speak publicly. He was open to impeaching Mr. Trump, but not
on the crimes and misdemeanors as written. He was willing to testify, but only
under a subpoena from the Senate. In short, Mr. Bolton wanted to have his say and do
it his way. With the
book coming out, he has — thanks, in part, to an all-too-willing public. But
because it’s only a story about Mr. Bolton versus Mr. Trump, few will ever rally
to his side.
As Mr. Bolton finds himself alone at
the center of the week’s conversation, one could wonder whether there’s any
reason for hope in Washington. Yet, amid the Bolton news storm was a far less
noticed story: The Washington Post reported that
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who worked for Mr. Bolton on the National Security
Council and testified openly during the impeachment inquiry only to be
dismissed by Mr. Trump, may not be promoted to colonel because of presidential
pressure.
Why is that a hopeful sign? Mr.
Vindman’s ordeal is a reminder that there are still heroes in Mr. Trump’s
Washington, willing to pay the price to do what’s right — not just what’s in
their interest.
During his testimony, Mr. Vindman
appealed to and embodied the principles that we all at least claim to hold
dear. The contrast with Mr. Bolton, and his book, could not be more stark.
After all, what do you call a hero without any followers? Just a guy having
lunch all alone.
John Gans (@johngansjr), the
director of communications and research at the University of Pennsylvania’s
Perry World House, is the author of “White House Warriors: How the National
Security Council Transformed the American Way of War.”
