presidential election

Iowa Republican Presidential Debate: Let’s Talk Utah Candidates

August 12, 2011 by Curt Bentley 5 Comments

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: civil unions, election 2012, federalism, jon huntsman, michelle bachman, mitt romney, obamacare, presidential election, republican debate, tenth amendment, tim pawlenty, utah

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

July 30, 2011 by Curt Bentley 3 Comments

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: civility, election 2012, ideology, ideology and politics, jon huntsman, learned hand, presidential election, rational skepticism

The Key Question for All Republican Presidential Candidates

July 17, 2011 by Curt Bentley 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.