Once again the victim left is criticizing a Presidential appointment.  Go figure.  President Bush appointed Paul Wolfowitz as the president of the World Bank.  The left is in an uproar despite the fact that the board of the World Bank approved the Wolfowitz appointment with hardly a murmur. 

J. William Middendorf noted in a recent editorial ( “By his foes, ye shall know that Wolfowitz is the right guy”, Minneapolis StarTribune, April 5, 2005) that “Sometimes you can judge the quality of a president's nominees by taking a look at who opposes them -- and why”.  As Middendorf suggests, “By that measure, it's clear that President Bush has done a highly commendable job of rounding out his foreign-policy team.  These are men of remarkable accomplishments who've made the right enemies. They're unpopular with some because they pose a threat to corrupted power structures in the United Nations and the World Bank.”

So who is it that is opposing the appointment?  Primarily it is members of the socialist left…the anti-poverty elite…who have provided the most vociferous condemnation of the President’s choice. 

"‘As well as lacking any relevant experience, he is a deeply divisive figure who is unlikely to move the bank toward a more pro-poor agenda,’ asserted, a policy officer at the British charity Action Aid.  A spokesman for the London-based World Development Network went further: Dave Timms called Wolfowitz a ‘terrifying appointment’.” 

A retired foreign minister recently opined to (Middendorf)  that Wolfowitz would fail unless he were willing to adjust to the culture of the World Bank – ‘go native’” I don’t see that happening.

Paul Krugman, well known socialist economist added, " ‘The advice that the World Bank gives is as important as the money it lends -- but only if governments take that advice. And given the ideological rigidity the Pentagon showed in Iraq, they probably won't. If Wolfowitz says that some free-market policy will help economic growth, he'll be greeted with as much skepticism as if he declared that some country has weapons of mass destruction’."  Just like Krugman to predict doom. 

Wolfowitz is not the kind of man who goes into a situation to fail.  He is not a victim.  As Mideendorf asserts, “Wolfowitz has built his career on supporting democracy and freedom, and on encouraging transparency in governance. It's well known that he's an architect of the Iraq war, which finally brought down Saddam Hussein and gave millions of Iraqis a chance to vote.  He's also backed democracy through other means. In the 1990s, Wolfowitz pushed for North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion, knowing that doing so would help spread and protect democracy in Eastern Europe. Wolfowitz has also served as ambassador to Indonesia, so it's pretty clear that he's familiar with using diplomacy to encourage our allies.  Plus, his experience in Jakarta should convince foreign leaders that he understands the importance of economic growth. After all, he's seen the benefits of it firsthand. If every recipient of World Bank assistance grew its economy as quickly as Indonesia has done over the last 15 years, there'd be less need for a World Bank.”

Middendorf has hit the nail on the head.  Wolfowitz does not find favor with the socialist left.  That makes it obvious that he is the right man for the job.  He is a man who has helped bring democracy to the Middle East and who has an intense understanding of the role of capitalism in growing the world economy.  Once again, we owe President Bush a debt of gratitude for selecting the right guy for the job, despite the grumbling of the victim left.

J. William Middendorf is a former secretary of the Navy; a former U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, the European Union, and the Organization of American States; and a trustee of the Heritage Foundation.