Utah Governor Jon Huntsman to Represent US in Beijing
In a pretty unexpected development, the Obama administration is tapping Utah Governor Jon Huntsman to be America’s ambassador to China. One’s thoughts, naturally, flow initially to the domestic politics as Huntsman was one of a relatively small number of prominent Republicans to have avoided a turn to the far-right over the past 12 months and seemed like the guy many progressives thought could best put a politically credible mainstream face on conservatism.
In these terms, though, I think the most interesting calculation isn’t Obama’s but Huntsman’s. You’ve got to figure that Huntsman’s decided that he couldn’t possible win a presidential primary, so he’ll take the gig.
Huntsman, meanwhile, seems very well-qualified. He’s been US Ambassador to Singapore and US Deputy Trade Representative and he speaks Mandarin fluently. The United States isn’t always so good about picking diplomats with meaningful regional and linguistic background in the area they’re supposed to work in, and I tend to favor any break with that trend. Picking a Republican also signifies that for all the problems with the Bush-era foreign policy, the Obama administration recognizes that US-China relations stayed on an even keel and there’s bipartisan commitment to the idea of a constructive, cooperative Sino-American relationship.
42 Responses to “Utah Governor Jon Huntsman to Represent US in Beijing”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Matt,
I’d be curious to see what the analysis is of his religion. Mormonism is a highly-evangelical religion (in that it actively seeks converts) and China has the Communist-era viewpoint that Religion vs. State is a Zero-Sum Game.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Seems like two birds with one stone. We get a qualified ambassador, and also get one of the few non-crazy Republicans to go into exile, thus assuring Democratic dominance for decades. Maybe this will set up a template: whenever a Republican says something sane, you send him/her as ambassador to a faraway country.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Why would he give up a governorship for an ambassadorship. If he has national aspirations, this makes no sense. As TS says, this would be sending him into exile.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Utahns are not surprised. Huntsman has been pretty obviously angling for an appointment of some kind, and since McCain didn’t get elected he has to take what Obama wants to offer. Utah is a dead end for him, the local Republicans are even more right-wing than the national party.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Putting your last two posts together, Huntsman seems to be pretty good on the environment. He helped facilitate a regional cap-and-trade arraqngement and spoke in Shanghai recently about the need for the US and China to work together on environmental issues. Air pollution is a big problem in Utah, and most of it comes from outside.
At first it seemed like a bizarre choice, but the more I read about Hunstman it makes sense. He seems to be a very smart and capable guy. Utah and today’s GOP are obviously dead ends for him. So he gets an important job with a chance to make a real mark on one of the top problems we face while somehwat removed from the pressure cooker of DC and the dysfunctional GOP. If he does well, he can parlay it into something with a rejuvenated GOP, or the new conservative party if one forms from the wreckage of the GOP down the road.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Just wondering. How many really conservative Republicans with English as a first language can claim fluency in another language? Does knowing multiple languages correlate with being more politically moderate?
May 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
How many really conservative Republicans with English as a first language can claim fluency in another language? Does knowing multiple languages correlate with being more politically moderate?
I can assure you, most gladly, it is a hearty “no”. I know English, Latin, French, and two Asian languages, and some (ancient) Greek. I am by no means a conservative “wet”. In fact, I am an hardline libertarian conservative.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
It is simple, really. Huntsman couldn’t possibly win the nomination in 2012, especially as Utahns currently favour SuperRomney by a wide margin (so do I).
I suspect there is a fighting chance that Romney will be nominated in 2012, as long as the party elders do their share and convince the ranks to avoid the crazies. And if he is nominated, he has a very decent chance against Obama, as long as the economy stays in the abyss it is right now. At the end of the day, it is all about the economy, and Romney is, after all, the Salt Lake Olympics saviour.
Right now, the only two Republicans with any sort of credible chance against Obama are Romney, and (this is not a joke) Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush is actually incredibly popular in Florida; think about that means in terms of his campaign, as Florida, like California, is one of the “aspirational” parts of the country. Huntsman is a very good candidate, but not until 2016.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Damn. This is so rational and positive I’m dumbfounded.
This guy is honest, intelligent, knows his stuff, and can drop back into American politics after the blowhards and wingnuts have ruined the Republican party entirely and someone is needed to pick up the pieces.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Still, Huntsman has a much better chance than the various GOP governors (Pawlenty, etc). He has a much better image, I think, and is capable delivering a much better campaign.
However, given the GOP picked the disaster choice of McCain in 2008 (I wept on the day that Romney conceded), I hardly trust them to get things right in 2012.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
You’ve got to figure that Huntsman’s decided that he couldn’t possible win a presidential primary, so he’ll take the gig.
Or that he can win a presidential primary so he’ll take the gig. Seems to me “foreign policy credentials burnishing” is covered on the first day of Presidential Politics 101.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
It comes across as a really good pick. China is one of those posts where the top job isn’t considered a cushy reward (London, Paris, Canberra), but also generally requires a high-profile appointment from outside the existing Foreign Service structure. The Bush ambassador was a lawyer based in SE Asia and former commercial attaché (and DKE frat bud of Bush).
A no-drama appointment: the confirmation should be a breeze, and since he’s only 48, a domestic career afterwards (perhaps more likely in the Cabinet than elected office) isn’t closed to him.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
On the political calculus: the next few years, even with an economic uptick, are not going to be easy ones for sitting governors. Palin’s re-election isn’t a foregone conclusion; more Minnesotans wants Pawlenty to stand down than run for a third term; Jindal isn’t ready for primetime.
In short, Myles is right (sound the bloody fanfares) to consider Jeb! and Romney as the Republicans most likely to make it to 2012 unscathed.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
And there are many conservatives who at least expressed doubts about Bush.
You’re assuming that Senate Republicans won’t filibuster his nomination. Who knows what those crazy fools will do?
Or that he can win a presidential primary so he’ll take the gig. Seems to me “foreign policy credentials burnishing” is covered on the first day of Presidential Politics 101.
Yes, but if he spends the next three years in Beijing he’s isn’t winning squat. He may be looking towards 2016, though.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
You’re assuming that Senate Republicans won’t filibuster his nomination. Who knows what those crazy fools will do?
Let’s be clear; the Republican rank-and-file is stupid. The Senate GOP is not, at least not largely (excluding McCain, DeMint, Vitter, etc). These are largely fairly clever people with solidly conservative views, much like Senator Sessions, for example.
Let me refresh your memory: the Senate conservatives were the only thing standing between the country and labour dominance in the post-war era, with Sen. Taft leading the charge via Taft-Hartley. No need to let your dislike of the GOP colour your judgment. If I want to count on any conservatives in power in this country, it would be the High Catholics on the bench and the Republicans in the Senate.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Right now, the only two Republicans with any sort of credible chance against Obama are Romney, and (this is not a joke) Jeb Bush.
Well, it’s tempting but basically non-productive to talk about anybody’s chances against Obama “right now.” Far better to simply handicap the various Republicans’ chances at the nomination. I suspect any nominee will have a decent chance against Obama if the economy sucks in 2012, and I suspect any nominee will have almost no shot at all in 2012 if the economy is growing robustly. Anyway, I would add Gingrich, Huckabee and yes, Dick Cheney to the list of GOP possibilities. The former VP in my view is clearly throwing a Hail Mary in the off chance that a major terrorist attack is successfully launched against the country. With a broad swathe of the electorate, he’d instantly go from being a sinister and deeply unserious crazy person to a sage defender of America.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
[...] Matt Y: [...]
May 16th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Yes, but if he spends the next three years in Beijing he’s isn’t winning squat. He may be looking towards 2016, though
Sure, although I don’t think serving in China for a couple of years and then resigning to run is completely impossible. More likely, though, is the reasoning “hmm, taking this job makes me prime running mate material.”
May 16th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Anyway, I would add Gingrich, Huckabee and yes, Dick Cheney to the list of GOP possibilities. The former VP in my view is clearly throwing a Hail Mary in the off chance that a major terrorist attack is successfully launched against the country.
One ought be convinced of the Apocalypse if Gingrich manages to be nominated for president. In fact, I was nearly so when McCain was nominated. And Cheney isn’t even running. Huckabee is a nut.
You are talking about comedy figures here, not serious politicians (notwithstanding Newt’s great contribution to political change, via Contract with America. That was probably the most important Republican initiative in a generation.)
May 16th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
You are talking about comedy figures here
Um, yes, but we’re also talking about GOP primary voters and interest groups.
I didn’t mention Palin, either, and maybe I should have, but she seemed completely beyond her dept to my eyes in 2008. The others, though, without exception, are all capable politicians. And there was never more of a cartoon figure than George W. Bush.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
And there was never more of a cartoon figure than George W. Bush.
And thus you betray your ignorance. Bush was intended to be the face of conservatism, and the face only. He has a perfect resume: Yale, Harvard, Texas Gov., business ownership, plus the family lineage. He was essentially a Dan Quayle pick. No smart Republican counted on him making policy. His best policies, i.e. his Beijing policy, weren’t even originated from the White House.
Of course, that didn’t work out as intended. Had it worked (and most likely it would have worked had the 9/11 incident not given Bush a Messiah complex), we would have avoided foreign wars, and focused on reforming domestic entitlements and federal programs, in addition to getting a charter/voucher education system in place.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
(It was a bunch of Kissinger-esque old hands who explained to Bush how delicate the Beijing situation is, and got him to follow through on a very good line of policy. That Cheney wasn’t anti-Beijing also helped.)
May 16th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Another question; why is it that Republicans are always so much better dealing with Beijing than Democrats? Starting from Nixon/Kissinger, to Bush, to now a GOP ambassador, it seems like the Democrats still haven’t got the trick about dealing with Beijing. Nancy Pelosi, that supreme fool, even started blabbering about karma or some other such nonsense a bit back, when there was the Tibetan incident.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I am also rather impressed by how fast Obama got up to speed on the Beijing matter; the learning curve is incredibly steep (wrapping one’s head around that fact that this isn’t a Freedom Vs. Tyranny situation can be difficult for some), and that Obama has gotten the gist of how this beast works rather bespeaks well of his diplomatic abilities.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
And thus you betray your ignorance. Bush was intended to be the face of conservatism, and the face only.
Miles: even pedigreed politicians still have to do things like participate in debates and talk to reporters. The fact of the matter is grossly incompetent man won the presidency in 2000.
Your initial point (I thought) was that the various right wingers I mentioned (Gingrich, Cheney, etc) were somehow incapable of winning the nomination because they’re “comedy” figures. I think you’re wrong. Dick Cheney may be a lot of things, but he’s not funny. Gingrich is mockcable, but he’s popular with lots of Republicans, can raise tons of money, and can expound on policy. Huckabee is highly polished in front of the media, and acquitted himself extremely well in 2008. I also should mention Giuliani, who I think could be back for round II were he to win the NY governorship.
Anyway, I think Romney is very likely the early favorite at this point (or Jeb were he to run), but there are certainly credible rivals for the nomination, your breezy dismissal notwithstanding.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Just wondering. How many really conservative Republicans with English as a first language can claim fluency in another language? Does knowing multiple languages correlate with being more politically moderate?
For Mormons in particular, probably not. Huntsman knows Mandarin just because he went on mission in Taiwan.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Another question; why is it that Republicans are always so much better dealing with Beijing than Democrats?
Miles: That’s nonsense. It’s a mixed picture. Nixon went to China, but Carter established relations. Bush I was manifestly incapable of influencing events one iota amidst the slaughter of Tienanmen Square. We had a fairly productive relationship with the PRC while Bill Clinton was in office. Bush II started off his tenure with a messy contretemps in the South China Sea…
May 16th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Re Myles SG
Jeb Bush? This the same Jeb Bush who made a fool of himself in the Terri Schiavo affair?
David Vitter? This the same David Vitter who likes to visit prostitutes? Well, we can say that at least it was girls.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
This the same Jeb Bush who made a fool of himself in the Terri Schiavo affair?
His hand was forced.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
These are largely fairly clever people with solidly conservative views, much like Senator Sessions, for example.
And normal service resumes.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
If I want to count on anyone to filibuster and stall a potentially hard-liberal supreme court appointee, Sessions is the man. He’s a bigot, but he’s got the brains to do the job of making sure no hard leftist goes through confirmation unnoticed and unquestioned.
He is the man for the job. Grassley doesn’t have the stomach for the requisite nastiness of judicial confirmations.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
On another note, I much rather have a nasty bigot like Sessions rather than a bleeding-heart like Poppy Bush screening something as important and influential as high court appointments. The appointment of Souter was one of those miscalculations only Poppy could make.
I think the phrase, describing Generalissimo Chiang, applies here to Sen. Sessions: “He’s a nasty son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.”
May 16th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Re Myles SG
I think the phrase, describing Generalissimo Chiang, applies here to Sen. Sessions: “He’s a nasty son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.”
Actually, the phrase was supposedly uttered by President Roosevelt and he was referring to dictator Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, not Chiang Kai Shek.
May 16th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
re: Jeb Bush is actually incredibly popular in Florida
I lived in Florida until last year and the above is absolutely false. Jeb Bush is popular, at most, with the GOP rightwing. With the rest of the Florida electorate he is not so well regarded: he gets high marks for hurricane preparedness, but otherwise his eight years in office were a waste of time with too little was accomplished (Bush was quite incompetent in working with the legislature) and the current mess in the state was allowed to fester and brew. The popular GOP figure in Florida today is certainly not Jeb Bush– it’s Charlie Crist.
Re: and focused on reforming domestic entitlements and federal programs, in addition to getting a charter/voucher education system in place.
Do you know anything about how things work in this country? Educational policy is set at the state level, not in Washington. Nothing that the federal govermment does will create a voucher system in education. Moreover most Republican rank-and-file voters don’t want anything to do with such a system. They like their exclusive public schools in their gated exurbs. It keeps their kids from rubbing elbows with the masses, and it’s a major factor in the value of their housing, even today after the bust.
May 16th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
They like their exclusive public schools in their gated exurbs. It keeps their kids from rubbing elbows with the masses, and it’s a major factor in the value of their housing, even today after the bust.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting dismantling the wealthy suburban public schools.
May 16th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Myles talks about the US as if it’s Narnia: a country that doesn’t exist populated with wood nymphs that live only in his head. As someone with a lot of family connections throughout the British Commonwealth, I’ve run into his type of weird conservative old-style pseudo-aristocratic wannabe fetishists a lot and they’re always unintentionally funny.
May 16th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
In these terms, though, I think the most interesting calculation isn’t Obama’s but Huntsman’s. You’ve got to figure that Huntsman’s decided that he couldn’t possible win a presidential primary, so he’ll take the gig.
Why do you have to figure that? I understand it’s fun for you to use this as another argument that anyone sane has no chance in a Republican primary, but it seems equally if not more logical to believe that he’s concerned with the general election. Given the current state of the Republican Party, there’s a poor chance of any Republican winning in 2012. The ambassadorship gives Huntsman strong foreign policy credentials related to a nation of vital interest to the US, which would be valuable in any 2016 campaign.
May 16th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Oh, and one more thing. A recession is a tough time to be a governor anywhere, so he’s protecting his popularity ratings by getting a job overseas instead of having to make unpopular cuts.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
As someone with a lot of family connections throughout the British Commonwealth, I’ve run into his type of weird conservative old-style pseudo-aristocratic wannabe fetishists a lot and they’re always unintentionally funny.
It’s funny how you equate being conservative with being weird wanna fetishists. Prejudice, anyone?
May 17th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Myles SG,
Many leftists really believe you have to have an ulterior motive not to believe in their dogma. “We’ll give everything to everyone with no cost!” – who could possibly be against that if they aren’t profiting directly from the status quo? On racial issues, they can even toss away an entire demographic’s viewpoint by invoking the magic word of “privilege”.
May 17th, 2009 at 10:47 am
[...] But there’s more to it, and Mathew Yglesias says the whole thing is rather unexpected: [...]
May 21st, 2009 at 8:19 am
I much rather have a nasty bigot like Sessions rather than a bleeding-heart like Poppy Bush screening something as important and influential as high court appointments. The appointment of Souter was one of those miscalculations only Poppy could make.