It will shock few of you to discover I am no expert on diplomatic history. But I have a question maybe someone who knows about such things can answer: Where is it written that diplomats always and everywhere must be soft-spoken, arms-are-for-hugging types? I understand that the gravity of institutional, professional, psychological and ideological forces all pull in that direction. Diplomats are talkers and therefore doplomats are heavily invested in the value of talk. Nonetheless, is it really the case that arm-twisters, table-pounders, butt-kickers and straight-talkers have never been effective in the diplomacy trade? Are they really never called for? It seems to me I remember some foreign diplomats who’ve gotten too much out of America by such methods. But I could be wrong. To read the liberal assault on Bolton is to get the impression that it is axiomatic that such people can never be good diplomats. Surely there are some good counter examples. James Baker didn’t seem like the kind of guy who ate lady fingers without dropping a single crumb.

Even if China-shop bulls have been successful in the past, it wouldn’t necessarily constitute a case for Bolton one way or the other of course. You’d have to ask if this specific situation requires a Bolton type. But, it seems to me, you could certainly make that case considering how the UN has hardly excelled under the current regime of “no, after you, I insist” types.