Huntsman 2012? Why?
The White House expects Jon Huntsman, the U.S. Ambassador to China, to resign his post this spring to explore a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, top Democrats said. ~Politico
I still don’t understand what he’s doing. It’s not as if Republicans have spent the last two years clamoring for another John McCain-like candidate, much less someone who endorsed McCain early on and surrounds himself with a lot of McCain advisors. If these reports are correct, Huntsman isn’t just doing this as a “centrist” protest candidate in the time of the Tea Party. He isn’t running to promote civility and public service. Presumably, he wants to make a serious bid for the nomination, either as a way to set up for a successful run later or in order to win in this cycle. The problem is that everyone understands that he has no chance of making a serious bid for the nomination, so why do it?
The common assumption seems to be that any success that Huntsman does have will come at Romney’s expense. Personally, I find that very satisfying, and Obama supporters should be pleased by the prospect of a Huntsman campaign. If I were a Republican partisan, I would be a bit concerned that Huntsman could do just enough damage to Romney by peeling off moderate voters that an even weaker nominee manages to win. Huntsman isn’t a credible candidate to win the nomination for all the reasons that have been laid out in the article and elsewhere, but he could be a spoiler in many primaries. Moderate Republicans who might like Romney (or at least the pre-2005 Romney) could look to Huntsman as a former governor with a record of competent management without any of the insufferable phoniness of Romney, and fiscal conservatives who don’t trust Huckabee, aren’t excited by Daniels, and can’t bring themselves to back Johnson might find Huntsman as a suitable alternative. Some national security hawks might prefer that their views be associated with a candidate who has a reputation for being knowledgeable. Huntsman would probably be as hawkish as most of the others, and his background could lend credibility to otherwise bad arguments. If there’s one thing the GOP doesn’t need, it’s a McCain foreign policy articulated by someone who can’t be quite so easily dismissed as ignorant or ideological.
What intrigues me about Huntsman’s campaign is that it seems to make no sense at all. Something else I find interesting about it is that he will be the only 2012 candidate who has been elected to office and possesses foreign policy experience. His presence in the primary field will draw attention to the lack of experience that all of the others have, and it will make the attempts of Romney, Pawlenty and Thune, among others, to claim expertise in foreign policy seem even more ridiculous than they already do. It can’t help the eventual GOP nominee that Huntsman will have been pointing out his lack of qualifications on national security and foreign policy in debate after debate. Then again, Huntsman can’t be a particularly effective critic of Obama’s foreign policy as someone who was responsible for advancing the administration’s China policy, which neutralizes the one clear advantage he has over the others.
Update: Dave Weigel doesn’t understand it, either. Josh Green guesses that this is how Huntsman sets the stage for making a more competitive run in 2016. The trouble with this interpretation is that anyone running in 2016 will probably be running against Obama’s policies (assuming Obama is re-elected), and so association with Obama will probably have become more of a liability inside the GOP by then. Had a Democrat appointed by Bush run for president in 2004, he would have done badly, but not as badly as he would have done running in 2008. It may be that Huntsman thinks that 2012 might be his best chance. Perhaps he believes that his prospects, as poor as they are right now, will keep getting worse as time goes by.
Second Update: Ezra Klein wonders how Huntsman’s campaign could go anywhere. Chris Cillizza offers the “case for Jon Huntsman,” which drives home just how bizarre a Huntsman candidacy is. For Cillizza, the fact that no one knows who Huntsman is could help him, since “Republican voters desperately want new and different people running for office.” One small problem with this is that the “new and different people” in question succeeded by opposing incumbents who held views similar to Huntsman’s. I’ve already addressed the limited value of Huntsman’s foreign policy experience.
The one advantage that Huntsman might have is that he could argue that he is more electable in a general election, but that requires him to make the argument that he believes that conservative positions on a number of issues are political liabilities. He may believe that, and it might even be true in some cases, but it won’t win over primary voters. Huntsman might be more electable than many of the others (assuming that his hypothetical nomination didn’t cause a drop in turnout and defections to third parties), but that by itself isn’t going to get him the nomination. Finally, Cillizza mentions that Huntsman is a “reformer with results.” Really? Part of the case for Huntsman is that he can effectively imitate the Bush 2000 campaign? That was a lackluster campaign that won the nomination solely on Bush’s name, fundraising and connections. Huntsman doesn’t have the name or most of the connections, and he is not going to be anointed as the front-runner. Republicans have nominated moderate “reform” governors from the West to their presidential tickets (with Palin as VP) in the last three cycles, and it hasn’t gone well. If this is the case for Huntsman, there is no need to make the case against.
What I don’t understand is why he accepted a job from Obama in the first place. Presuming he had an interest in the nomination two years ago, wouldn’t he have known being associated with a Democratic administration would be nothing but a tremendous weight?
I understand why he took the job. He loves Chinese language and culture, he has an adopted daughter from China, and so it was a perfect fit in many ways. What I and everyone else assumed was that he understood that his national political career in the GOP was over when he took the job. Apparently he doesn’t think that’s true. In that case, he’s going to be in for a rude shock. I assumed that he was resigned to the reality that the GOP had become inhospitable for him. Maybe he doesn’t fully appreciate just how badly his association with Obama goes over with a lot of rank-and-file Republicans.
association with Obama will probably have become more of a liability inside the GOP by then. Had a Democrat appointed by Bush run for president in 2004, he would have done badly, but not as badly as he would have done running in 2008.
That’s not quite so clear to me.
The Dems in 2004 nominated someone who’d supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq. The GOP will not nominate someone who supported Obama’s signature achievement, health insurance reform, because every single Republican is trying to outdo each other with pronouncements of the bill’s socialism and tyranny.
The difference is this: the anti-invasion Democratic base was obviously right, and the anti-reform Republican base is obviously wrong.
(The US spends over twice as much as the OECD average on health care, for worse results; the Obama plan draws from a Heritage Foundation proposal, from back when conservatism involved ideas about policy. I don’t mean to argue that no one could ever oppose the reform bill in good faith; but everyone can agree that the bill is at least six kabillion times better policy than invading Iraq).
In 2012, the Dems nominated someone who’d opposed the Iraq invasion– a position that was politically difficult at the time (though as Daniel has noted, it was easier for Obama, as a state senator representing a liberal district) (and admittedly, the Dems almost nominated someone who’d been quite hawkish on Iraq, because the Dems are significantly less extreme a group than the GOP). By 2016, the GOP may have passed from its rage into a party with rational views on policy, and even be willing to listen to someone who was pallin’ around with Obama.
Of course, that doesn’t explain why Hunstman would be flirting with a run in 2012, rather than ’16…
This is from CSIS.org:
“The last 10 years has witnessed a remarkable transformation in U.S.-India relations, initiated, supported and advanced by the leadership of both countries, and with strong bipartisan support in the United States”
If this assessment is basically accurate, and I think it is; Huntsman’s association with Obama’s foreign policy objectives in China won’t hurt him as much as you think.
He can point out that GW Bush’s policy has been insturmental in defining our current polices toward China. For those who think our past decades foreign poicy has been a success Huntsman can take a piece of the credit.
My personal opinion is that we have done a pretty lousy job in defining and implementing a China policy so for me that’s not a selling point for Huntsman.
For what it’s worth, Obama’s foreign policy is one area that I think has gone very, very well considering how bad it could have gone and recent history. I wouldn’t object at all to someone on the mere basis that they took part in Obama’s foreign policy.
Granted, I’m not the sort of person that will be voting in the primaries (for lots of reasons) so maybe all this is a moot point, but Huntsman’s advantage is that he might appeal to people outside of a GOP primary, which is something the party needs in spades right now.
I can see a possible opening for Huntsman. There is a significant segment of the Republican-leaning electorate which is just right of center and gets turned off by the culture war. John McCain might owe his nomination in 2008 to this group. While it’s the destiny of most candidates w/o broad name recognition never to break the 1-2% mark, circumstance and personality sometimes conspire to produce a different outcome and fortune favors the bold (see Barack Obama).
“That’s not quite so clear to me.”
Why? For better or worse, Bush and the war were still popular with a fair amount of Democrats in 2004, so it wasn’t as much of a poison pill as it became four years later. Nothing more than that.
“By 2016, the GOP may have passed from its rage into a party with rational views on policy, and even be willing to listen to someone who was pallin’ around with Obama.”
So in other words, the party needs more “centrists.” I agree with Daniel that the last thing this country needs is more brain-dead centrism.
I agree with Daniel that the last thing this country needs is more brain-dead centrism.
Certainly true. It would be great if there were some conservatism in the Republican Party today, too. There is nothing to GOP membership, in light of the Party’s policies of the last ten years, but a series of resentments. By 2016, it might have views on policy again.
Huntsman is someone’s stalking horse. The question is whose. If he is being backed by a lot of the McCain’s crowd then the best guess would be centrists who want to derail Romney.
It makes a lot of sense if you think in terms of 2016 – I think Huntsman is setting himself up to be the most credible Republican candidate in the next election cycle.
In 2012, although a relatively weak primary candidate owing to lower name-recognition and a relatively bi-partisan, non-ideological record, he’s nevertheless likely to stand out as a reasonable and adult alternative in a decidedly poor field of challengers. He’ll have the opportunity to gain a national reputation and put himself on the map as a serious future contender, possibly even the natural nominee in 2016, by which time the right-wing know-nothingism of the past few years will have had ample time to discredit itself in the eyes of most Republicans. Needless to say, this may not happen, but it is a reasonable conjecture, and I think it’s what Hunstman is banking on – that the GOP will be looking for a reasonable, appealing, “presidential” nominee in 2016 and that he’ll fit the bill.
Also, if he didn’t run in 2012, he’d have to work much harder to attract recognition and financial backing in 2016 – by running now, he increases his visibility after a few years off the radar in China and makes himself a known and viable quantity.
Let me just add that I’m not commenting in support of Hunstman’s strategy (I’m a Democrat) – I’m just describing what I think his political calculus seems to be.
“(The US spends over twice as much as the OECD average on health care, for worse results; the Obama plan draws from a Heritage Foundation proposal, from back when conservatism involved ideas about policy. I don’t mean to argue that no one could ever oppose the reform bill in good faith; but everyone can agree that the bill is at least six kabillion times better policy than invading Iraq).”
Sorry, but I’d have to argue they are equally as bad. It’s a classic government Trojan Horse; the plan takes the worst of government and the worst of the health care ‘market.’ It’ll look so bad that, a few years later, folks will probably be begging for the government to ‘do more!’ (i.e. universal health care.) So it looks like Heritage went 0-for-2 on this one.
Whatever on Huntsman…I guess we need a Gilmore each cycle?
Peace be with you.
That’s my theory – Huntsman is figuring that Obama is a shoe-in for ’12, and moreso with the Tea Party-approved GOP nominee.
By running now (and losing to a more extreme candidate), he’ll have established himself both as a legitimate GOP candidate, and one of the very few who’s not batsh*t insane. If the GOP moves away from the Tea Party’s insanity by ’16, he’ll actually have a shot.
Yeah, that won’t happen. And you know it.
You’re far too much of a partisan to actually make a decent analysis.
Huntsman’s candidacy depends on the Republican bubble bursting. IF that ever happens, it could happen rapidly.
The current top level of Republican talking point generators Ailes (70), Limbaugh (60), and Krauthammer (60) are above average in intelligence. The AAA group is astoundingly dumb: Hannity (49), Palin (46), Beck(46), Levin (53), When the first group retires in 2-10 years, Republicans could lose cohesion and become inept in organizing daily talking points overnight.
Huntsman has articulated a contrarian philosophy with a potential to appeal to a younger generation, namely:
1. environmental conservation
2. libertarian live-and-let-live on gay issues and multiculturalism.
Obviously his candidacy won’t work with the current bubble. Later…maybe?
Jon Huntsman will not go anywhere in a primary contest.
Eventually, the Republican Party will start a substantial reformulation of its political philosophy on the path to something better than its current politics of anger, resentment, and devotion to the Platonic ideal of Ronald Reagan. Such a transformation became inevitable after the ideological wreckage left by the Bush administration. The angry core of the current Tea Party revolt just hasn’t left a space yet for that change to begin. But it could start as soon as a second Obama administration if the Republicans are jolted by a solid Democratic victory in 2012.
Huntsman’s politics show one of the possible paths forward for the GOP, and Huntsman is putting down his marker as a leader in the coming transformation.
As for Huntsman’s real chances at winning the presidency, he doesn’t know any better than any of the pundits do whether there will be a niche for his politics beginning to open by 2016, but he does know that now is his time to run. Like every unlikely presidential candidate, he’s taking his shot while he can.
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said on Meet the Press that Obama would be most vulnerable to someone like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Goodwin: “The kind of person who speaks straight, who has a fire in his belly, who you believe him, even if you don’t agree with him, that kind of person, I think.”
And, Bill Kristol is pushing a Christie run (although I don’t know if Christie is a neocon), along with his announced preference of a Ryan/Rubio ticket. Rubio is definitely serious about running, if not in 2012, definitely in 2016. He is being groomed.
I wonder if Christie could be persuaded to run, if the Republicans do think he has the best shot at beating Obama.
As for Huntsman, do the McCain people, who seem to be backing Huntsman, hate Romney that much?