Governor No More
In a brief ceremony at the White House today, President Barack Obama tapped Utah Governor John Huntsman to serve as United States Ambassador to China — his chief envoy to the world’s most populous country.
Reelected in 2008 by a record margin as a moderate Republican in an exceedingly conservative state, party elites and strategists were quick to point to the rising star as a potential challenger to the president. But given today’s interesting political calculus, the prospect of Huntsman now staging a challenge to Obama is exceptionally low.
Having carved out a reputation as a would-be-modernizer and pragmatic conservative on divisive social issues, Huntsman was right to test the waters. It seems he waded a little too deep for Obama’s comfort, however.
No less than the chief architect of Obama’s campaign David Plouffe has expressed concern over Huntsman’s budding portfolio. While he admits no potential candidate makes him “shake in his shoes,” he concedes the potential of a Huntsman bid leaves him a “wee bit queasy.”
By all accounts, Huntsman stood a good chance at securing the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, if only for the fact that he is the conservative antithesis of Obama: He’s a moderate, young, and attractive politician. Those are the grounds on which Obama won, and those are the grounds on which they fear he’ll lose it in 2012.
By co-opting Huntsman, Obama will have successfully pacified the lone Republican 2012 challenger, thereby ensuring a stable route to victory. Then, of course, is the knowledge that he’ll likely receive Republican praise for his gesture of bipartisanship, however politically shrewd it may be.
Obama is an impressively calculating politician, perhaps more so than his former opponent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As such, he realizes a nomination of this nature will offer Huntsman the last needed ingredient for presidential success: foreign policy bona fides.
Ambassadorships are not token appointments, and certainly not those to emerging economic and military superpowers. Before he was elected to the Offices of Vice President and later President of the United States, George H. W. Bush served as Ambassador to China from 1974 to 1975. If Plouffe is “queasy” now, Obama just ensured he’ll be reaching for Pepto with some frequency in eight years.
After running the greatest candidate-centered campaign of history, Obama is principally focused on his reelection campaign in 2012. It is of little concern, then, that he will have propelled Huntsman to the national stage in 2016 by no doing of his own. The Obama campaign is interested in building an Obama-coalition, not a Democratic-coalition. With the candidate gone and the movement over, the 2016 Democratic nominee will be tasked with the unenviable undertaking of reassembling a diverse coalition of voters, one liable to have already fractured when campaign promises were either not met or broken in the course of governing.
If a lasting Democratic majority was not, in fact, built on the heels of the Obama campaign, and Democrats must weather electoral losses in 2016, President Obama will surely take solace in the knowledge that his legacy as a two-term president remains intact.
“Better they lose than I,” I suspect he said to his advisors when mulling this nomination.
UPDATE: Obama is indeed a politically cunning animal whose calculations would likely leave Machiavelli blushing, there is no doubt about it. But is he cunning enough to engineer a lasting Democratic majority? Andrew Sullivan disagrees with me on that count, and contends the long-term effects of neutralizing all the sane, moderate Republicans — by bringing the Huntsmans and Crists into Obama’s orbit — will leave the G.O.P. permanently crippled, and with littles means to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. After having removed all Republicans who dare challenge the social conservative orthodoxy, Republicans will be left with Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh.
One doesn’t need to challenge the social conservative orthodoxy to register as a rising star, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt…
UPDATE II: Quoting me as giving Huntsman a pass for accepting a job in the Obama Administration, Politico joins in the fray with even more Huntsman speculation.
UPDATE III: Slate’s Micky Kaus asks, “Does Obama really want to ruthlessly eliminate all major threats to his reelection?”
My sense is no, but the ‘elimination’ of all immediate opposition is certainly a byproduct of Obama’s preference for short-term expediency.
[...] By all accounts, Huntsman stood a good chance at securing the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, if only for the fact that he is the conservative antithesis of Obama: He’s a moderate, young, and attractive politician. Those are the grounds on which Obama won, and those are the grounds on which they fear he’ll lose it in 2012. [...]
>> he is the conservative antithesis of Obama: He’s a moderate, young, and attractive politician.
Antithesis– I do not think it means what you think it means. I suggest “counterpart of”, “reflection of”, or “answer to”. Good luck. Good writing.
Obama didn’t neutralize a threat by asking Huntsman to be ambassador to China. There is no way that a Mormon moderate in favor of civil unions for gay people would get the Republican nomination in 2012. No way in hell. That’s the reason Huntsman took this gig; you don’t take a job in an administration belonging to a rival party if you are thinking of running for President in 2012.
Obama did this because, first of all, Huntsman is qualified, and secondly, it burnishes his own “bipartisan” cred.
Kat – Yes, but also Obama has effectively been trying to pick his opponents for both domestic policies and electoral contests.
Consider how the Left, with WH egging, were rather successful in framing Limbaugh as the leader of the GOP, with all those supposed prominent Republicans (including RNC Chairman) apologizing publicly to Rusho. Then with the Stimulus, the Jindal/Sanford Rep. Governors who opposed it, then embarrased when that Stimulus clause forced Governors to announce if they are to receive the funds or not. Brilliant! Buy that South Carolina Congressman a steak dinner!
And as for electoral: I’m reminded of Nixon’s efforts (especially his Plumbers) to make the Democrats nominate a fringe polarizing candidate like McGovern in 1972, which Nixon could (and did) easily defeat. Thus the Plumbers helped to sabotage Ed Muskie’s campaign, who was a much stronger and tougher figure for Nixon.
Then after another ‘72 Democratic front-runner in George Wallace was shot, same Nixon boys then (supposedly) tried to plant McGovern campaign literature in the gunman’s residence, so to alienate Wallace’s blue collar/southern white voters into Tricky Dick’s camp.
As for Obama and ‘12, I think his White House is trying if possible to make Sarah Palin the GOP nominee, if possible she’s probably the easiest opponent for Obama, much like Mondale in ‘84, McGovern in ‘72, and Dole in ‘96.
Just imagine a Obama/Palin debate. See? When its Something vs Nothing, Something always wins.
Consider too that with the Huntsman appointment, Obama just decapitated a possible immediate future more moderate/sane national path for the Party.
Charlie Crist is running for Senate, so cross him off. Maybe he and Huntsman run in ‘16 as the Hart/Clinton types in dragging the party back to the center to win again.
Palin is popular with that fringe base running the GOP now, but she’s deconstructing just fine without Obama’s help. If anything, if based off her movements so far, I would think she already assumes she’s got the nomination under lock and key. Yeah, like Hillary.
Huckabee is like Palin, if more likeable, a competent (at least) candidate, and not as dogmatic-redmeat as her. Plus he’s friendly. To quote what Bill Clinton supposedly said of Huckabee, in the last 80s: “Mike is the nicest right-wing psychopath you’ll ever meet.”
Huck’s problem in ‘08, unless I’m mistaken, was that many Republicans feared that his Evangelical campaign(Dubya-esque) wouldn’t have a fart’s chance of winning the general election. Plus Wall Street wasn’t with him, which Huckster needs to fix.
Tim Pawlenty is a weak candidate too. Sure the media will make him be the “moderate” primary candidate, but….he has the same problem that I have with Palin and Huckabee. I don’t see any of them as being PRESIDENT for real, you know? Vice-President and Cabinet? Sure, but not Commander-in-Chief.
And yes, this blog was right about Mitt Romney as having the goods to be a serious candidate, but the base will never openly back a former pro-choice Governor, much less that he’s a Mormon. Its strange how the Mormons in the GOP like blacks were for decades in the Democratic fold*: Reliable foot soldiers and voters, but don’t give them a serious slice of the power pie.
Palin is Obama’s dream challenger in 2012, the hardest probably Romney of those that remain. But if its Palin or Huckabee or Sanford or anyone of them that try to run a Reagan/Newt-stylized cliche campaign, Obama theoretically can marginalize either as an “out of touch” edge candidate that are pimping out the same old failed ideas.
Again, its like Ronald Reagan in 1984. No Democrat could have beaten him that year. And I dont see any GOPer beating “That One” in ‘12.
*=Redundant to point out, but they have the biggest slice now. And they deservedly are enjoying it. yum yum! :)
[...] James Richardson explains the dynamics: [...]
It’s a brilliant move by Obama, but as James Richardson pointed out, a long-term risk for Democrats. It takes Huntsman out of the running for 2012, when a still popular Obama is likely to win. If Republicans are lucky, then Palin will get the nomination in 2012 and subsequently be demolished, thereby removing one albatross from the neck of the GOP forever. That lets Huntsman and Jindal swoop down in 2016. If the Republicans are lucky and Huntsman and Jindal perform up to expectations, then the GOP could have control of the White House until January 2033.
Let’s not forget that Pappy Bush barely lost to Clinton in 1992, really only because of Ross Perot. So there is no rule that says there cannot be four straight Republican presidents. That is potentially what could happen.
Again, this is a brilliant move by Obama, but a HUGE long-term risk for Democrats. In a way (assuming Obama has thought through the long-term implications of this appointment), it really does burnish Obama’s bi-partisan credentials. Obama did it because Huntsman was so brilliantly qualified, not caring about the long-term damage to his party.
[...] Cross-posted at Skepticians.com. [...]
[...] Instead, he appears to have opted out entirely. Putting him in the cabinet means he’s basically out for 2012, and while it makes him an even more interesting candidate for 2016, one can’t imagine this [...]
Perhaps I’m missing something but doesn’t this mean that Mr. Huntsman will be spending a lot of time in Beijing. As in Beijing, China, as in the country that is on the other side of the world from the United States? How exactly is that a great launching pad for a presidential campaign? Americans, traditionally, don’t care about what happens in other countries for the most part. And even if some Americans do, you better believe that the MSM doesn’t. I would wager that Mr. Huntsman is about to step into a deep political black hole.
Comparisons to George H.W. Bush don’t pan out. Before he got his ambassadorship, Bush was a multi-millionaire Washington insider, a leader in building the Republican Party in Texas and the son of a prominent US Senator. And even considering all that, Bush could only get to the White House via Ronald Reagan.
Besides all that, is Huntsman’s Mormon faith going to automatically be more tolerable in 2016, to the right-wing evangelical Christians who hold considerable sway in the GOP? Or how about his pro-civil union stance, the same stance that recently got him disinvited from conservative gatherings across the country?
Personally, Huntsman seems like a hell of a guy but I think the very worst thing he can do for his political future is take this ambassadorship. No, this is all about 2016, not 2012. Obama is doing this precisely as a favor to his party. After all, if the economy is better in November 2012 than it was in November 2008, no one can stop Obama. If it’s not, well, most likely no one can save him.
I’d also like to address a few points Henry made.
“Let’s not forget that Pappy Bush barely lost to Clinton in 1992, really only because of Ross Perot.”
Do you have any actual evidence of this? Any supporter of Perot obviously wanted change, particularly in economic matters. So wouldn’t that make them more like to support the Democratic challenger if Perot had not run, instead of the Republican incumbent? In other words, without Perot, Clinton’s margin of victory in 1992 would have been even larger?
To me, this sounds like another attempt to marginalize every Democratic WH win. As if every time a Democratic wins, there must be some freak cause, where as when the GOP wins, it’s just the natural order of things.
“If the Republicans are lucky and Huntsman and Jindal perform up to expectations, then the GOP could have control of the White House until January 2033.”
I don’t mean to infer any disrespect, but this is so damned fantastical, absurd does not do the notion justice. You don’t really believe this, do you? This is worse than the prospect that was bandied about in the early 1960’s, that the Kennedy brothers would own the WH from 1960 until 1984.
If the Republicans are lucky…..in rigging the voting machines, yes this could happen. Huntsman just got reelected in 2008, so he only has served one term prior to his ambassadorship.
And Jindal has only been governor for about 1 and ½ years. The governor of Louisiana, a state where rampant political corruption is actually a joke. (See the Edwards vs. Duke Governor’s race) But he’s going to reform the state right? Jindal is going to do what no one else has ever been able to do before. And he’s going to do this in the midst of the worst economic climate in 70 years? Is it going to be any better than his speech in response to Obama’s faux State of the Union? That wasn’t exactly Reagan’s 1964 speech to the Republican National Convention, now was it?
Kat said…
“There is no way that a Mormon moderate in favor of civil unions for gay people would get the Republican nomination in 2012. No way in hell.”
A non-Mormon moderate in favor of civil unions did win the nomination in 2008. Do you really think Huntsman can’t win because he’s moderate? Or do you think he’s blocked because he’s Mormon?
Nuada,
Here is a sample of 1 on the Perot issue.
I voted for Bush in 1988, Perot in 1992, and Dole in 1996. Just because I had issues with Bush’s reelection campaign didn’t mean I wanted Clinton in office.
People who wanted Clinton could vote for Clinton. People who wanted change but not Clinton could only vote for Perot.
Isn’t it easier to imagine that he’s working to prevent criticism? That by bringing people who would be effective critics inside the tent he strengthens his reelection prospects much more directly?
[...] Cross-posted at Skepticians.com. Sphere: Related Content Share on: Facebook | digg_url = ‘http://beta.redstate.com/jrichardson/2009/05/16/governor-no-more/’; digg_title = ‘Governor No More’; digg_skin = ‘compact’; | Reddit Category: 2012, 2016, Barack Obama, Jon Huntsman [...]