That's the take in "Huntsman, Interrupted," a long essay at The New Republic. The essay speculates that Utah Governor Jon Huntsman knows 2012 is too early for the GOP to reinvent itself and be receptive to a presidential candidate positioned on the left side of the GOP spectrum on social issues, as he apparently is now. So, instead, he'll go to China and avoid the potentially disastrous elections in 2010 and 2012, then return for a run in 2016 having avoided Republican infighting and with excellent foreign policy credentials. (Although 2008 showed you can get to the White House with no foreign policy experience ... still, I like the idea that people think a presidential candidate should have some.)
The Mormon angle gets covered, of course.
Huntsman seems to have learned another lesson from the Romney campaign: A Mormon, no matter how conservative, cannot win amongst the right wing of the party--particularly evangelicals. Romney thought he could win their favor by becoming a drum-beating social conservative, underestimating the deep-rooted antipathy many evangelicals have toward Mormons. A recent Pew poll found that 39 percent of evangelicals hold negative views of Mormons--a sentiment Mike Huckabee used against Romney. ... In light of Romney's experience, the more likely base for Huntsman would have been the moderate wing of the party, which is less concerned with religion in general (and the LDS church specifically).
So a qualified and electable Republican candidate apparently decides he is better off spending four years as a diplomat in China representing a Democratic president than continuing his course as a successful and rising Republican politician. This is in part because of the role of Evangelicals within the party. This should make whoever is running the Republican Party these days lose some sleep.
Earlier posts on this topic:
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
My name,
I'm well aware of his pedigree. My understanding is that he is not especially active, and that this is well known on Capitol Hill but is not common knowledge in Utah as a whole.
With Utah now the fastest growing state in the US and Mormons increasingly coming out of the woodwork in media and politics, it will only be a matter of time before the doors (and glass ceilings) are broken down.
Remember, the Baptist movement in the 17th Century was considered a roque heresy in its day, it followed a similar trajectory before stagnating. It is the Mormons turn, this is simply poetic justice.
Very simply, the reason why Brother Huntsman accepted the post is that he KNOWS he can NEVER become President--UNLESS he switches parties and renounces pretty much everything he had done as Governor--which I doubt will happen. Accepting an ambassador appointment from a President from the opposite political party pretty much kills any presidential aspiration in your party--unless you defect. Let's look at history. I may be wrong, but the last President of the United States who accepted a major political appointment from a President of the opposite party--without defecting--was Theodore Roosevelt--and that was only because Roosevelt had been a holdover from the previous Republican administration (Benjamin Harrison), and he and then-President Stephen Grover Cleveland were personal friends. No party base will let a presidential aspirant get away with accepting a major political appointment from a President with divergent political philosophies--and interests!
But, absent a defection, accepting such an appointment makes perfect sense if one has worldwide business interests, and wants a competitive edge in an emerging market of more than one billion people, with the second-largest GDP in the world.
Jon Huntsman knows that his political career is dead in the water. However, being an Ambassador will probably help to resurrect his BUSINESS career!
I hope all my fellow Mormons realize that the republican party doesn't want us, and we shouldn't want them. The republican party's platform clashes with almost all of our most sacred beliefs. Bruce R. McConkie was democrat, as was James E. Faust, and John H. Groberg. And those are only the ones we know of. I am willing to bet that the majority of the General Authorities are democrats but have opted to keep quiet for fear of causing too much disarray in the church.
Eric, could you explain how the Republican Party's platform clashes with almost all sacred Mormon beliefs? (And, I assume, how the Democratic Party's platform synchs with Mormon beliefs?) I am not LDS (I just wandered into this discussion by following links), but I am a Republican. Back in the 1970s, I went to high school in a small town in Northern Arizona--a town that was at least 90% LDS. Most of the Mormons I knew were Democrats. In fact, Northern Arizona was such a Democratic stronghold that many Republicans registered as Democrats just so they would have someone to vote for in primary elections. Now, my old town is overwhelmingly Republican, and the majority of Mormons I know are Republican. And, ususally, they are the most conservative of Republicans. None of these people are stupid. So, if the Republican Party's platform conflicst with their sacred beliefs, how do you explain their affiliation? Were they hypnotized?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.