6/22/11
Yesterday, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, Jr. declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. I wish Mr. Huntsman all the luck in the world. Though he and I disagree on many issues, he seems to be a capable, decent, accomplished, and patriotic man who is devoted to his beautiful family and to his Mormon faith. While in some (thank God, limited) quarters his LDS faith may be suspect, the Mormons have accomplished much in and for this country and the values they embody are those that one would think would be embraced by those who make careers, or at least self-images, trumpeting their devotion to family values. I might even go a step further and say that, since among politicians ideology and supposedly fervently held policy positions are as disposable as the used tissues of allergy sufferers, I could overcome my ideological differences with Mr. Huntsman and support him in his quest for the presidency, reasonably sure that his innate decency and competence would make him a good president and that his experience as ambassador to China would help our country in navigating what soon will become, if it isn’t already, our most important international relationship.
All that having been written, Mr. Huntsman, barring some kind of miracle, has no chance for the Republican nomination. There is not much room in the GOP nominating process for social moderates like Mr. Huntsman, and whatever room there is has long been occupied by the odds-on favorite for the nomination, Mitt Romney, who makes a habit of figuratively winking at moderate Republicans while tossing their long shared core ideologies and outlooks overboard in a desperate bid to pander to the true believers who largely determine the GOP nominee. The only way that Mr. Huntsman can make a splash would be for something to cause Mr. Romney to drop out, which is extremely unlikely, or for millions of Democrats to pass on their non-race in the primary, take a Republican ballot, and select Mr. Huntsman for the GOP nomination, which is almost as unlikely because no Democrat who wants to reelect President Obama would favor Mr. Huntsman for the GOP nomination; in the general election, Mr. Huntsman could give Mr. Obama a lot of trouble.
Surely Mr. Huntsman is smart enough to know that his chances for the Republican nomination are only marginally better than those of Harold Stassen in 1968. So why is Mr. Huntsman running? Some have speculated that he is tuning up for a 2016 race. That is certainly plausible. More likely, however, is that Mr. Huntsman, given his experience in and predilection toward foreign policy, is running for Secretary of State. Certainly a President Romney would look favorably on Mr. Huntsman for such a position. Perhaps more relevantly, a reelected President Obama could make quite a bipartisan splash by making Mr. Huntsman his Secretary of State. Note that Mr. Huntsman, in his announcement speech, made a point of saying “I respect the President” and that he worked effectively for the country and for the President in a very sensitive and vital foreign policy post. Moreover, Mr. Obama could make himself a more effective candidate, and better president and Party man, by making his current Secretary of State his 2012 running mate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In 1991, I asked about an obscure Southern Governor who might garner this libertarian vote. That question was met with the insgightful response "I do not think so, but he is clearly a Time magazine darling.". I did not vote for him in either election, but I might admit I was wrong for a myriad of reasons. Then we had 8 years of unprecedented growth as he cut taxes, slashed government entitlements and put people to work without somehow not alienating his constituency. He also did not engage in nation building, but showed military strength. I ask the same question about this "western" governor. I think he has can do the same and may be fundamentally more decent.
Great comment and superb insight; I remember that conversation of 19 years ago. But I usually forget the name of the person to whom I am talking or the reason I entered the room I occupy. Age plays mischievous tricks on the mind.
You can tell from my post that there is something I find desirable and promising about Huntsman, and it's probably his inherent decency, competence, and sense of perspective. He may indeed turn out to be a less solipsistic Clinton.
And I, too, miss Bill, and wish I had not been so hard on him and maybe, just maybe, forsaken the Libertarian Party to vote for him at least once. He may have been the best president of my lifetime, though Reagan and Ike still have a claim to that title. The former’s is fading rapidly, however.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Post a Comment