The choice between the GOP and the Democrats these days is a meaningful one. Admittedly, when it comes to size of government and spending issues, it feels like the difference is merely between worse and worserer.

At least the GOP admits that there is a real and growing problem with both Social Security and Medicare; the Democrats just see any changes that don’t involved increased spending and coverage as some quick ride directly back into the middle ages. On the other hand, there seems to be no one at the top willing to put a dent in the deficit.

But then there’s foreign policy.

Post 9/11, no matter which side of the political divide you inhabit, it has to be acknowledged that foreign policy is what matters to most of us at least when it comes to hiring leaders at the national level. I voted Bush because I wanted him to aggressively pursue the war and because I wanted someone to start the ball rolling on Social Security reform--and my belief was that if we could successfully reform Social Security, we would have solid ground from which to attack the problems in Medicare.

On the balance, though, it really was about foreign policy. I think that NRO’s Jay Nordlinger really nailed the foreign policy difference today.

That encapsulated perfectly the Democratic mindset. You see, we Neanderthals think that the purpose of the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is to serve the United States, particularly its foreign policy, as made by the government’s executive branch. It is the other view that the U.S. ambassador is to serve the United Nations — to be part of that clique, that bureaucracy. That is why Barbara Boxer and others shudder so at Bolton’s “contempt” for the United Nations. They love that body, and value it as a check — or a brake — on U.S. foreign policy.

That sounds about right to me: Republicans think that Americans understand our own national interest better than the flawed UN. Democrats think that our interests are better served in sublimating our direct interests and following the UN’s leadership.

I know where I stand on that argument (and so do you if you noticed the slanted and loaded language that I use in writing posts like this). So, you know what? I want Bolton to be sent as our representative to the UN. I like the fact that he’s a little bit of a jerk, that he’s opinionated, and that, while his job will be to present our interests to the UN, he won’t bow down to interests in complete opposition to ours.

There is a difference between the parties, and it shows in people like John Bolton and President Bush. I do hope that our next president is better on fiscal restraint and free trade, but I had to make my choice based on those tools I had at hand (take that how you will). The difference isn’t as great as I would like it to be, but there is a divide between Nancy Pelosi and George Bush that is not insignificant.

Read the story.

Update: Kindly quoted by Burton Terrace. Thanks.