Jon Huntsman will resign as governor of Utah to accept a posting as ambassador to China.
It’s a fine appointment from the point of view of the national interests of the United States. Huntsman speaks the language and knows the region (he previously served as ambassador to Singapore). His standing as a former governor and a possible future presidential candidate will enhance his clout in a capital where clout matters.
It’s a brilliant appointment from the point of view of the political interests of Barack Obama. Gov. Huntsman’s intellect, his popularity in his state, his undoubted conservatism combined with his open-minded new approaches on social issues and the environment – not to mention his enormous personal wealth – positioned him as the natural leader of the reform forces within the GOP. By sending him across the Pacific, President Obama has acted deftly to enhance the continuing dominance of the Republican faction that serves him best. The Limbaugh-Obama axis wins again!
From Huntsman’s point of view, it’s difficult to read his acceptance of this nomination as anything other than an assessment of the hopelessness of the 2012 cycle for him personally and Republicans generally. The enthusiasm we feel for him here at NewMajority has not to date proven infectious: The Republican party of Kent County, Michigan, outright cancelled an event rather than host the governor.
“The voters want and expect us to stand on principle and return to our roots. Unfortunately, by holding an event with Governor Huntsman, we would be doing the exact opposite,” [county party chairwoman Joanne] Voorhees wrote in an e-mail quoted in The Grand Rapids Press.
(Benjamin Franklin had an apt comment on people like Ms. Voorhees: “Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other.” I should have thought that the 2006 and 2008 elections were experience enough for anyone, but apparently many Republicans insist on still more.)
Four years of serving his country in a challenging posting seems as creditable a way as any of opting out of the political cycle. In 2016, Huntsman will be 56. He’ll have been twice elected governor of a state, twice served in important international assignments – including one of the most important of them all. His understanding of environmental issues will be sharpened by his service, ditto his already sophisticated mastery of the international economic issues that will matter more and more. Odds are that by then even conservative Republicans will have worked their way to accepting a compromise on social issues that looks more or less like the one Huntsman has evolved for himself.
It’s only sad that it looks like it will have to be such an unnecessarily long and frustrating wait.
63 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 6:10 am
David your analysis is well nigh perfect. It is indeed a masterly bit of political ju jitsu by Obama but also a recognition by Huntsman that his chances of winning the nomination in today’s Republican party let alone winning the presidency are remote to non existent. He’d be a great candidate at some point but I’m not sure when that point will be. There are huge demographic and generational shifts taking place in this country which most Republican politicians and strategists seem completely oblivious to. The only people I see talking about them are Democratic and centrist political scientists and pundits. One never sees conservatives discussing them. Maybe because the implications are so bleak for conservatism.
2 krove // May 16, 2009 at 6:38 am
Another masterstroke by Obama, He plays chess while the GOP plays kick the can (moderates) down the road.
I believe that Obama is actually setting Huntsman up as a moderate for 2016. He wants a centrist GOP candidate in place that will not immediatly return the country to the ways of Bush.
John Cole put it well.
Quote.
“Additionally, I look at this as preserving the seed corn of the GOP. The current virus of crazy teabagging Palinite theocon wingnuts has to burn out sooner or later (one would have thought they would have already collapsed, exhausted by their hate, sheer stupidity and the weight of their own internal contradictions, but sadly, that group of crazies seem to have a little bit of life in them still), and if we can save the sane portions of the Republican party and reintroduce them to the wild, unscathed from the current taint at a later date, the better off we all are. No one is served by one party rule, and I can already see fault lines forming within the chaos of the Democratic party and their our (forgot I was a registered D for a second) underlying inherent weaknesses (see also E.D. Kain). Unless my judgment is as bad as it was in 2000 (and lets face it, Im still an idiot, just now I have a bigger audience), in 2016 Jon Huntsman could be the face of a rational opposition party.”
3 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 6:46 am
Evidently the GOP base in Utah revolted against Huntsman because of his support of civil unions for gays, in contravention of the Utah Constitution. (Utah had passed a State Constitutional Amendment banning any form of civil partnership for gays.)
It would be very difficult for a Presidential candidate to be credible, if it was known from the outset that he couldn’t carry his home state. Maybe Huntsman should play carpetbagger, and move to another state where his political ambitions would be better supported.
4 Claude // May 16, 2009 at 7:34 am
I wish Jon Huntsman well, but I think David Frum is greatly overstating his presidential prospects. Utah is the most negatively stereotyped state in the country. The Republican Party needs to win support beyond its base of married white people, and a wealthy Mormon from Utah whose main selling point is a “sophisticated mastery of the international economic issues” will have a hard time doing that.
5 southieman // May 16, 2009 at 7:55 am
In all due respect, Mr. Frum, NO ONE forced Gov. Huntsman to take a job that many others could fulfill. As a Utahn I’m disappointed in the very popular governor. He had a more important job tempering the far right excesses in this state. But for you to blame Limbaugh is just absurd. Get over the obsession! Weren’t you invited to enough parties after the Newsweek piece?
6 Churl // May 16, 2009 at 7:58 am
This appointment is clever in a Chicago ward heeler sort of way. It’s a much more polite manner of dealing with potential rivals than having them lined up against a wall and shot, but that’s about the extent of it.
As krove points out Obama plays political chess very well. Governing, however, is a very different business from gaming to get elected. Obama is now responsible for the condition of large components of the economy (finance and autos) and he’s looking to control more of it quickly (see medical care). Voters in upcoming elections will judge him and his party on how well said economy is performing and it won’t be looking too swell any time soon. The voters won’t be evaluating candidates on whether they think Andrew Sullivan and his boyfriend have a constitutional right to a white wedding.
7 ND Pendent // May 16, 2009 at 9:04 am
Boy for conservatives you guys don’t seem to understand a large segment of your base. I attend a large Southern Baptist Church in Florida and the Utah governors biggest obstacle would simply be that he is a Mormon. Evangelical Christians consider the Mormon religion as a cult and will hold that against Gov Huntsmen as they did against Romney. And if he indeed supported gay unions as sinz54 stated he can forget about and obviously he knows that.
8 southieman // May 16, 2009 at 9:19 am
There will always be bigots, ND Pendant, but one constant is you can beat them. Huntsman has that appeal.
9 Churl // May 16, 2009 at 9:21 am
ND Pendent, you nailed it.
Huntsman could never be President and might have been voted out in the next election. His appointment was a cute trick by Obama and gives Mr. Frum and Company something to chatter about, but is meaningless in the larger scheme of things.
The 2010 elections will me most interesting.
10 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 9:54 am
Churl: Huntsman can’t even run for another term as governor. Utah has term limits.
11 Saltwood // May 16, 2009 at 9:57 am
First Hillary to State, now in a move completely unexpected, Huntsman to China. Obama has marginalized the two persons best able to raise money(Hillary) or to deploy money (Huntsman) in a campaign against him in 2012.
(I discount Romney, who, while personally wealthy, has no chance to win the White House absent a catastrophic collapse by the incumbent which would in effect provide for the election of whomever the Republicans nominate (this has essentially happened twice in the past century –1932 and 1980).
Rebuilding will have to come from the bottom up State Legislatures, and House seats — that path looks more promising than retiring Obama after a single term.
12 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 9:58 am
Claude: That’s why I suggested that Huntsman run for some other office in some other state, to get some non-Utah track record first. Hillary was a carpetbagger too, remember.
13 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 10:11 am
David Frum sez: “I should have thought that the 2006 and 2008 elections were experience enough for anyone, but apparently many Republicans insist on still more.”
Among the GOP base (cf. Redstate.com), it is still commonly believed that the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 because the GOP base was disgusted with the “RINO” GOP candidates and “RINO” GOP leadership, and so they didn’t turn out to vote.
No matter how many times you show them the 2006 and 2008 exit polls (which show that the GOP lost due to a defection of moderate and Independent voters to the Dems), they refuse to accept it.
What’s happening is that many in the GOP base get their *news*, not just their *commentary*, from right-wing talk-radio and the right-wing blogosphere. And they are being fed a lot of misinformation.
As the late Senator Moynihan put it: “You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.” The GOP base is getting their own alternate-universe set of “facts.”
They trust Limbaugh, Malkin, RedState.com, because they are culturally similar and they reassure the rank-and-file that they are right and don’t need to change.
They don’t trust you, whom they call a “neo-con RINO”.
14 Saltwood // May 16, 2009 at 10:11 am
A further thought – this is a move of breathtaking political deftness. The best analogy I can think of would be if George H. W. Bush had nominated an obscure centrist governor from Arkansas to be Ambassador to China in 1989.
15 cbs // May 16, 2009 at 10:48 am
Sorry, Mr. Frum, those who know and have followed Huntsman over the past few years know that his conservatism is indeed very “doubted.”
If the measure of a politician is how popular one is, then Huntsman is indeed a masterful politician. If the measure of politician is what one actually accomplishes in office and whether he/she moves the conservative cause forward in some measurable way, then Huntsman’s tenure as Governor of Utah was a complete and utter failure with ample missed opportunities (school vouchers, balanced energy development, etc.).
Huntsman is both philosophically and temperamentally much better suited to be a diplomat then a Governor. I have no doubt he will do a great job as ambassador to China.
16 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 11:17 am
cbs
wrote 16 minutes ago
…….Whether your comments are correct I have no way of knowing since I’m not familiar with Utah politics although I’m sure most in Utah would disagree with you judging by his approval ratings. (It’s funny how conservatives now consider popularity a political liability.) That said Huntsman’s name along with Jindal’s, Palin’s, Crist’s and Romney’s consistently appears in presidential speculation lists by conservatives and he’s effectively been taken off the board.
The mixture of comments here is interesting as a guide to just how much dissension there is in the GOP today. All the fault lines are there.
17 cbs // May 16, 2009 at 12:37 pm
otto…
Perhaps you need to re-read my comments. I do not doubt Huntsman’s popularity in the state, nor do I see it as a political liability per se. My question is, to what positive (conservative) end did he use that popularity?
My contention is that from a conservative perspective, Huntsman did little, if anything, to advance the cause during his 5 years in office. For example, had he been willing to expend a little bit of his political capital Utah might have enacted the most aggressive school voucher program in the country. Much to the chagrin of school reform supporters, Huntsman took a pass on the issue and it failed.
Huntsman showed over and over again (well, at least up until after his re-election) that he was more concerned with his poll numbers than advancing a conservative agenda.
That is not the sort of politician I admire or hope to be our nominee any time soon.
18 mlindroo // May 16, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Sinz54:
> Among the GOP base (cf. Redstate.com), it is still
> commonly believed that the GOP lost in 2006 and
> 2008 because the GOP base was disgusted with
> the “RINO” GOP candidates and “RINO” GOP
> leadership, and so they didn’t turn out to vote.
> No matter how many times you show them the
> 2006 and 2008 exit polls (which show that the
> GOP lost due to a defection of moderate and
> Independent voters to the Dems), they refuse to
> accept it.
I’ve never understood this kind of reasoning…
Defenders of traditional conservative policies *could* argue somewhat convincingly that Bush and the Republicans (whose leaders in Congress generally were conservatives) did not lose because of ideology. They lost due to incompetence, and sometimes due to greed and corruption too. According to this school of thought, the GOP will eventually get back into the game without changing anything once the Democrats have been in charge for awhile. I don’t fully agree with this, but at least it is not a totally crazy position either.
—
Instead, we frequently get the sort of insane Barker13:esque logic that Sinz54 alludes to. Namely, the GOP only did one fundamentally serious mistake and that was going down the road of “compassionate conservatism” by not opposing immigration, allowing domestic spending to skyrocket etc.. The deviation from orthodox Reaganite small government conservatism is supposedly all that counts!! If someone like Fred Thompson or Dick Cheney were the public face of Republicanism, we’d be winning landslide elections again. Never mind that there is zero evidence for it in the 2006 and 2008 elections data, which conclusively show that McCain and the GOP continued to receive decent support from disgruntled conservatives while everybody else was leaving the party in droves.
MARCU$
19 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 1:20 pm
cbs
wrote 37 minutes ago
cbs:
I have no need to re-read your comments, maybe you need to re read mine. Since one has to assume that most of Huntsman’s 70% approval rating in the state comes from conservatives(or do you think most of them are democrats) it follows that a comfortable majority of conservatives approves of the conservatism of his record. You just don’t happen to be one of them but you’re clearly in a minority.
20 krove // May 16, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Huntsman today at the White house
“When the president of the United States asks you to step up and serve in a capacity like this, that to me is the end of the conversation and the beginning of the obligation to rise to the challenge.”
I like this guy, someone who loves the country, does not want Obama to fail. And is willing to serve without thought to personal ambition.
We need many more people like that and many fewer of the whiny sore losers you often see posting on RW blogs.
21 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 1:31 pm
mlindroo
wrote 41 minutes ago
“Defenders of traditional conservative policies *could* argue somewhat convincingly that Bush and the Republicans (whose leaders in Congress generally were conservatives) did not lose because of ideology. They lost due to incompetence”
…….Not really…..What you’re missing is that the ideology was the source of much of the incompetence. Deregulation; staffing the justice and other departments like FEMA with third raters and cronies; over rosy views about realigning the politics of the middle east; the idea that promoting the concept of Islamofascism would assist in winning hearts and minds in the third world; supply side economics as a budget buster; Terry Schiavo; abstinence as an effective means of curtailing teenage sex; Global warming denial; Porter Goss cleaning up the CIA; Rice and Rumsfeld as effective cabinet secretaries; the list is endless.
22 ireign // May 16, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Huntsman had little shot had winning the GOP nomination. He faced the same problems as Mitt Romney. However, unlike Romney, Huntsman didn’t have the same cred with business.
David, still has failed to explain why he shifted on social issues beyond political expediency. Would he like Huntsman as much if denounced foreign policy hawks within the GOP/
23 cbs // May 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm
otto,
!) I can’t expect you to know this, but you actually might be surprised at how much of Huntsman’s support comes from independents and Democrats. I’d say Republicans in the state are about 50-50 on the guy right now. And among those who follow politics closely (state legislators, party activists, etc.), Huntsman’s support is much, much, lower.
2) Very few “conservatives” put him on their presidential shortlist.
3) Regardless of the above, you continue to ignore my question:
What has Huntsman done to advance the cause of conservatism? Can you name one thing? My entire point is that popularity is not an end in and of itself. Just because Huntsman is popular doesn’t mean he is the future of conservatism. I’m not interested in supporting a politician who is popular but does nothing to advance conservative principles.
24 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 3:01 pm
ireign
wrote 25 minutes ago
“Huntsman had little shot had winning the GOP nomination. He faced the same problems as Mitt Romney. However, unlike Romney, Huntsman didn’t have the same cred with business.”
…..I agree he had little shot at the nomination because of his religion and current Republican intolerance of his political flexiibility. However the comment about cred with business is total nonsense. He’s a former ambassador, trade negotiator, governor, and head of a great chemical company. He is also the possessor of one of the greatest family fortunes in America that is several times larger than that of Romney who is an arriviste by comparison.
25 cbs // May 16, 2009 at 3:10 pm
otto,
!) I can’t expect you to know this, but you actually might be surprised at how much of Huntsman’s support comes from independents and Democrats. I’d say Republicans in the state are about 50-50 on the guy right now. And among those who follow politics closely (state legislators, party activists, etc.), Huntsman’s support is much, much, lower.
2) Very few “conservatives” put him on their presidential shortlist.
3) Regardless of the above, you continue to ignore my question:
What has Huntsman done to advance the cause of conservatism? Can you name one thing? My entire point is that popularity is not an end in and of itself. Just because Huntsman is popular doesn’t mean he is the future of conservatism. I’m not interested in supporting a politician who is popular but does nothing to advance conservative principles.
26 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 3:11 pm
cbs
wrote 5 minutes ago
…..As I said earlier I’m not very familiar with Utah politics but I find the notion that the majority of his support is not Republican a stretch particularly since Utah is one of the most Republican, if not the most Republican, states in the country. I’m sure in most matters of governance he’s been right of center, maybe not right enough for you but then his definition of conservatism, like mine, probably differs considerably from yours.
….You say very few conservatives have him on their list…..well why have conservative pundits been putting him on their lists for months
…..I’m not ignoring your question which is all about degree……he’s not conservative enough for you but he is for a lot of people including David apparently.
27 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 3:19 pm
cbs:
you sparked my interest. In the last election Huntsman got over 75% of the vote and his major opponent got 15%. I’m not sure what Republican id of his 75% was but it was probably two thirds at least.
28 ireign // May 16, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Ottobs-”agree he had little shot at the nomination because of his religion and current Republican intolerance of his political flexiibility. However the comment about cred with business is total nonsense. He’s a former ambassador, trade negotiator, governor, and head of a great chemical company.”
Nice of you to agree. Yes, Romney who also came from a prominent family excelled in his own right. He graduated with honors with a jd/mba from Harvard. He then went on to become the head of Bain and ran for political office in a state in which his family name meant little. By contrast, Huntsman was a guy who dropped out of high school at one point and gained most of his positions through family connections. This is not to say that Huntsman did not make the most of these connections but his accomplishments pale in comparison to Romney’s and given that many of David’s fellow “reformists” want a “Wall-Mart” conservative, it is unclear how the child of a billionaire will fit with that goal.
29 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 3:59 pm
ireign
wrote 18 minutes ago
You’re mixing up issues. You said Huntsman had no cred with the business community relative to Romney which is bunkum. As to dropping out of high school….this is important? Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard for godsake. For all the reasons I mentioned Huntsman has massive cred with the business community. As for Romney he like Huntsman started at the bottom with a family fortune of many millions. I’d actually say Huntsman’s experience as a mormon missionary in China was probably a far better preparation for life than being a fast tracker in the financial industry as Romney was at the start of his career.
30 palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I agree Huntsman was a Mine That Bird type longshot for the nomination in 2012. Picking up on what others have said, he’s just not what the GOP base seems in the mood for. They’ve convinced, or deluded, themselves that 2006 and 2008 were the result of not being sufficiently conservative, that “we’re still a right of center nation” where ideology and rigidity are the keys to victory. Of course this ignores recent history: the GOP watersheds of 1980 and 1994 were not achieved by purging moderates and alienating centrist independents. But the mere admission of this in the Limbaugh/Palin wing of the party is tantamount to treason.
The corollary to the base’s “we weren’t conservative enough” theory is that McCain’s nod represented a disastrous concession to moderates, one that should not soon be repeated. When they evaluate Huntsman, the GOP core will see McCain redux when what they want to see is an older, more experienced version of Palin (whatever that would look like).
31 balconesfault // May 16, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“what they want to see is an older, more experienced version of Palin (whatever that would look like).”
Ralph Reed?
32 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 5:23 pm
palomino70 sez: “….an older, more experienced version of Palin….”
An older, more experienced version of Palin is: Palin! She’ll be 4 years older in 2012, and presumably she will have been doing her homework about the issues by then.
33 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 5:37 pm
cbs sez: “you actually might be surprised at how much of Huntsman’s support comes from independents and Democrats. I’d say Republicans in the state are about 50-50 on the guy right now.”
That must be a huge change from November. Because the exit polls back then showed that Huntsman got 96% of the votes of Repub voters.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/
True, 36% of Dems and 75% of Independents voted for Huntsman too. But isn’t that a point in his favor? At a time when GOP party affiliation is low, any national Republican candidate is going to have to get support from Dems and Inds in order to win a majority.
34 balconesfault // May 16, 2009 at 5:40 pm
“But isn’t that a point in his favor? “
It would be, if the goal truly was forging a New Majority, rather than increasing ideological purity.
35 cheesehead // May 16, 2009 at 5:49 pm
If Huntsman’s intent, in accepting President Obama’s appointment, is to permanently exit electoral and partisan politics, then I will view his decision to become Ambassador to China as noble and patriotic.
On the other hand, if his long term strategy is to re-enter politics on a national level, then I, like many conservatives, will view him as a quisling. For instead of entering the fight, when it’s most bleak and when conservatives need all hands on deck, he will have shrunk from battle. Who can respect that–much less vote for it?
36 balconesfault // May 16, 2009 at 5:58 pm
“But isn’t that a point in his favor? “
It would be, if the goal truly was forging a New Majority, rather than increasing ideological purity.
37 clarityi // May 16, 2009 at 8:53 pm
“From Huntsman’s point of view, it’s difficult to read his acceptance of this nomination as anything other than an assessment of the hopelessness of the 2012 cycle for him personally and Republicans generally”
Frum, get a grip. You are so obviously stuck in your rut of hostility towards Social Conservatives that you completely look past the obvious… and that is what the polls still say on “The Issues.” That being that the Majority of Americans still favor traditionally Conservative positions; Smaller Gov’t, lower taxes, strong Nat. Defense and yes (to your dismay), traditional social positions. (ie. “gay marriage” rejected in CA of all places and Galllup poll showing 51% identify as “pro-life” while 42% identify as “pro-choice”). 06′ and 08′ had nothing to do with the social issues and everything to do with Republican overspending, perceived Republican “corruption” in Congress and the unpopularity of the Iraq War. In fact, the conservative social initiatives continued to win at the ballot box in 06′ and 08′ despite Republican losses on the ballot. And by the way, while Obama is somewhat personally popular (60% is not that high for a President this early in his Presidency), his issues are not. And by 2010, his policies will be far enough along in their progression that Republican prospects will be anything but “hopeless”. Rasmussen’s Generic Congressional Ballot already shows the public now favoring Repubs over Dems for 2010
Grow up Frum and get over your self-constructed grudge match with social conservative Republicans.
38 mpolito // May 16, 2009 at 10:04 pm
First of all, blaming Rush for this is pretty absurd and unwarranted.
Second of all, social issues and “theocons” had nothing to do with the 2006 and 2008 losses. The war caused the former loss; the economy caused the latter one. Social issues did not play a role, so stop blaming social conservatives for all of this (a group the GOP would be dead without).
39 cheesehead // May 16, 2009 at 10:08 pm
mpolito:
Excellent observation!
40 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 6:57 am
mpolito: You forgot about the immigration issue. The nativism of the GOP base drove away two-thirds of Hispanics, which accounts for the GOP’s losses in states like New Mexico. While there is no evidence that being against illegal immigration won the GOP any votes in any swing states.
You also forgot that McCain used to be popular in states like New Hampshire, which is pro-choice according to its libertarian philosophy. But the GOP will have virtually no chance of ever winning in the Northeast again, because the Northeast is socially libertarian. Sure, with the economic collapse, no GOP candidate could win. But looking forward, how do YOU plan to sell a social conservative in New Hampshire or Oregon or Washington State?
2008 was the last time for the Rove playbook of “Red States plus Ohio.” The rapid rise in the Hispanic population is going to cause the GOP to even lose in the Southwest. And younger voters are strongly socially liberal. The GOP will lose them forever if it is perceived as a bunch of moral scolds.
Don’t look at the unique situation in 2006 or 2008 with Iraq and the economic collapse. Look ahead to building a winning majority. The public isn’t going to come flocking back to us if we’re perceived as demanding litmus tests of them.
41 ldkrn // May 17, 2009 at 8:05 am
“An older, more experienced version of Palin is: Palin! She’ll be 4 years older in 2012, and presumably she will have been doing her homework about the issues by then.”
LOL, you could have Forrest Gump pour over policy pages all day, and it still wouldn’t make him smart. She’ll just be a four years older, more experienced moron.
42 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 8:17 am
I sympathize with David. As a professional who makes his living in politics and who presumably looks forward to political preferment at some future date, he must look at this blog and weep. It is a wonderfully accurate window on the state of mind and divisions within today’s GOP. Since he’s interested in literature I suspect like Dr Grantly he probably realizes he’s never going to Bishop of Barchester.
43 lukematthews // May 17, 2009 at 9:33 am
“his undoubted conservatism combined with his open-minded new approaches on social issues and the environment”
How can one be conservative and at the same time espouse collectivist thinking? Aren’t they intrinsically opposed? Once again Mr. Frum, you expose your unabashed conflict resolution thinking and refuse to make an argument. Instead you consistantly try to make the GOP a narrow version of collectivist-lite followers instead of principled theorists. You seem hell-bent on losing the argument instead of making the argument for individual rights and responsibilities with limited government power. You are playing chess with the country instead of making a stance about the sad, leftward tilt toward more government control and less freedom.
44 Realist // May 17, 2009 at 9:50 am
I smell a party switch and a run for President in 2016. He is the perfect age. Since Harry Reid is a Mormon, Dems may not have as big a problem with his religion.
Despite opposition to public-funded healthcare, his top priorities include economic development, education and energy security.
He is receptive to environmental issues and helped Utah reduce fuel and energy consumption. He supports civil unions for gay couples.
His nomination, however, would certainly not be a slam dunk. He is probably not liberal enough for progressives. African-Americans could have a problem with his religion.
On the other hand, if he continues to establish himself as a moderate, he may be able to overcome these obstacles.
It’s hard for me to see Obama elevating someone that he thought might turn against the Democrats for a presidential run 2016, despite what David thinks. He is too crafty for that. I think Obama is looking for long-term destruction of the GOP, and letting Huntsman sneak in through the back door doesn’t seem likely.
45 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 10:21 am
lukematthews: The GOP base in Utah is mad at Huntsman because he favors civil unions for gays.
How is that a “collectivist” position? Why should gays be free to do all the things you and I can do–like fall in love and get hitched?
As for the environment: Who decided that the atmosphere was free for the taking–and for the polluting?
When you buy a piece of land, you take care of it and try not to damage it, because you own it.
But you don’t pay for the use of the AIR, and that’s why you feel free to ruin it for everybody else.
46 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 10:38 am
Isn’t the formation of government fundamentally “collectivist thinking”?
47 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 11:34 am
Politically it’s a little masterstroke by Obama whose political savvy Republicans continue to disregard at their peril. By reaching out to the mormon community he’s put down a marker for tolerance and inclusiveness. When Romney loses the Republican nomination in 2012 because of evangelical rejection of his “cult” membership, to whom will some mormons in those key rocky mountain states transfer their affections.
48 mlindroo // May 17, 2009 at 12:26 pm
>> “Defenders of traditional conservative policies
>> *could* argue somewhat convincingly that Bush
>> and the Republicans (whose leaders in
>> Congress generally were conservatives) did not
>> lose because of ideology. They lost due to
>> incompetence”
>…….Not really…..What you’re missing is that the
> ideology was the source of much of the
> incompetence.
Well, they do seem to be making the same sort of argument as hardcore Marxists were making back in the USSR. The problem wasn’t ideology per se, the problem was poor and ideologically impure execution of those communist policies!
—
I have to say this kind of mindset is very common among unrepentant neocons such as Bill Kristol … they continue to insist that the Bush foreign policy circa 2002-04 was sheer perfection and only sabotaged by poor execution and “loss of will”.
—
Now, what makes the Bush Administration quite interesting is that it generally got most of the things it requested in 2000-05…the massive tax cuts, approval to invade Iraq etc.. With the notable exception of immigration reform and some “compassionate conservative” domestic gov’t policy initiatives, the policies were generally conservative too and they were implemented while the GOP controlled Congress and the courts too.
MARCU$
49 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 12:27 pm
ottovbvs: I’ve read that same idea elsewhere, as well. Doesn’t help with Michael Steele publicly declaring what many knew already – “It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism”. Fundamentalists consider Mormons to be a cult.
I don’t see this all as pure political opportunism, however. I think Obama really does think that the beliefs of others deserve respect, and that even the opinions of opponents may have value. Isn’t that’s what he’s constantly criticized for with respect to global politics? I doubt that Huntsman would have given up his gubernatorial seat had he thought he was being used solely as a political wedge – what might be hardest for many Republicans to wrap their heads around is that I think that Obama was sincere in believing Huntsman the best person for this particular job … and Huntsman sincere in believing he could do more good for the country in that role than any other right now.
50 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 12:46 pm
balconesfault
wrote 14 minutes ago
“I don’t see this all as pure political opportunism, however.”
…….No neither do I, Huntsman’s obviously a solid choice….But’s it very good when the right thing to do also is the politically useful thing to do….A double whammy for Obama.
51 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 12:51 pm
mlindroo
wrote 20 minutes ago
“Well, they do seem to be making the same sort of argument as hardcore Marxists were making back in the USSR. The problem wasn’t ideology per se, the problem was poor and ideologically impure execution of those communist policies!”
…….I visited the Soviet Union a few times in the lates seventies and early eighties and it was obvious communism was doomed……The difference between the nomenklatura who were running Russia and conservatives like Kristol and many posters here is that far right wing conservatives really believe their own propaganda….the Nomenklatura didn’t they just paid lip service……Kristol currently has an oped up urging that Cheney stay up front and center for the next four years!!
52 jjv // May 17, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I’m sorry David but again, it ain’t social conservatives who lost the last election. Also, Huntsman can be called a moderate all you want but he is a Mormon who was governor of Utah. If he ran for President it would be the end of him in the press. If Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts is unacceptable to the MSM, Huntsman would be radioactive. Utah serves the same role for Republicans as Vermont or Massachusetts does for Democrats, it produces Governors who cannot win general elections.
Again, where do socially liberal Republicans win? And I don’t mean civil union supporters, I mean pro-choice, pro homosexual marriage, balanced budget types? Barack and the Democrats won on foreign policy and economics, not social issues.
The article calls Dick Kempthorne a moderate! Apparently, a “moderate Republican” is one who is popular and has not yet been demonized by the MSM.
Is he for school choice? How about higher marginal rates? How has he been on spending? If moderation is just a codeword for an unwillingness to defend natural marriage and the unborn it has been spectacularly unsuccessful everywhere Republicans have tried it.
53 Jeffersonian // May 17, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Undoubted conservatism? David you are creating a caricature of yourself. Conservatism, if I may be simple is that government protects life, liberty and property. To stray into what is a religious matter concerning the government doing good for people is to cast off conservatism. One need not invoke God, to make this religious. Just as the bill of rights is often referred to as negative rights, so is the purpose of government negative. It can establish laws to say what is wrong to do, but cannot establish laws to say what is good to do, such as giving to the poor, providing for other people’s well being. This rather than protecting people from others, forces them to be subject to others. They lose their liberty and their property.
Huntsman is not a loss, but a gain, in that someone who will hurt the conservative has lost influence in the whigs.
54 Chrisc23 // May 17, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Governor Huntsman is an intelligent man and he will do a great job. He is still young and has a future ahead of him. Politics is a funny business. People always want to be on the side in power until the party in charge makes a mistake and drops in the polls. Then you will see more people come back to the Republican party. The TRUE Republicans stick it out because it is inevitable that the Democrats will over extend their welcome fast enough.
55 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 4:29 pm
jjv: Mitt Romney was not dissed by the MSM because of his Mormonism. He was dissed, and properly so, because of his flip-flops on issues like abortion.
That was also the main thing that the GOP base had against him. Only a minority of Republicans had trouble with Romney’s Mormonism.
56 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Chrisc23: The demographics of the nation are changing.
In 2008, McCain won 57% of the White vote–and still lost the election. He lost because of a massive turnout by Black voters for Obama. And two-thirds of Hispanic voters voted for Obama.
Plus, Obama won the youth vote by an amazing 3 to 1 margin.
These groups will not “come back to the Republican party,” because they have never been part of the GOP in the first place. (OK, maybe blacks used to vote for the GOP prior to 1960. But not since then.)
The GOP may win back some more White voters. But it still won’t win national elections until it learns how to appeal to voters who never voted Republican before: Minorities and the young.
57 Mike K // May 17, 2009 at 9:51 pm
“The difference between the nomenklatura who were running Russia and conservatives like Kristol and many posters here is that far right wing conservatives really believe their own propaganda….the Nomenklatura didn’t they just paid lip service……Kristol currently has an oped up urging that Cheney stay up front and center for the next four years!!”
There is another difference that you don’t acknowledge. Conservative principles represent human nature; the soviet nomenklatura were solely concerned with their own aggrandizement in a system that did not correspond to reality. Free trade and a free economy does represent the path to a prosperity and the ability of a free people to prosper.
Socialism may be attractive to students and academics who have not ever been able to generate prosperity. It does not work in a free society. Eventually, students will figure that out once they have to make their own way in the world.
58 Chrisc23 // May 17, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I still believe the Republican party lost, but the Democrats didn’t “win” in 2006 and 2008. President Obama is already over exposed and that will bring him down in 2012.
The Republican party needs to bring in new, younger faces. There are plenty of them eager to step up. Retire the dead wood.
59 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 11:08 pm
“Free trade and a free economy does represent the path to a prosperity and the ability of a free people to prosper.”
Free trade and a completely free economy can also represent a path to a huge number of people at the bottom of the economic ladder having little or no control over their lives. Information and connections and wealth and access are commodities which can and will be hoarded unless Government enforces ground rules to limit that hoarding.
As Teddy Roosevelt pointed out a century ago, these ground rules are healthy for the nation. We don’t want all lower-rung labor to be bid down to a global lowest common denominator for workplace safety, for wages, for job security. That is not good for America.
60 sinz54 // May 18, 2009 at 8:06 am
balconesfault & Mike K:
The issue of a “free economy” is a total red herring.
We don’t have laissez-faire capitalism in this country, and we never did.
We’ve had a mixed economy in this country since long before any of us were born, and that’s what we would have had even if McCain had been elected.
So the issue is how conservatives view a mixed economy vs. how liberals view a mixed economy. That is, what is the proper role for Government in the economics of the U.S.? And when is it improper for Government to interfere in the economy?
Let’s keep the discussion centered around that, and avoid useless buzzwords like “free economy” and “socialism.” This is one blog that doesn’t have to worry about energizing the GOP base with slogans and wedge issues, so we are free to discuss real issues here.
61 balconesfault // May 18, 2009 at 3:00 pm
sinz: Let’s keep the discussion centered around that, and avoid useless buzzwords like “free economy” and “socialism.”
Amen. I’ve been stymied on how a 35% tax rate is free market, but a 38% rate is socialism … how public healthcare is socialism, but public education is not.
The labels just dumb down the argument. You’re right – it is a mixed economy, and truth be told it functions well on a very narrow path. As we saw in the 70’s, veer too far to the left, and it gets in trouble. As we saw in the 00’s, veer too far to the right, and it gets in trouble.
62 sinz54 // May 19, 2009 at 7:07 am
balconesfault: I agree with you in principle, but with public education you picked a bad example. Public education is, for the most part, a local affair–local school boards, education funded through property taxes, etc. Whereas public healthcare is Federal–a vast expansion of the Federal government, which is anathema to many conservatives.
I wonder if the GOP base would feel better about public healthcare if it was run primarily by the states, as in Massachusetts, instead of being run by the Federal government.
63 The Music Stops on the Man with Perfect Pitch | THE D.C. WRITEUP // Aug 6, 2009 at 1:49 pm
[...] to accept Obama’s nomination rather than position himself for the 2012 presidential election. David Frum has noted that the party may not yet be ready for Huntsman’s brand of moderate Republicanism. This became [...]
You must log in to post a comment.