Every single time I’ve told someone that I support Jon Huntsman for the 2012 Presidential election, I get one of two reactions: shocked surprise or laughter. The former is a reaction doubting my answer, while the latter is an outright joking response that leads people to stop taking my political opinion seriously. For some strange reason that is beyond me, people cannot wrap their heads around the idea of a relatively unknown candidate going up for the Presidential election.
But still, Huntsman will get my vote whether or not he wins the Republican nomination, and that is because he is the most qualified, credentialed, and experienced candidate in the field, with a proven track record that any republican would cut off an arm to have. But don’t just believe my opinion, this post will examine his actual record and show why everything I’m saying is not opinion, but fact.
First, let’s look at Huntsman’s experience in the United States on a domestic level. Under George H. W. Bush, Huntsman served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, where he first gained experience with the federal government. As a governor of Utah, Huntsman lead his state to be the number one state in America for job creation. That statistic surpasses even Rick Perry’s job creation record, which is what he’s staking most of his campaign on. Later on in his term, the Pew Research Center named Utah the best-managed state in the country.
His domestic experience isn’t limited to just accolades and accomplishments, it expands to actual programs and policies he implemented while in office. Huntsman established conservative principles when he cut more than one billion dollars during his term. He later went on to institute the largest tax cut in Utah state history, which effectively instituted a flat tax on his citizens, a policy which is heralded to increase fairness, decrease political corruption, increase individual freedoms, and increase savings.
Later on in his term, he brought about market-based health care reform. No mandates like Obamacare or Romneycare, but putting the focus on giving consumers the CHOICE for healthcare. He also signed ground-breaking pro-life legislation, including bills that required parental consent for a minor. Huntsman set the foundation for a challenge to Roe v. Wade by creating a state fund to defend Utah’s state ban on abortion (effective 2013) to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. Jon Huntsman not only has a great domestic political track record, his private sector track record is significant as well. He served as the CEO of Huntsman Family Holdings, turned the Huntsman corporation around to a positive economic profit during the recession, and became the Vice President of the Huntsman Pacific Chemical Corporation, in addition to being the director of Huntsman International.
His incredible track record doesn’t stop there. He also has the most significant foreign policy experience of any candidate up for office, including more than incumbent President Obama had before he became president. Huntsman first served as the United States Trade Ambassador under George W. Bush. It was under this office, where he negotiated dozens of free trade agreements with other countries for the United States. In addition to being the trade ambassador, Huntsman was also one of two United States Trade Representatives during the George W. Bush Administration.
Under President Obama, Huntsman is currently serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Singapore, which has made him the youngest United States ambassador in one hundred years. He also serves as the U.S. Ambassador to China. It is under this appointment where he has served as the head of America’s most important diplomatic mission. Ambassador Huntsman helped expand Chinese access to the internet, which has furthered democracy and broadened U.S. ties with China.
Adding on to his experience with China and Singapore, Huntsman has also worked to limit the development of the North Korean nuclear program, perhaps the greatest emerging threat to United States security.
That’s his track record: unbelievingly experienced, superb qualifications, and a willingness to work under an opposing administration. It’s those reasons that could give him enough ground with independent and democratic voters to defeat President Obama in the upcoming election, if he was awarded the nomination.
With Huntsman’s experience in mind, let’s compare him to the current Republican frontrunner, who [unfortunately] is businessman Herman Cain, who has gained popularity because of his simple 9-9-9 tax plan.
This plan however, isn’t as advertised. It’s incredibly misleading, being described as a ‘distributional nightmare’, and literally send the U.S. deficit through the roof, while raising taxes if it was implemented. In addition to horrible backup of his 9-9-9 plan, Cain has absolutely zero foreign policy experience, a fact that Huntsman could laugh at.
All in all, when compared to other candidates, Huntsman is the candidate with the best experience needed for the commander-in-chief of the United States of America. If you’re republican or independent, I strongly urge you to reconsider who you end up supporting in the coming election. You can go for the candidate that sounds the best, or one with the best record and experience. Your choice.
Joseph Samelson is a senior homeschooler, an avid high-school debater, and a researcher for Ethos Publications, LLC. He has been honored as the southern regional champion in team policy debate and the twenty-second best debater in the country. He enjoys researching, politics, photography, and music. He is finishing up his senior year at home, and is preparing to major in government in college the following year. He authors posts on Ethos Debate, as well as his personal blog, Data Stream: One.
... For more discussion on the 2012 Presidential candidates, read The Case for Rick Perry.
Good analysis and very well written. The majority of that information was new to me; I cant say I knew alot about Huntsman.
ReplyDeleteNow my question is: do you believe he can win, Joseph? And building on that is it better to (idealistically) support a candidate whose beliefs line up with yours or (pragmatically) support a candidate who can win and is better than the alternative?
It depends on what you mean in that question. Are you asking whether I think he can win the primary or the general election?
ReplyDeleteIf you're asking about the primary, I think it's impossible to say at the moment. Historically, lesser-known former governor candidates have done very well later in the election cycle [http://reut.rs/nkiPnZ] but in the current republican climate, I think it's doubtful.
If you're asking about the general election, I think Huntsman's willingness to work under the Obama administration as an ambassador to China would be a HUGE appeal to America's independent/moderate population [this is a good video: http://bit.ly/pN0dDR (i've set it to start right as he talks about huntsman. mind you, this video was made before obama's drastic drop in approval rating, so I think that he has an even better chance at winning now than when this video was first made)].
As far as idealism/pragmatism with regards to candidates, I think Josh Craddock's speech on the lesser of two evils in voting sums up my opinion nicely [http://bit.ly/pqdeXE].
Well, I was considering both elections... so both of your answers apply!
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you that in the current republican climate it is highly unlikely he will be able to present himself as ultra-conservative enough to win. Besides he is, as the title of your post suggests, still pretty unknown.
On the general election, is it your opinion that it is more important to appeal to the independents/moderates or the republican base? I don't think Huntsman excites the base much, but surely they would support him over Obama... and, with the video you linked in mind, he'd probably do well with independents AND democrats who are disillusioned with Obama. Do you agree?
Josh Craddock's speech is excellent. Thanks for sharing.
On the general election, yes it is very important to focus on independent and moderates. Republicans will support whichever candidate wins the primary and I believe Huntsman would garner support from the independent/disillusioned democrats, probably enough to beat Obama in the election.
ReplyDeleteBut of course, this is assuming he wins the primary. :P
This was very informative, especially since I knew only a little about Huntsman. I confess I hadn't taken much time to vet him as he's not gotten much attention. (Kinda like Cain a few weeks ago...oops.)
ReplyDeleteThanks also for bringing up the true implications of 999--glad to see the information getting out to people. I initially liked Cain until I realized over the past few week his enormous ignorance on major foreign and domestic policy issues.
But I do have one question in response to this article. I don't mean to be combative or nasty--I'm just trying to hear other opinions. So here goes: what is your opinion on Christian vs. Not-Christian candidates? Romney and Huntsman are both Mormons; Perry, Bachmann, and Cain are evangelical Christians. If Huntsman is as conservative as you say but not a believer, while Bachmann (to use a less well-known example) believes the same thing and is a Christian...I think you probably know where I'm going with this.
Oh boy, where to start?
ReplyDeleteThe choice between Huntsman and Bachmann is actually relatively easy. If we talk to ourselves honestly, there is literally nothing that was done by Huntsman in his term as governor politics-wise that would make people believe he was mormon. Honestly, it's not that big of a deal. And when you compare his track record to bachmann's, the differences are clear. Huntsman is still vastly more qualified than someone like Bachmann.
Basically, I think when it comes to religion and politics, we should look at someone's track record to decide whether or not we support someone. Huntsman is making the same political decisions that an Evangelical Christian with the same political views would make. There's nothing to go against.
However, I think we cannot by any measure compare Bachmann's political ideology to Huntsman's. Huntsman is a bit more appealing to the political center, whereas Bachmann is far right in nearly every way. That's why I think he would have a wayyyy better shot to beat Obama in the general election.
OK--glad you weren't offended by the question! I definitely agree, we need to look at someone's track record when deciding on a candidate. May I offer Mike Huckabee as an example: certainly a Bible-believing Christian, but he had a track record of big spending, I believe. (Correct me if I'm wrong...I was much younger in 2007 and didn't pay much attention).
ReplyDeleteMaybe I shouldn't have chosen Bachmann as my example...you're right, she's not really that qualified anyway. What would you say to a comparison of Perry and Huntsman's track records?
In the primaries, I believe we need to vote for the most conservative, Constitutional, Biblically qualified candidate out there--and I do think that we should vote Christian in the primary, especially if they believe in the Constitution. If I have to choose between Romney and Perry (which I believe will end up happening, the polls notwithstanding), I'll choose Perry for all of the above reasons. In the general...well, you just vote for the GOP nominee, I guess, but only if it doesn't violate your conscience.
I'm just not sure that we should try to find a candidate that appeals to all sides. We can't possibly please everyone, and we need a drastic change in leadership. As Ronald Reagan said, we need bold colors, not pale pastels.
"What would you say to a comparison of Perry and Huntsman's track records?"
ReplyDeleteThat's easy. The main accomplishment Perry has had in his experience is increased jobs as the governor of texas, a statistic which Mr. Huntsman overcame as governor of Utah [Remember, the Pew research center awarded Utah as the best managed state in the Union under his term]. Also, perry has no foreign policy experience at all, and all I can think of when I hear Perry anymore is this: http://bit.ly/pzvHSb
To be honest, Perry seemed like a great candidate when he entered the field, but then he opened his mouth. :P
As far as what religion a candidate should be, I still stand by my earlier comment: we should evaluate religion second to track record. While it's good to have people who believe in our religion in office, if a different candidate who believes in a spinoff of the same religion exhibits the SAME VALUES and SAME GOALS, with better experience than the first, then I feel obligated to put that candidate in office. We're talking about who should lead a country, not who should preach at a Church.
Values are important, and mormons still share a lot of the same values as christians. They definitely are not the same religion by a long-shot, but most still act like Christians should act.
I'm not legitimizing mormonism, I'm just saying for the sake of the country, we should vote based off of track record, be it the primary or general election.
If I may join the discussion, I personally agree with Joseph that indpendents/moderates/even *gasp* democrats are really important to focus on, especially in this election. Because if you vote for the "MOST conservative candidate out there" in the primaries--and thats what you get for the general elections--then you will lose those on the more liberal side (like me) who are looking for a moderate alternative to Obama.
ReplyDeleteAlso, right on about track record first! I think religion is very important, but the principles a candidate's record reflects should outweigh the particular brand of religion they adhere to.
Anyway, my $.02. I'm interested in hearing other thoughts...
J.R.
what samelson is trying to say here is republicans are dumb, but hunstman is less dumb than the rest.... maybe even bordering on cognisent!! which means he won't appeal to the republican base of course. but hey, you can't have everything.
ReplyDelete