You are here: Home / Archives for jon huntsman

Jon Huntsman – A Case of Style Obscuring the Substance?

November 22, 2011 by 3 Comments
John Huntsman Announces Bid For Presidency At NJ's Liberty State Park

Thus far, in the continual carousel of GOP frontrunners, we’ve had Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, the fixture, Mitt Romney.  Tim Pawlenty ran out of money and dropped out too early to have his day in the sun, Ron Paul is the guy a few people love and the rest of us like from a distance, and Rick Santorum has fallen victim to “fighting the last second-to-last war” syndrome — everything out of his mouth seems tailor made for 2004.

But what about Jon Huntsman?  When is it his turn as King of the Mountain?  Indeed, a Chicago Tribune article came out last week asking this very question:  ”Why Not Jon Huntsman?”  Here’s a guy with a great domestic governing record, consistent fiscal conservative credentials, no health care reform baggage (he was a market solutions guy in Utah), and the only significant foreign policy experience of *any* GOP candidate or wannabe candidate (Christie, Ryan, Daniels, Jindal, and Barbour included).  So what’s taking so long for the GOP to embrace him?

Well, he did have that moment on climate change.  And he supports civil unions for same-sex couples.  Oh, and there was that bit about being Obama’s ambassador to China.  These are the conventional reasons people disqualify him.  But I don’t buy any of them.  I mean, remember, Rick Perry mandates vaccines and opposes “heartless” immigration policy, Newt wants to send your children to work as janitors, Mitt passed Obamacare lite in Massachusetts — and they’ve all been embraced by voters for a time.  Indeed, Huntsman’s break with the orthodoxy are really pretty minor.

No, there’s something more at play here, and I read an article a few days ago that I think hits it right on the head:  ”Huntsman:  The Candidate Killed by Style.”  Here’s a quote:

Huntsman seems to muster more animosity toward his fellow candidates than Obama, making him seem like an outsider to many conservatives.   But again, chastising Rick Perry and Mitt Romney for bickering, is not an issue of substance…it is an issue of style.

But let me be clear about this…Jon Huntsman has contributed to the stylistic cross upon which his campaign has been crucified.  From his overly thought out “H” logo…to his hipster motorcycle ads…to his snarky jokes on the debate stage…to his daughters’ SNL-style spoof of Herman Cain’s smoking ad…Jon Huntsman is playing the presidential version of a mean girl.  Everything is calculated for effect.  Everything filtered through “cool”.  And it comes off as condescending.

Some, like my friend SE Cupp, would say that Huntsman stands to the left of the Republican Party on many big issues such as civil unions and foreign policy. And I would say, first that there is a great debate taking place on the right about both of these issues. But…I truthfully don’t think many conservative voters have judged the merits of Jon Huntsman’s positions.  I think they see a condescending man who worked for Obama and immediately dismiss him. And in a way, I don’t blame them.

The lesson for Huntsman, though, is…don’t do this.  The lesson for conservative voters is, in the words of Barry Goldwater (yes, again), “to disagree, one doesn’t have to be disagreeable.”  We should judge these candidates on their substance, not their style, because in the words of Jon Huntsman: voters “should not confuse a moderate temperament with a moderate record.”

Is Jon Huntsman’s problem that he goes around acting like he thinks knows he’s better than everyone he’s running against?  And when I say “better,” I don’t mean the typical “I’m the guy you need to do the job — not him” type of better.  I’m talking about the “you’re stupid and I’m not” type of better.  I think this is definitely part of it.

But I believe there’s even more to it than this.  After all, Huntsman didn’t start out his campaign attacking every other conservative in sight.  In fact, ironically, he started out with a pledge of civility.  He went into attack mode because he couldn’t get any traction.

No, Jon Huntsman, despite being a solid conservative, often acts a bit like the liberal elite that conservatives distrust.  Everything about him says “intellectual”–and more the Obama type of intellectual than the Gingrich type of intellectual.  And when you combine that with the fact that, during his campaign, Huntsman has run around like he’s trying to save the Republican Party from itself — you don’t have to stretch far to see why conservative primary voters may have been reluctant to embrace him.

No matter what his record, Jon Huntsman just doesn’t seem like a conservative to many of the voters that matter.  And I worry that until he adjusts his style a little bit that reality may not change, which will be too bad for those Republicans, like me, who really like the guy and honestly believe the Republican Party needs a bit of a course correction.

I, for one, am still hoping that Huntsman gets his chance.  Because I think Republicans who take a hard look at him will really like what they see.

For example, take a listen to this:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Filed Under: Election 2012, News, Opinion, Slider Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Anyone But Mitt” Not Going Away — Yet

November 9, 2011 by 4 Comments
iowa-debate-slider

At some point, many of us expect that Republican thought leaders will set aside concerns about religion and flip-flopping and embrace Mill Romney as the GOP nominee for President.  After all, he’s bent over backwards to prove himself to them for over 5 years now.

It may all still happen that way, but it sure is taking an awfully long time.

Herman Cain, despite a growing and poorly-handled sexual harassment scandal, remains, at least according to Real Clear Politics, ahead of Mitt Romney in the national polls.

And with growing concerns about Cain due to the scandal and continual (to the point of disturbing) substantive gaffes on significant issues, the predicted beneficiaries of Cain’s anticipated collapse are . . .  drumroll . . . Newt Gingrich — who suffered a mass campaign resignation while on a vacation cruise and who many openly proclaimed to be running for Vice-President just a couple weeks ago — and Jon Huntsman — the former Obama appointee and self-proclaimed “un-crazy” conservative.

In other words, “not Mitt Romney.”

Don’t believe it?  Here’s a couple headlines from today:

Why Gingrich Could Win

Erick Erickson Gives Jon Huntsman a Second Look

Now, nothing has happened yet, and both Gingrich and Huntsman (more so) have a long way to go before they look anything like serious contenders.  But they’ve got people talking again (and for Huntsman, this time it’s more than centrist/liberal media personality types).

If it hasn’t already, at some point the persistence of the lackluster embrace of the GOP that Romney has worked so hard to cultivate over the past 5 years has to become concerning.  Thus far, Romney’s strategy has been to remain steady and weather each new “flavor of the week” storm as it’s come along.  He’s pulled it off with aplomb:

  • He’s performed admirably in each debate.
  • He’s systematically destroyed his media-appointed primary rival, Rick Perry (though not without a significant amount of help from Perry himself).
  • He’s obtained endorsements from influential conservatives like Chris Christie, who so many tried desperately to draft to run against Romney.
  • With all of the GOP other than Rick Santorum (and, perhaps, Michelle Bachmann) having abandoned Iowa, Romney is outpolling everyone in New Hampshire, including, thus far, Jon Huntsman, who has invested a significant portion of his life savings there.

You can just hear the refrain coming from the Romney camp right now: “What more can we possibly do, people?  GOP, when are you going to embrace us?”

The answer to that question is clearly, “Not yet.”  Either GOP leaders want to see something more from Romney (hard to imagine what, at this point), or, more likely, they’ve just made up their minds that they’re not going to like him.

And if that’s the case, who else does the GOP have, at this point?  Is the GOP really ready to embrace a Jon Huntsman?  Is Newt Gingrich, substantive and brilliant as he is, a legitimate candidate over the long haul?  Does the GOP look back to Texas for a Rick Perry redux?  Or, hard as it may be to believe, to libertarian darling Ron Paul (there are a whole host of reasons I still believe that this will never happen)?

There’s a lot to like about Mitt Romney.  He has a track record of efficiency and success just about everywhere he’s ever been.  But there’s also the flip-flopping, Romneycare, Mormonism, and his stint as Massachusetts governor — and all that may just be too much for more “bonafide” or “traditional” conservatives to stomach.

President Obama is extraordinarily weak right now.  Much weaker than anyone predicted he would be.  The fact that his persistent weakness is surprising may be one reason for the dearth of conservative darling candidates like Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and Bobby Jindal — who appear to have factored in a 2012 Obama victory and are keeping their powder dry for 2016.

But as formidable an opponent as even a weakened Obama may be, it strikes me that the GOP may, with its “Anyone But Mitt” attitude — especially if (as seems likely) it also can’t get behind someone like a Jon Huntsman — risks bungling an election that it could very well win, ala the Democrats and John Kerry in 2004.

Filed Under: Election 2012, News, Opinion, Slider Tagged With: , , , , ,

A Foreign Service Perspective on Jon Huntsman’s Mandarin

November 1, 2011 by Leave a Comment
John Huntsman Announces Bid For Presidency At NJ's Liberty State Park

The following is a direct quote from a friend in the U.S. Foreign Service in response to my inquiry about the Slate story questioning Jon Huntsman’s fluency in Mandarin.  The quote not only helps explain about the quality of Huntsman’s Mandarin, but contains some interesting insights into the concept of fluency and language as diplomacy:

I thought the article was pretty harsh. It is rare to scrutinize anything so closely and find it flawless. Honestly, I’ve never heard Amb. Huntsman speak much Chinese. I’ve heard him offer greetings and one-line statements is all. So in that regard, the article has some truth. But the real question is what is “fluency.” If fluency is the ability to speak as a well-educated (graduate degree holding) native speaker, then few people are fluent in any language. Defining fluency in Chinese carries the additional burden of incorporating the wide diversity of ways in which Chinese people speak the language. And I’m not referring to the differences between actual langauges in China, such as Cantonese, Taishanese, Fujianese, etc; rather, the very distinct differences within Mandarin. The author seemed to be comparing Huntsman’s Chinese to the Beijing standard. But, in fact, that standard is used by a very small percentage of people. All around the country, and especially in Taiwan, where Huntsman first acquired the languge, Chinese is spoken very differently. There was a point in the article about his unintelligibly saying  “next” for “next” president. However, the way in which the author states that Huntsman said “next” is the most common way I hear people say the word in the area where I live. Further, it is highly encouraged that ambassadors do not converse formally/officially in foreign languages, regardless of how proficient they are. Around the world, we see this (not just with ambassadors from America). Diplomacy is all about language. Slight missteps can cause serious problems. Thus, well-trained, specialized translators are the norm (and a convenient scape goat should misunderstandings arise). Ultimately, I think the author is probably correct, Amb. Huntsman’s Chinese has some flaws. But I think his Chinese is sufficiently fluent to have a positive influence on US/China relations if he were elected president . . . and I think that’s all he is really trying to claim with his declaration of “fluency.”

Filed Under: Election 2012, News, Slider Tagged With: , , , , ,

Frank Bruni, On Jon Huntsman

October 21, 2011 by 1 Comment
John Huntsman Announces Bid For Presidency At NJ's Liberty State Park

Huntsman, the ex-diplomat, placed his own early wager on calmness and nuance, and that has made all the difference. He has tried over time to fire himself up and dumb himself down; according to a University of Minnesota breakdown of recent debates, he shot off more gibes and zingers than most of his rivals. But to my eyes he could never get comfortable doing it and at times looked slightly abashed.

It’s as if he’s still somewhat confounded by the oversimplified discussion he has joined and the underwhelming company he’s keeping. You can’t really blame him. But you can pretty much kiss him goodbye.

From Huntsman, A Nice Guy, Finishing Last.

Filed Under: Election 2012, Quotable Tagged With: , ,

Election 2012 – The Mormon Question . . . Again

October 10, 2011 by Leave a Comment
sl-temple-spires-slider

Here we go.  For Mitt Romney, it’ deja vu all over again — except this time, he’s out front.

It’s not surprising that, despite Mitt’s efforts over the last four years to put religion and flip-flopping behind him — indeed, he’s been absolutely laser-like in staying on the “unite against Obama” message — the Mormon issue has arisen again in Election 2012.

In the 2008 campaign, it surfaced most prominently after remarks made by the guitar-strumming Mike Huckabee, who innocently asked reporters, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?”

This time around, Mormonism has, up till now, been mostly a latent issue, the domain of the curious (rather than the critical), who are just wondering how in the world they’ve all of a sudden got two Mormon contenders (that may, unfortunately, be a generous word in Jon Huntsman’s case — thought I retain some optimism) in the small Republican field.  There was some hope that voters had moved past the religious question in the fervor to oust Obama.

[adsenseyu2]

But it appears that evangelicals were really just keeping their powder dry.  As Mitt approaches consensus front-runner status over more conventional (?) Tea Party, social conservative favorites like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman, Mormonism as disqualifying theology is now back in the spotlight, thanks to these remarks from Robert Jeffress, a Texas pastor from a Dallas megachurch who introduced Rick Perry at the recent Values Voters Summit:

Rick Perry’s a Christian. He’s an evangelical Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ. Mitt Romney’s a good moral person, but he’s not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity, it has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity . . . .

. . .

When I’m talking about a cult, I’m not talking about a sociological cult, but a theological cult. . . . Mormonism was invented 1,800 years after Jesus Christ and the founding of Christianity. It has its own founder, Joseph Smith, its own set of doctrines and even its own book, the Book of Mormon, in addition to the Bible. That by definition is a theological cult.

Ultimately, it’s not surprising that we see this again.

But there has been, in my view, a bit of a surprise in the candidates’ responses to Jeffress remarks.  Some of the remaining Republican candidates were asked to respond to Jeffress and whether they believed that Mormonism was a non-Christian cult, and I’ve collected their responses below, which are striking in their tepidity:

Rick Perry

The governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult. He is not in the business of judging people. That’s God’s job…The conference picked someone to introduce the governor, not us.

Herman Cain

I am not gonna do an analysis of Mormonism versus Christianity for the sake of answering that. I’m not getting into that.

Michelle Bachman

I think what the real focus is here, is on religious tolerance. That’s really what this is about . . . .  To make this a big issue is ridiculous right now, because every day I’m on the street talking to people. This is not what people are talking about.

Ron Paul

Texas Congressman and GOP candidate Ron Paul came to Romney’s defense over Jeffress’ comments about Mormonism. Speaking to Fox News, Paul argued that Jeffress’ remark was “unnecessary.” Paul went one step further and argued that negative campaigning shouldn’t be the focus of the GOP race. “This whole idea that the most important thing between two candidates right now is the definition of cult, trying to make it sound negative for one person to get the edge over the other – and they are encouraged by others to keep this thing going,” Paul professed.

Paul also suggested that whether Mormonism is a “cult” or not isn’t the issue that voters care about in the GOP race. “I think liberty is the issue of the day. Our Constitution is the issue of the day. And too much government – that is the issue of the day. It’s not the definition of a cult.”

Rick Santorum

“I don’t believe it is,” Santorum said of the introduction given by Dr. Robert Jeffress, who contended Moromonism is a cult. “He’s allowed to believe what he wants to believe, I don’t believe that it is.”

Newt Gingrich

When we ran into Newt Gingrich, he declined to weigh in. “I didn’t hear it, I’m not going to comment,” Gingrich said.

Jon Huntsman

Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman has finally addressed the Rev. Robert Jeffress’ declaration that Mormonism “has always been considered a cult,” telling a New London, N.H., town hall crowd today that it is “the most ridiculous sideshow in recent politics.”

“Discussion of Mormonism doesn’t create additional jobs … doesn’t expand our economic base,” Huntsman said, according to CBS News. “It doesn’t secure our position in the world. I have no idea why people are wasting so much political-capital bandwidth on this issue. It’s nonsense. … There are a lot of folks who believe different things, and that’s the tradition that we respect in this country.”

While Huntsman’s children were taught both Mormon and Episcopalian ideals, he says he still identifies with his LDS roots, telling ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos  in May, “I believe in God. I’m a good Christian. I’m very proud of my Mormon heritage.”

“I am Mormon. Today, there are 13 million Mormons,” he continued. “It’s a very diverse and heterogeneous cross section of people. “And you’re going to find a lot of different attitudes and a lot of different opinions in that 13 million.”

God will judge Mitt, not me (really, Governor???), Mormonism v. Christianity, denunciations of negative campaigning, takes the focus off of the real issues . . . but no candidate willing to take a stand for Mormons as Christians, no candidate willing to say, simply, “Jeffress is wrong.”  The responses may charitably be described as dodges.  Ironically, it’s Perry and Santorum who probably get the highest marks.  Huntsman’s general non-response is somewhat surprising, though I’ll give him a pass as a self-identifying Mormon.

[adsenseyu2]

Should any of this really surprise us?  After all, why should Mitt’s competitors fight his battles for him?

Well, perhaps because public outcry demands it?  That’s often the case with these kinds of comments.  But, apparently, Mormonism is one of the remaining exceptions.  What still surprises me a bit about the whole thing is that it is, apparently, OK for Republican candidates to tacitly endorse the “Mormonism is a cult” and “Mormons aren’t Christians” narratives.  No one of consequence is demanding a denunciation.

Jeffress’s comments remind Mormons that, as far as we’ve come in mainstreaming ourselves, we’ve still got quite a ways to go.  And you wonder if we’ll ever get there.  Apparently, Mormons are well-meaning, convenient allies, useful because of their willingness to serve as lightning rods when it comes to culture war crusades, but not worth a bit of political heat once they’ve served their purpose.  Apparently, we haven’t quite made it into the “club,” yet — the “I’m a Mormon” campaign notwithstanding.  Maybe we should ask ourselves if we really want to get there . . . .

So, returning to politics — can religion be what finally derails the Romney Express (maybe Romney Freight is more accurate)?  I don’t think so.  But the “Mormon Question” apparently isn’t going away any time soon.  And its persistence reminds us that there are good and bad sides to the LDS Church’s so-called “Mormon Moment.”

Filed Under: Election 2012, News, Slider Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

So @JonHuntsman Just Blew Up on Twitter

August 18, 2011 by 4 Comments
John Huntsman Announces Bid For Presidency At NJ's Liberty State Park

Well, relatively speaking.  Really relatively speaking.  He’s not even trending (last I looked).  But for a guy who’s been essentially MIA from the twitter game, even to the point where he’s left it for random people to set up various unofficial state-for-Huntsman accounts, he finally got the online political world rocking (a bit) today with this tweet, which zoomed in unannounced from somewhere out in centerfield:

JonHuntsman
To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.

As you might imagine, the good ex-governor’s confession spawned quite a number of enthusiastic responses — from both sides of the Republican aisle.

Then, apparently feeling his oats a little bit, @JonHuntsman spat out three more tweets in rapid succession:

JonHuntsman
And also, with the jobs crisis this country faces, President Obama should be calling Congress back to DC, not going on a 10 day vacation.

JonHuntsman
Lots of new followers… If you want to learn more about or support our campaign of serious solutions go to jon2012.us/pmWG6D

JonHuntsman
I wonder if a tweet where I admit how much I like Captain Beefheart will make the followers skyrocket even more! youtube.com/watch?v=HE32tc…

Whether it’s Huntsman himself or a twitter specialist running @JonHuntsman, they should keep more of this coming . . . minus the Captain Beefheart.  He’s showing a bit of a knack for it, and, frankly, he needs all the buzz he can get at this point.

 

Filed Under: Election 2012, Fun, Slider Tagged With: , , , , ,

Iowa Republican Presidential Debate: Let’s Talk Utah Candidates

August 12, 2011 by 5 Comments
iowa-debate-slider

Yesterday’s Republican debate was a frustrating thing for just about anyone to watch — except, perhaps, for @BarackObama (our President’s twitter interns), who seemed to be gloating afterwards at all the weak performances.  The highlights and lowlights of the debate probably came courtesy of our friends in Minnesota — with the highlight being the hour-long brawl between Tim Pawlenty and Michelle Bachman and the lowlight the moderator’s decision to ask Michelle Bachman if she would be “submissive” to her husband as President — though her trumpeting of the “Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act” comes in a close second.

But I wanted to take a moment and comment on how the two candidates most connected to Utah — Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman — did in the Republican Presidential debate last night.  They entered the debate in two different places and with two different goals.  Romney was the clear frontrunner and was looking to consolidate his status.  Huntsman, in contrast, was the no-name looking to introduce himself and set himself apart as the reasonable, experienced guy in a weak field.

Romney did pretty well, though it would have been hard for him to mess this one up.  He stayed on his message, which was that President Obama was simply in over his head when it came to the economy and Romney was the guy who could take it over.  In fact, I thought one of Romney’s best moments came when he pointed out that, if voters were looking for someone with real world, business executive experience, they had to choose between him and Herman Cain . . . it was a smart line, especially given Cain’s performance.  Romney also stayed with his consistent message about his healthcare reform history — that Romneycare was a Massachusetts solution to Massachusetts’ problems and doesn’t have the constitutional issues that plague Obamacare.  Frankly, it’s a weak response, but probably the best he can do.  And the Tenth Amendment always seems to play well these days.  Romney was also helped by the moderater’s somewhat puzzling insistence that surely, if the a federal program is constitutionally suspect a similar state program is necessarily suspect as well.  With all the constitutional politics of late, I thought that we were all clear on this point by now . . . .

[adsenseyu2]

Huntsman made his introduction, but the audience didn’t really respond.  Overall, I thought he did OK.  He was, by and large, the candidate that those of us who have followed him expected him to be.  His answers were satisfactory, though he was quite vague on his plans for the economy — not good in light of the events of the last few weeks.  But though they were satisfactory, none of his answers seemed particularly inspired.  He looked best when asked about serving as President Obama’s ambassador and his support for civil unions.  His closing statement was also pretty good.  He looked worst responding to questions about the economy and illegal immigration.  He set himself apart as the clear moderate in the Republican field (though definitely to the right of where he was in Utah), but the audience wasn’t impressed.  Overall, given the weak performances of the other candidates, I thought that Huntsman probably finished second to Mitt.

The news out of Utah this morning is that Romney is . . . well, embarrassing seems to be an apt word . . . Huntsman in the homeland.  The Salt Lake Tribune reported that 71 percent of Utah Republicans self-classify as Romney supporters as opposed to only 13 percent of Utah Republicans that support Huntsman.  As others have noted, it will be hard for Huntsman to gain traction nationwide while he’s losing this badly to his main primary opponent in his own state.  Furthermore, it’s bad news for Huntsman that Romney seems to be getting stronger as he goes along.  Huntsman’s best chance in this race, it always seemed to me, was to capitalize on the fact that the Republican field was extraordinarily weak, with no clear standout candidate.  When it started, Romney was the frontrunner only by default.  The weak field gave Huntsman the real opportunity to have voters who didn’t know him well give him a hard look as they searched for a “serious” Republican candidate with potential to win.  Huntsman’s best argument to Republicans who don’t like him has been:  ”If you’re looking for a guy to beat Obama, it’s me — and only me.  The others are just too far right to do it.”  But with Romney is looking stronger all the time, and Obama taking a beating on the economy (Romney’s best issue), that line probably isn’t playing as well right now — though that could change.

Still, I think you have to look at this field (pre-Rick Perry) and say to yourself — if it’s not Romney, its Huntsman.  I just can’t envision any other of the other candidates being taken seriously, especially after last night.  This probably ensures that Huntsman remains in the field for a good while longer.  He’ll have other chances and he’s not done in the race yet.  The more people see of Huntsman, the more they’ll like him, especially in comparison to the other candidates.  Perry’s entry into the race certainly pushes Huntsman back to third, but Perry himself has some problems.  So, the Utahns (or, perhaps better stated, Utah-connected candidates) will remain front and center in this one for a while.  Should be fun to watch.

Here are the video highlights:

http://videos.nymag.com/video/Watch-Highlights-From-Foxs-Iowa

 

Filed Under: Election 2012, News, Slider Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

What Does Civility in Politics Look Like, and Where Does it Come From?

July 30, 2011 by 3 Comments
sumner-caning-slider

It’s no secret that I like Jon Huntsman.  So do a number of media types and 8 out of the other 10 non-Mormons who actually know who he is :)

When he decided to officially enter the Republican Presidential primary a couple months ago, Huntsman got a lot of attention for his pledge (apparently, this is the only pledge he’s willing to make) to run a civil campaign.  And a lot of people questioned whether someone with a commitment to civility could actually become President nowadays.  It’s an interesting question.

But to answer it, I think you need to have a clear understanding of what civility in politics is and what it is not.

Huntsman gave us his own definition of political civility:

We will conduct this campaign on the high road. I don’t think you need to run down someone’s reputation in order to run for the Office of President. Of course we’ll have our disagreements. That’s what campaigns are all about. But I want you to know that I respect my fellow Republican candidates. And I respect the President of the United States. He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help a country we both love. But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better President; not who’s the better American.

[adsenseyu2]

If you’re one who believe that political civility means focusing only on yourself and refusing to personally criticize your opponent, then, no, a “civil” candidate almost certainly cannot become President.  But that’s not what political civility is.  And it’s clearly not what Huntsman himself thinks is required in order to run a civil campaign.  Civility in politics is about separating the man or woman from their message.  It’s about refusing to make personal character judgments based on policy positions.  And whether a candidate who runs this type of a civil campaign can prevail in a Presidential election is a different question entirely.  I think they can.

But I want to turn your focus away from Election 2012 for a moment and toward some observations about civility itself.

I want to suggest to you that sincere political civility grows out of a type of modesty.  Now, no one who runs for the office of President of the United States can be all that modest, at least in that word’s most common sense, denoting someone with a self-effacing attitude.  You have to have a pretty darn good opinion of yourself to even consider that you might be the man or woman best suited to be the self-appointed “Leader of the Free World.”  No, I’m talking about a different kind of modesty — a type of modesty that others (especially these days) often mistake for indecision or the absence of principled commitment.

I’m referring to intellectual modesty, which begins with reluctant acknowledgment that we’re incapable of getting every decision of consequence right and then extends to the conscious realization that our intellectual “opponents” are not going to have everything of consequence wrong.  I’ve referred to it elsewhere as the willingness to give serious and sincere consideration to opposing viewpoints.  Learned Hand, a famous federal judge who I’ve quoted before, referred to it as rational skepticism, and had this to say:

“I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken.” I should like to have that written over the portals of every church, every school, and every courthouse, and, may I say, of every legislative body in the United States. I should like to have every court begin, “I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, I think we may be mistaken.”

Now, skepticism clearly ceases to be very valuable at the point where it subsumes belief and devolves into relativistic cynicism.  The world needs true believers and crusaders.  A doubtful leader is a contradiction in terms.  But the world needs crusaders for causes and outcomes and not for systems of thought.  Intellectually modest leaders — at least the good ones — are crusaders for causes and have room, with all their commitment, to acknowledge that their “opponent’s” disagreement with their message does not necessarily mean disregard for their goals.  Why?  Because they consciously leave open the possibility that they might be wrong about the way they are trying to do something — even if they don’t think it’s likely — and the creation of even that little bit of space allows them to assume the best about people and to learn from their “opponents” rather than continually being frustrated by them.  It allows them to actually contemplate the possibility that they and their opponent may be striving for the same goals and that, just maybe, their opponent, and not themselves, might be the one who understands the right way to go about it.

[adsenseyu2]

Forgive me for slipping a little bit of religion into this political forum as I finish.  This is, after all, a Utah-focused blog, no matter how wide-ranging and abstract my tendencies :)

The Christian scriptures talk quite a bit about pride as a sin and humility as a virtue.  C.S. Lewis said that the core feature of pride is enmity, which Dictionary.com defines as “a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.”  Pride is, by nature, hostile, competitive and dismissive.  As a result, it sets up an absolute barrier to serious consideration of anything that comes from someone we regard as inferior to ourselves.  I would suggest to you that our current lack of political civility emanates from unchecked pride in ourselves or our own chosen system of political thought.

Let’s check that pride a bit and create a little space for humility.  Not more than is warranted or desirable, but even a little bit would go a long way.

Filed Under: Election 2012, News, Opinion, Slider Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

The Key Question for All Republican Presidential Candidates

July 17, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Is Bill Evans currently on your iPod?  If so, you’re going to have to lose my vote, as listening to Bill Evans is clearly a sign of rare intelligence.  That is all.

P.S. — the really good stuff starts at about 4 minutes in. :)

 

Filed Under: Fun, Totally Unrelated to Law or Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Huntsman – America from 10,000 Miles and Another Interesting Soundbyte

June 25, 2011 by Leave a Comment

OK, so the introductory videos were weird and the “America from 10,000 miles” line seemed particularly strange at the time.  But I really liked these little video clips.  What do you think about what Huntsman has to say, and what (if anything) do these cliips tell us about Huntsman?

Written by for Utah Political Summary.

 

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , ,
«Older Posts