Huntsman To China
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Everyone seems to agree that the appointment of Utah’s Gov. Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China is a wise and politically brilliant move. I plan to have more to say about this, but one thing I will say now is that the nomination is a fascinating intersection of the Obama administration’s flirtations with foreign policy realism, the GOP’s increasingly unreasonable definition of what passes for a “moderate” (Huntsman’s heresies, such as they are, are actually quite mild), the enduring (and perfectly predictable) resistance to Mormon politicians in presidential politics, and the absence of credible high-profile Republican leadership on foreign policy in opposition to the administration. Related to foreign affairs, Huntsman may have been the most qualified and credible Republican office-holder outside of Congress, and he has now joined the administration. This suggests not only that the administration has captured the foreign policy center, as I was arguing earlier this week, but that those Republicans who might be best qualified to try to take it away from Obama are moving out of electoral politics and into diplomatic service on behalf of Obama’s administration.
P.S. Regarding the Giordano remark about Steele’s Romney gaffe, I would repeat that Steele’s gaffe was a true Kinsley gaffe in that it was an accidental statement of an impolitic truth. Mormonism was, and remains, a real political liability for Romney, as it would have been for Huntsman had he considered running in ‘12. This makes all kinds of people uncomfortable for different reasons, but the main reason seems to be that East Coast elite conservatives have developed this strange habit of anointing prominent Mormon politicians who stand no chance of winning presidential nomination as future leaders of the party and they are finding it quite irritating that most Republican voters aren’t going along.
As for the Mormon outreach the Obama campaign did in early ‘08, I would note that this yielded nothing in real electoral terms for the reasons that Romneyites are always telling us about–Mormons tend to be social conservatives and they usually back socially conservative politicians, and Obama was decidedly not one of those. Obama’s evangelical outreach yielded no meaningful gain for much the same reason. Evangelicals have been dissed and dismissed inside the coalition for decades, but they keep showing up and backing the party more actively than any other single group, so it is unlikely that Mormon voting patterns are going to change dramatically in the near future. Ironically, it is partly because of the stubborn loyalty of evangelicals to the Republican coalition that Mormon candidates are never going to win presidential nomination on the party’s ticket.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
What I don’t understand is why (I think most especially on Obama supporting blogs) everyone seems to assume that this means Huntsman can’t run in 2012.
This isn’t the 19th or 20th centuries. Beijing is not that far away. We don’t send pro-counsels out to the barbarian hordes for decades with little contact with the homeland.
I generally get the impression that at this point, Huntsman (even before the appointment) was probably thinking more of 2016 than 2012- but if things go badly for Obama (something we can’t really know now) then what’s to stop him from resigning and then running in 2012? I think probably the 2010 mid-term elections will be key. If the GOP does well, or spectacularly well, then this may be something for Huntsman to consider.
I think being appointed Ambassador to China is far less indicative of not running in 2012 than being appointed to the Cabinet.
The advantages for Huntsman are:
1) The media narrative. In their desire to find any and all “good” Republicans to hold up as shining examples in which to bash the current party (which does deserve a good thrashing, but one based on policy and not personality), the Media and Obama supporters (perhaps one and the same) have created a media narrative that Huntsman is a “smart” “moderate” who could find no space in the GOP. Now, IF Huntsman after a few years in China decides to come back and run against Obama, the MSM will not be able to turn around and label him as just another stupid, intolerant Republican. Indeed, despite the fact that Huntsman is a very conservative Republican (Civil unions- um, I think even G. W. Bush, Palin, etc were all in favor of civil unions- just not “marriage”)- his nomination would enable the GOP to turn the prevailing media narrative on it’s head, a la “You see, we’ve just nominated a thoughtful moderate (who by the way is actually a very conservative, Pro-Life Mormon!) who was so brilliant (Mandarin, Ambassador to Singapore at 32) that even Obama recognized this.
2) Business Contacts: The job of Ambassador to China is largely a commercial/trade promotion function. Defense issues and serious foreign policy disputes are almost always left to the Pentagon and State. What Huntsman will be doing however is making lots of interesting and lucrative contacts with the US business community in Asia- far more so than in Provo. This fall when I was in Singapore finishing my masters, I was interested to constantly encounter US expat after expat who was voting for Obama- not because they were particularly “socially liberal” but because of basic competence issues. Anecdotally, many of these expats are mildly to very disappointed with Obama (especially his tax policies) now and I imagine after the expected future tax increases and corporate meddling, they will become even more so.
3) Learning from China. One of the greatest things (and in my opinion one of the most conservative) about Huntsman previous ambassadorship (to Singapore) was that instead of just “representing America” he actually picked up a few things that Singapore was doing better than America (education) and then when he had a chance (as Governor of Utah) he tried to implement these policies. Utah is now adopting a math curriculum that Singapore has pioneered to great success (Singapore has the highest math scores in international testing). This shows not only a broad-mindedness but also a realization that there are things America can learn from other countries to improve ourselves. This applies especially to China and education (the D. Goldman/Spengler of First Things/Asia Times thesis)…. China has 60 million classical music students, while it seems we have 60 million reality tv show stars.
Of course Huntsman would have to navigate the Neo-Con China hatred obsession, but he’s pretty smart- a few meeting with the Dali Lama, Chinese students, dissidents etc will surely be a part of his time in Beijing. There is of course his being a Mormon- but I actually think that after four (or eight) years of Obama and states legalizing “gay marriage”, the Evangelicals will probably be more accepting of an extremely pro-life, fiscally conservative, brilliant, competent, Governor/Ambassador who wants to protect the traditional definition of marriage…..who just happens to be Mormon.
It seems to me that IF Huntsman wanted to run in 2012, having served as Governor of Utah already, then serving as Obama’s ambassador to China would actually be the far more brilliant move than Obama’s!
Of course this assumes:
1) He wants to run
and
2) Obama looks beatable.
I also think that (again IF he wants to run) 2012 might be a better fit for him because:
If he serves as Ambassador for five to seven years under a two-term President Obama (2016) would be, I think, a bridge to far for Republican primary voters. If President Obama wins re-election, I believe that Republicans will hate Obama to levels unseen since President Bush’s last three years. They will hardly, no matter what the media and common sense may dictate, nominate a man who has served under him throughout two terms.
If however, he serves a few years, then in early 2011 decides that he can no longer support the President’s foreign/debt agenda, then he could thread this needle. Indeed, he will be doing so from a position of strength. I could imagine him resigning and then pulling a “I’ve been there, I know these people, and the US simply cannot continue to force over a billion people- most of them impoverished- in a developing country- to sustain our unsustainable levels of debt. What’s so progressive about that.”
I know Daniel that you believe that “spending” is not a “winning” issue. But I think if it is framed correctly, it is/could be. That is, if our spending is linked to our debt which is then linked to our dependence on China. I believe that this would be/or could become, a massive issue. It appeals to Neo-Cons (National Security), Social Cons (China!), Fiscal Conservatives, and even Paleos. This is an issue that could also appeal to Moderates/Independents and “good government/Concord Coalition” types. Finally, in a David Cameron like move, the right candidate (Huntsman) could evoke “social justice” (how can we expect hundreds of millions of poor Chinese to go without basic services just so we can continue to fund lavish public sector benefits, Murtha’s airport, etc etc etc) to challenge Obama’s debt record from the left!
Huntsman would be the candidate to do this.
Finally,
To reiterate: I think it would be less of a problem with Huntsman being a Mormon in a Republican primary in 2012 than having served as Ambassador to China for more than a few years under a two-term President Obama in 2016.
This suggests not only that the administration has captured the foreign policy center, as I was arguing earlier this week, but that those Republicans who might be best qualified to try to take it away from Obama are moving out of electoral politics and into diplomatic service on behalf of Obama’s administration.
For decency’s sake, shouldn’t you wait for at least one other data point before pronouncing it a trend? How many more Republicans are you expecting to follow in Huntsman’s footsteps?
Huntsman is one of the first to accept a formal position with the administration, but a number of others, such as Scowcroft, have been advising. Perhaps I put it too strongly and focused too much on diplomatic service because of Huntsman, but there is a movement of Republican realists towards Obama, in part because Obama is not dismissive of them and in part because their colleagues on the right have been. I should have simply said that this shows that the GOP is hemorrhaging its best foreign policy talent among its elected politicians; Jim Webb’s party switch and Hagel’s retirement might serve as other pieces of evidence in demonstrating this.
How many more do I expect to follow him? I don’t expect a lot to follow him into ambassadorial posts (administrations don’t tend to give many of these to members of the other party), but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there is a continued movement of realists out of Republican circles and into the administration’s orbit, be it in the government or in think tanks.
“As for the Mormon outreach the Obama campaign did in early ‘08, I would note that this yielded nothing in real electoral terms for the reasons that Romneyites are always telling us about–Mormons tend to be social conservatives and they usually back socially conservative politicians, and Obama was decidedly not one of those.”
I think this is too facile. To be sure, Obama was never going to get Utah to tip into the Democratic column, but there are Mormons all over the Mountain west (Nevada, Arizona, Colorado) where Democrats have more realistic prospects, and they are not as monolithic a voting bloc in those states as the Utah election returns tend to suggest. Just picking up a substantial minority of Mormon votes in these states could make a deciding difference. See Al Giordano’s post and comment thread here: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/huntsman-china-its-about-romney
“the Media and Obama supporters (perhaps one and the same) have created a media narrative that Huntsman is a “smart†“moderate†who could find no space in the GOP. Now, IF Huntsman after a few years in China decides to come back and run against Obama, the MSM will not be able to turn around and label him as just another stupid, intolerant Republican.”
You may be correct, but the problem is that by creating the narrative that Huntsman is a “smart” “moderate” who could find no space in the GOP, the MSM has ensured he has no chance of winning a Republican national primary.
@ducinaltum
That’s some crafty subterfuge on Huntsman part, you know, representing an administration he will actively campaign against in the developing world’s 800 pound gorilla. Yes I can imagine as he ingratiate himself to his new hosts he will pump up his credentials with the Lou Dobb’s crowd, all the meanwhile coordinating an extensive political exploratory committee from half-way across the world.
Could it be that his President asked him, and he agreed, to serve his country?
Such people do still exist.
Yes, Grumpy Old Man, thanks for that!
“That’s some crafty subterfuge on Huntsman part, you know, representing an administration he will actively campaign against in the developing world’s 800 pound gorilla. Yes I can imagine as he ingratiate himself to his new hosts he will pump up his credentials with the Lou Dobb’s crowd, all the meanwhile coordinating an extensive political exploratory committee from half-way across the world.”
The key phrase might be “the developing world’s 800 pound gorilla”. Huntsman might have figured that a few years developing connections with key players in an increasinly important country would pay off later. How, he might not be clear on. It’s sort of like going to Harvard if you’re an 18-year old; you dont’ know the *specific* connections you’ll get, but you know that you’ll get them.