Left I on the News

Last year I explained why, in general, the rap against leftists that they (we) believe "the worse the better" (the idea that worsening conditions are to be welcomed because they hasten the revolution) isn't true, but I added:

But, as was discussed in a comments thread a while back about John Bolton's nomination, there certainly are cases where things that liberals might view as "the worse" I view exactly the opposite.

And here is what I had written in that comment:

As far as I'm concerned, if Bolton is a jerk who bullies people, the less likely he is to get cooperation from other countries at the U.N. and the better off the world's people will be. I have absolutely no desire to see some Colin Powell-type smoothie at the U.N. who will be able to give speeches filled with lies that everyone believes because he's such a "nice guy". The bigger the asshole, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

What brings this back to the fore is, of course, the hearings going on the confirm Bolton as the permanent U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., and this post I just read at Firedoglake entitled "Best Reason to Vote Against Bolton":

"My objection isn’t that he’s been a bully, but that he’s been an ineffective bully," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.

Good enough for me.

And here's what I wrote in the comments:

“Ineffective” is precisely the reason to support Bolton. U.S. foreign policy, and the U.S. desire to use the U.N. in support of that policy in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere, is thoroughly reactionary. The less “effective” it is, the better.

Support the confirmation of John Bolton!

Update: Reinforcing my point:

If Bolton's style were less divisive, [Senate Democrats] said, he might have achieved more reforms at the United Nations and tougher sanctions against Hezbollah and North Korea.

Quoting Firedoglake, "Good enough for me."