I’m not quite sure why so many of my fellow conservatives have focused so much ire on Susan Rice’s potential nomination to be secretary of state. She would definitely not be my first choice for the job (that would be Joe Lieberman) but compared to some of the other rumored second-term nominations—e.g, Chuck Hagel at Defense or John Kerry at State—the possibility of Susan Rice doesn’t seem so bad. She actually seems to have a more activist vision of American power than many in the Democratic Party who are eager to cut the American role in the world back as rapidly as possible.
Much of the criticism directed at her for her blunt, undiplomatic personality sounds like a virtual replay of the criticisms once made of Jeane Kirkpatrick and John Bolton, both conservative favorites when they served as UN ambassador. Indeed Rice sounded positively Boltonesque (admittedly not something she would consider to be a compliment) when she recently told off the Chinese ambassador, Li Baodung, in a UN Security Council debate over how to respond to North Korea’s missile launch. According to Colum Lynch in Foreign Policy:
Rice urged the Security Council to swiftly respond to North Korea’s surprise launch of a satellite (via a ballistic missile) with a statement condemning Pyongyang’s action as a violation of U.N. resolutions and characterizing it as a provocative act that “undermines regional stability.”
Li pushed back, saying that there was no need to condemn North Korea, and that its test constituted no threat to regional stability.
“That’s ridiculous,” Rice shot back, according to one of three council diplomats who described the encounter.
“Ridiculous?” a visibly angered Li responded through an interpreter. “You better watch your language.”
“Well, it’s in the Oxford dictionary, and [Russian ambassador Vitaly] Churkin — if he were in the room — he would know how to take it,” retorted Rice.
The reference to Oxford dictionary refers to Churkin’s riposte, in December 2011, to a public broadside by Rice, who charged him with making “bogus claims” about alleged NATO war crimes in Libya to divert attention from charges of war crimes against its Syrian ally.
“This is not an issue that can be drowned out by expletives. You might recall the words one could hear: bombast and bogus claims, cheap stunt, duplicitous, redundant, superfluous, stunt,” said Churkin to Rice. “Oh, you know, you cannot beat a Stanford education, can you?” said Churkin, mocking Rice’s alma mater. Rice, a former Rhodes scholar, later noted that she also went to Oxford.
Frankly any American diplomat who tangles so openly with the Chinese and Russian ambassadors, rather than retreating into the usual mealy-mouthed equivocations, can’t be all bad. Obama can do worse in his choice of secretary of state—and probably will.
Public service to our nation has now reached a another, although not unfamiliar, low. Max would have Ms. Rice for Secretary of State because she is the best of a bad lot. Wow. What does it say to state that public servants are no longer the best of the best, but the best of the worst? If so, what is next? Shall we have a pacifist for Secretary of Defense? n nIf Max is correct, and maybe he is given the predispositions of the Obama administration, then our nation is in great need of a program to encourage those who are competent and gifted to serve our nation. It used to be considered a gift and a privilege to be part of public service. It was a duty and those who did it had not themselves in mind, but the good of society. The best served the nation so that we could all benefit from their gifts. We have sunk low indeed that support for Ms. Rice is as back-handed as Max notes. n nThe reality is that Ms. Rice is symptom of a disease. While she is clearly not fit for the job; she is, after all, no diplomat. But she does show that our country lacks good people to lead us. There is a reason for that, and part of it is that our nation has taken to personal attacks on those who would serve us well. We (collectively) denigrate their motives, we attack their families, and we force them to shun service of any type. We make demons of those who volunteer. What's left are people who are egomaniacs or incompetent. Take your pick. n nOur nation is unique and we are exceptional. Too bad those who could serve us are neither.
There is an easy answer to your opening statement considering your ignorance regarding the "ire" of conservatives (that astoundingly evades your piece), Boot, and that is of course "Susan Rice's questionable post-Benghazi media blitz." (Seth Mandel of course later points out the liberal objection to Rice's diplomatic/undiplomatic style.) n nIgnore that, of course (and I actually did manage that for a minute), and yes, Susan Rice is about the best we might hope for from Obama. That said, your title is "The Virtues of Susan Rice's Undiplomatic Diplomacy." If there is no virtue inherent in Susan Rice herself, there is of course no especial reason conservatives should be especially for her.
Personally, my concern was that she'd be what she is, a rubber stamp Obama mouthpiece with not a single independent thought in her head who's only role was to foment Obama's crackpot theories no matter how horrible they are. We expect the most senior cabinet member to be more than that.
Boot attacks a strawman argument. Note there is no link in this piece to any -conservative- criticism of Rice for insufficient diplomacy in dealings with Rus or Chinese. It's her lying to Americans we don't like.