I will be blunt - I am not a public person. I do not savor crowds and in my youth when giving public addresses, or being an official of an organisation (the Leo’s), it was not the most memorable or pleasant experience of my teenage years. I don’t necessarily feel that way now, perhaps it is matter of security, I know who I am now. Teenagers generally do not.

Having said this though, I want to state that in general I have admiration for those in our society who put themselves into the public eye. Increasingly, the “root weevils”, as the film The Right Stuff’s hero Chuck Yeager labels journalists, are more and more belligerent and intrusive. It cannot be pleasant to have them hovering around your every move, poking cameras and microphones into your face at the most inauspicious time. I cannot imagine how they handle it although if it were me, a bottle of single malt Irish whiskey would be a good start.

The rest of us plebes read the newspaper, have a good chuckle over someone’s misfortune, say, ‘I would never do that,’ or ‘How could they?’ A lot of us are glued to the TV and follow someone’s body-littered trail with glee, our monday-morning quarterback comments telling anyone around us how we would have handled it. But would we, could we? Politicians are primetime bait, and although we expect a level of squeaky-clean-ness, we sometimes vote people into public service who are less than clean.

Public service means you forgo the riches of corporate life to make a somewhat comfortable living serving the people. I think it takes a special type of person to do this, not everyone can take pay cuts of 50% or more, and there are no shares to be rewarded with, or bonuses at Christmas. Wives and husbands alike might not agree with their partner’s decision, and certainly not appreciate the work hours or lifestyle change. However, if you DO decide to do this, you should have some skills that represent the people. Being British living in the US, I think I have an outsider’s view of the American process, and unlike many Americans, an unjaded view.

If you want to be an Ambassador for example, you should be polite, intelligent, diplomatic, eloquent. More importantly though, you should keep in mind that you serve the people, and not the President. I know that it is de rigeur to appoint friends and campaign contributors to positions of authority - that’s “how it’s done”. But still, you don’t appoint someone to say, the Ambassadorship to the UN when that person clearly does not understand, like, or respect the UN. John Bolton’s statements years ago, whether said in anger or from the heart, clearly bar him from this position. His insult to the N. Koreans during 6-party multi-lateral talks in 2003 are just one in a chain of incidents where he clearly displayed a lack of diplomacy and compromise so needed in a diplomat. And yet strangely, he came so close to getting it, but one Senator understood that public service was a high calling, and refused to “go along” with the crowd. Thank you, Senator. There are plenty of other, more deserving, hard-working, qualified, and honorable people who can serve in that position.

So why such a fuss about a public servant, and one who would work for the people in the United Nations? You can lambast and denigrate the United Nations all you want, but just remember the United States is on the highest council there, and the United States helped found the United Nations. The Ambassador represents the nation (not the Government), and more importantly, you, to the other nations there. If you think it is a toothless tiger not worth anything, remember that your nation contributed to that. If you want it to do something, then call your elected public servant (Congressman, Senator), and say so. They serve YOU, not the other way around.

Shouldn’t we hold our public servants to the highest standard? Impeccable behaviour, following the rules, representing their constituents (and not the interests of multi-national corporations, for example). Then you should look closely at Tom DeLay, a controversial GOP leader, under investigation for accepting gifts from lobbyists (now under criminal investigation); I’m unsure how a $70,000 trip to Scotland funded by Indian gambling interests could have helped his Texas constituents, although he did help quash legislation they opposed two months prior to the trip. Now the GOP wants to change the rules further, banning filibusters of Judicial nominees, what’s next, the one-party State?

Lastly, I will not say anything about the President. I believe that criticizing a sitting President/Prime Minister, is wrong. He deserves our support, regardless of whether you voted for him or not. Just remember, you limited the time Presidents can sit in office for a reason. The saying is so true, ‘Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Perhaps one solution should be have Senators/Congressmen use blind trusts while in office?