Elliott Abrams

Today, President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to serve as Republican members of boards and commissions that are required, by statute or longstanding practice, to include bipartisan membership. 

"Today" being the day before the Fourth of July.  The President nominates (requiring Senate approval) and appoints a range of people to these things. For instance, Lady Gaga and Jon Baptiste (formerly of the Colbert Show) were chosen for an artistic-related board or commission.  

The practice allows for benefiting a range of people for a range of reasons (qualifications included).  These things have some use and importance in various respects. 

Consider the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, a product of the post-World War II era.  It has the duty of "appraising U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics and to increase the understanding of, and support for, these same activities."

The commission is to have at most four members of one political party (the general assumption being there is two since having a board made up of conservatives, Republicans, and a Libertarian doesn't quite do it) out of seven.  Thus, the comment about the "longstanding practice" of "bipartisan" (that's two) membership.  The actual law requires not only one party.  

The importance is suggested by the need for Senate confirmation though it seems to me asinine unless it is basically pro forma.  Which it is not.  For instance, Janet Keller was nominated back in March 2022, and ultimately her nomination lapsed at the end of the term.  When I checked, the website noted there were three vacancies, the four there apparently appointed at the end of Obama's term.  

A CNN article says there are four vacancies.  We now get to the controversy since people usually don't give these things much attention at all:

President Joe Biden announced Monday his intention to nominate a former appointee under former President Donald Trump with a controversial past in Latin America to the bipartisan United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.

Okay, well, he has to nominate a Republican, and it would not be surprising that the person would have somehow served under Trump.  In fact, this person failed to get a more senior (assistant secretary of state) position because he spoke out against Trump during the campaign.  He later said Trump was unfit for office after the 1/6 attack.  He still served as his Special Representative for Iran and Venezuela.  

Yes, it's Elliott Abrams (see title of this post).  This led various people to basically say "WTF."  The "controversial past" included supporting "murderous regimes up and down Central America" and a role in Iran Contra that led to a conviction (which Bush41 later pardoned him for). 

Rep. Omar called him out when Trump appointed him. Various establishment types came to his defense.  President Biden basically is taking a "let bygones be bygones" approach here too, noting the minor position at hand.  And, we should have some sense of perspective.  This is not a district court judge or even some assistant policy position.  And, there is already precedent for not confirming.  If Janet Keller's nomination can lapse, this one should too, with a few senators making some noise.  

But, we are supposed to care about this longstanding institution, right?  Not really.  As one account notes, "appointing Abrams to a public-advisory role, Biden honors him — and props up the Establishment to which they both belong."  I am not going to just toss everything good Biden did in foreign policy and in general because of this thing.  Still:

The United States owes other nations something different, something new. Democracy is in peril at home and abroad partly because of the impunity that keeps Abrams employed. Though his latest role may be somewhat ceremonial, his appointment is out of step with the demands of our time. There should be consequences for someone like Elliott Abrams. At minimum, it ought to be possible to fail out of public service, but for that to happen, we have to change the way we define failure. The massacre in El Mozote was one such failing — not a regrettable historical footnote but a catastrophic atrocity that indicts the administration Abrams served. His reward must be ignominy. The world deserves nothing less.

My first reaction to this news was to think he's bad but who really cares about his appointment to this ceremonial position? It probably was part of the many decisions you make to balance various things and his name was probably given by the Republicans who have the job of giving names in these situations.  Plus, he made some anti-Trump noises, which is a sort of bare minimum.  I grant 1980s stuff is a bit before my time though sure I was a teenager when Iran Contra occurred.   

This was at least somewhat wrong on my part though I stick with some of it.  Elliott Abrams has that level of bad odor that is worthy of special disgust.  He should not be rewarded or legitimized by an appointment even of this magnitude.  There are enough reasonably qualified Republican options in the foreign affairs community to choose from.  

The nomination would be wrong and should be pulled back. If not, the Senate should let it lapse.  It is a slap against the victims of the many things he helped to further to do otherwise.