While
most Americans experience election fatigue weeks before the election even
occurs, the media never ceases to speculate about the next presidential
election. Who will run? Will the demographic alignments change? Who will win?
It is fun to ask these questions, but difficult to answer them due to
the sheer temporal distance between now and 2016. This has not stopped some media outlets and
commentators from pegging Florida senator Marco Rubio as the front runner for
the Republican nomination. If the Republican
Party wants to lose in 2016, they should run Rubio. If they want to win, they should run Jon
Huntsman.
Rubio has just begun his second year
in Congress at the age of forty-one.
While lacking any true, concrete connection to the organization, he has
been a Tea Party darling since his 2010 senatorial campaign. With a conservative score of fifty-one on
Nate Silver’s Conservatism index, Rubio ranks more conservative than every 2012
Republican primary candidate except for Minnesota representative Michelle
Bachmann. On big issues, he is almost
indistinguishable from most of the other Republican conservatives. He opposes abortion, holds there is no
constitutional right to privacy, supported an amendment to ban same-sex
marriage, and opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, just to name a few
of his policy positions.
Numerous Republicans and
conservatives, shortly after the November elections, asserted that their
message was still winning in the court of public opinion. This notion is lunacy, an attempt to deny
reality. Republicans lost seats in the
Senate, lost seats in the House, and failed to deny President Obama a second
term. The logic that states their message
is winning is as sound as the assertion that the Hindenburg landed gracefully. With a Rubio nomination the Republican Party
will offer the American public another helping of Mitt Romney, although even
more conservative. Surely Romney only
lost because he was not more conservative!
In the realm of pure fantasy,
perhaps it is possible that the Republicans will use Rubio as a tool to gain
more Hispanic support in an attempt to widen their demographic base—a widening
which they absolutely have to achieve.
In this admittedly ridiculously unlikely scenario, the Republicans trot
out Rubio, knowing full-well that he will lose, in an attempt to wrest away
Hispanics from the Democratic Party, hoping to parley this into a
transformation of the Grand Old Party to win the White House in 2020. While no practical political strategist would
possible play such a long game, this is the only explanation for a Rubio
nomination I can fathom.
Jon Huntsman is everything the
Republican Party should be looking for in a 2016 candidate. He ran in 2012, allowing him to gain
organization experience (I voted for him in Ohio’s primary, knowing it was a
losing effort), executive experience after serving as the governor of Utah for
four years, and has extensive federal experience as well. Huntsman served as a White House staff
assistant during the Reagan Administration, as the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Commerce under George H. W. Bush, was appointed to the post of U.S.
Ambassador to Singapore also under Bush, was appointed Deputy United States
Trade Representative under the younger Bush, and served as the United States
Ambassador to China under President Obama for three years until resigning to
run for the Republican nomination.
His extensive experience in East
Asia, almost universally seen as the most vital region for the next decades,
and his ability to work with Democrats should make Huntsman a slam dunk for the
Republican nomination. Yet he will
almost certainly be denied this chance by the growing tumor within the brain of
the Republican Party: deeply entrenched
conservatism. On the same index which
measured Rubio as one of the most conservative members of the party, Huntsman
ranked as the second-least conservative.
His statement this past Thursday supporting same-sex marriage, declaring
that, “There is nothing conservative about denying Americans the ability to
forge [a loving] relationship with the person they love,” invariably will win
him independent support while earning him the scorn of the conservative branch
of the Republican Party—a branch which rapidly seems to be the whole tree. Further, Huntsman has affirmed his belief in
evolution and climate change; hardly popular opinions in a party whose chairmen
of the House Space, Science, and Technology Subcommittee on Oversight, Paul
Broun, declared evolution and the Big Bang “lies straight from the pits of
Hell.”
Marco Rubio is a flashy
candidate. He is a handsome guy,
charismatic, and very likely a good man.
It is not outside the realm of possibility that he could serve Florida
as a senator for the next two decades. But
unless something drastic happens over the next four years, he will not be able
to win in 2016. Jon Huntsman, on the
other, is a solid Republican who is not enthralled by the specter haunting the
Republican Party. It is not a
coincidence that Huntsman, the least conservative Republican seeking the
nomination in 2012, was regarded by President Obama’s campaign as the most
serious threat.
No comments:
Post a Comment