In Washington, Some Things Never Change
By CHRISTOPHER MANION
In the mid-1980s, Ambassador Lew Tambs approached one of Washington’s premier talent agencies to scope out the possibilities of a speaking tour. Washington was full of such businesses. They sent prominent speakers to corporate meetings, conventions, and, of course, hundreds of college campuses nationwide.
Frankly, there were few folks more interesting than Tambs available for the agency’s talent roster. He had been Reagan’s ambassador to Colombia in the early ’80s, in the middle of the war being waged by the leftist drug-running revolutionary group known as FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) against the Colombian government. Tambs then served in Costa Rica, a hub of drug and terrorist intrigue nestled between Nicaragua, run by the Sandinista Communists, to the north, and Panama, run by Manuel Noriega, to the south.
Tambs was the ideal ambassador. Unlike many career State Department appointees, he was a scholar who knew the territory, the ideas, and the culture of the countries in which he served. And he had a lot of stories to tell.
On one of Lew’s rare trips to Washington, I made a reservation for lunch at a restaurant on Capitol Hill, right across from the Heritage Foundation. When I arrived, the restaurant owner, accompanied by a Secret Service agent, was waiting for me.
“Monsieur Manion,” he said, “I have closed half the restaurant, your guest is waiting for you inside.”
Raimon wasn’t kidding. Lew and I had a large dining room all to ourselves. Guards were stationed at various points inside and outside the restaurant, and for good reason: Ambassador Tambs was Public Enemy Number One of the Cali Drug Cartel, based, of course, in Colombia. His family could not be with him in Bogotá; his wife and young children were housed on an Air Force base in an undisclosed location.
So when Tambs visited the firm’s office to sign a talent contract, the agent was excited. Colleges across the country were hotbeds of demonstrations, strikes, and other left-wing activities which thrived in those days and thrive now in ours. The dazzled agent described to Tambs the speaking tour he had in mind. The schedule had Tambs visiting several colleges, all of which were willing to pay big bucks for major speakers that would fill any hall on campus. “And you’ll get an honorarium of 10,000 dollars per appearance, Mr. Ambassador,” he said.
Tambs knew college campuses all too well, having already served as a senior professor of history at Arizona State University. So he was pleased indeed to hear such a figure, and said so. “That’s a pretty impressive catalogue of left-wing campuses,” he said. “I’m surprised that they’re willing to give equal time to a supporter of Reagan’s Central America policy.
The agent froze. “You want to support President Reagan’s policy,” he asked?
“Of course. And I look forward to offering those institutions the opportunity for an honest and informed debate.”
“Mr. Tambs,” the agent almost moaned, “we’re going to have to, uh . . . revamp your proposed appearance schedule.”
“What does that mean,” Tambs asked.
“Well, those particular institutions aren’t actually looking for speakers who support President Reagan, they’re looking for public figures who oppose him. Do you think you could do that, say, disagree with him on specific points that you could criticize, without mentioning supporting him at all?”
Tambs was a blunt fellow, especially for an academic. “No,” he said.
“Well, the other colleges I could line up do want to invite pro-Reagan speakers too, but I’m afraid their honorarium is significantly lower.”
“How much lower,” Tambs asked.
“Well . . . 1,000 dollars.”
That’s not a misprint. And Washington hasn’t changed. Then and now, college campuses are cash cows for speakers who will denounce Donald Trump. Those who support Trump, on the other hand, are met by Antifa and violence, if they can get invited at all. Boston University, where I used to teach, leaned over backwards to accommodate a speaker sponsored by the Young Americas Foundation at a large auditorium last fall. But threats of violence forced the university’s police force to recommend a smaller venue that could be secured on all sides.
Naturally, the added security would cost the university tens of thousands of dollars more than expected. This is a constant tactic of the left. Outside agitators can make anonymous threats, which cost nothing, so campus leftists can complain that the university is “spending too much” for conservative speakers, as well as sponsoring “hate speech” and the usual whining litanies common to campus snowflakes.
After leaving the Reagan administration, Ambassador Lew Tambs could have increased his income by a factor of ten by turning on the president and condemning him and his policies on campus after campus all over the country. Tambs refused to prostitute himself or his principles, and went back home to a private life.
Meet John Bolton
I’ve known John Bolton as long as I’ve known Lew Tambs — some forty years. John and I worked very closely together during the Reagan years. I always insisted to conservatives that they could trust John, but with a caveat: remember Dr. Fred Schwartz, who spoke all over the country in the fifties and sixties? “You can trust the Communists,” Schwartz said — “to act like Communists!”
Well, I trusted John Bolton, but when it came to foreign policy, he was a neocon, and acted like a neocon. He avidly supported foreign wars to export democracy around the globe, by force if necessary. Curiously, when President George W. Bush wanted to appoint him as U.S. ambassador to the UN, in 2005, it was the Democrats who opposed him, alleging that he was “not truthful”! (Bush sent him anyway, for a limited term that required no Senate confirmation.)
After that short stint, and for the next decade and more, Bolton was out of power and out of luck. So when President Trump plucked him out of obscurity to name him his assistant for National Security Affairs, I was pleased, but worried. After all, Trump had run against all the wars that Bolton had championed — and John was sending signals that he wanted more U.S. wars even now, starting with Iran.
Well, Trump fired Bolton last September (he recently said that Bolton would have caused “World War Six”). So, in classic DC style, Bolton quickly signed a book contract. Following the law, he submitted the quickly assembled manuscript to the White House for “clearance” — a process which determines whether it contains classified information.
On January 23, the White House informed Bolton’s lawyer that the manuscript did contain “some . . . classified information…at the TOP SECRET level.” Bolton was told he could not to publish the book until after the long and tedious process of declassification was finished.
Three days later, on January 26, someone leaked Bolton’s manuscript to The New York Times, which then published excerpts. That’s a felony. Who leaked it? Bolton? His lawyer? His publisher? The White House?
Personally, the John Bolton I knew would not leak it or approve of its leaking. Apart from that, however, remember — John is a neocon. And neocons never apologize — they get even.
Knute Rockne told my Dad about a century ago: “You don’t spit on a man’s head if you’re standing on his shoulders.” Well, Knute never worked in DC. That temptation is powerful anywhere, but in DC it pays millions. And yes, John Bolton will make millions from all this.
John and I have a mutual colleague from the Reagan days. I would call him — and John — friends. He disagrees. A while back he wrote me. “Chris, in Washington there are no ‘friends.’ Ultimately, everybody is in it for himself.”
A lesson for the ages.
