Daniel Larison on the Huntsman nomination

[elfs]

One of my favorite voices in the conservative wilderness is Daniel Larison. Larison is my kind of conservative: thoughtful, intelligent, capable of compromise and of seeing the bigger picture. We disagree on ideological ground here life begins (and whether or not my religious faithlessness constitutes "confusion" on my part, or his), but I always respect what he has to say.

Today, Larison has a great read on the nomination of Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah, to the position of Ambassador to China. Larison writes:

Fluent in a foreign language, trained in diplomacy, and experienced overseas, Huntsman represents in foreign affairs many of the qualities that his party has come to loathe–and his acceptance of the post indicates that he knows this. … Now, instead of being a voice of reason and experience in internal Republican debates, Huntsman will be supporting Obama's agenda. …

To gauge the depth of the GOP's predicament and its obliviousness to it, one need only note how many conservatives were in fact glad to be rid of Huntsman–even if he was overwhelmingly popular, intelligent, and largely on board with the party's priorities. The nomination and the Republican reaction send clear signals both that the administration is ready and willing to embrace Republican dissenters–however mild their so-called heresies may be–and that Republicans are actually pleased to lose them.

I'm actually really concerned for the Republicans. The Democrats, should they actually get their act together and start passing legislation, would be a disaster without a proper check and balance in the Congress. But all the Republicans have done recently is pass a party resolution calling on the Democrats to change their name to the "Democrat Socialist Party." They're stamping their feet, and that's all they have right now. It's insanely sad, and they're never going to be a national party within a generation if they don't figure out how to be more than the "The Party of Economic Oligarchs on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, and the Party of Religious Fascists on Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday." Nobody gets Saturday: we all ought to have a break at least once a week.

Comments

[lucky-otter.livejournal.com]

There's an interesting strategic question there for Democrats. On the one hand, by absorbing moderate Republicans - Specter, Huntsman, etc. - the Republican party is weakened, and in particular their ability to appeal to a broad national audience is hurt. On the other hand, DINOs do not a party make.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Well, let's be clear about Hunstman. He's still a Republican. He's not going to switch parties. What's the Republican Nattering Collective is pleased about is that they're assuming that Hunstman has just neutered his viability as a presidential candidate in 2012. That may be. But 2012 is a long way off and the Repubs have a long way yet to fall.

But Obama plays longball, and I don't think he plays to the advantage of the Democratic party. He plays to the vision he sees America becoming. Hunstman is part of that vision: smart, disciplined, techno- and meritocratic. If Jim Hunstman can be part of that vision, so be it.

And Huntsman understands this game well. Maybe not in 2012, but in 2016 there's a chance that the Dems won't be able to field a sensible successor to Obama, and Huntsman will reflect that part of the Republican party that, if Obama is still popular in 2016, reflects both the true inheritance of the successes of the previous eight years and a return to "Republican values," whatever those are.