Subscribe to The Spectator

Wednesday 16 May 2012

Latest issue

Buy the current issue

Jobs at Telegraph

Lessons for 2012 from 1992

Tuesday, 19th May 2009

John Huntsman's decision to accept Obama's invitation to serve as the US Ambassador to Beijing is, as James suggested, interesting given the recent rise in Huntsman stock.

The advantages for Obama are several: firstly, and most obviously (if also most grubbily) he removes a potential 2012 opponent from the fray. Secondly, picking someone like Huntsman who not only has diplomatic experience (as ambassador to Singapore and, more importantly, as Deputy US Trade Representative) but also speaks Mandarin tells the Chinese that Obama appreciates their importance and is determined to take their relationship seriously. How could he not, you might ask, and there'd be something in that. But consider that such baubles are generally handed out as rewards to used-car salesmen and real estate agents who've raised millions for the winning presidential candidate. Even if most ambassadorial posts are not what they once were, this remains a grubby habit even if custom decrees it's just the usual way of doing business.

So, it's obviously smart for Obama. But for Huntsman? There's been much talk about how he has concluded that 2012 is not the right time for a Presidential run. And he may be right, given the way the Republican party is behaving these days, to suppose that there's little upside to challenging Obama in 2012 and that it's much more sensible to wait until 2016.

That presumes, of course, that Obama will win a second term. At the moment, for what little it is worth, you would bet that he will. But once upon a time George HW Bush seemed destined to win a second term too. So destined in fact that leading Democrats such as Mario Cuomo and others decided that, post Operation Desert Storm, there was no point in challenging Bush. That opened the door to William Jefferson Clinton whose triumph would once have seemed almost as improbable as a GOP victory in 2012 currently does.

History rarely repeats itself exactly, of course, but 1992 is a reminder - merely a reminder - that even causes that seem hopeless can be turned around. Sometimes. Even so, it's worth recalling that Clinton was at the vanguard of the New Democrat movement and that, by daring to fight and win in the south, he represented a broadening, not a narrowing, of the party's appeal that attempted to move beyond its traditional coalition of interest groups and minorities. In other words, Clinton was a reformer who also had the advantage of running at a time when the opposition had been in power for 12, not merely 4, years.

Even then, despite his political skills, Clinton needed major assistance from Ross Perot and Bush himself. And the economy, of course. So, sure, there can be upset victories but they're not reliable guides to future elections, especially since if there's a serious third-party candidate in 2012 he's much more likely to draw votes from the GOP than the Democrats.

Nonetheless, Huntsman's decision to go to China is a set-back for the GOP, making it a little more likely that it will remain the Party of Limbaugh and not, therefore, at a national level, a serious proposition. Plus, you know, they need to find someone with political ability comparable to a Clinton or a Reagan or an Obama...


Filed under: 2012 (165 more articles) , China (110 more articles) , GOP (332 more articles) , Obama (365 more articles)

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article  |  Email to a friend  |  Permalink   |   Comments (1)

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Comments Post comment

Marbury

May 19th, 2009 4:59pm Report this comment

"firstly, and most obviously (if also most grubbily) he removes a potential 2012 opponent from the fray."

Where's the grub? As you say, Huntsman easily makes the post on his merits.

Also - and I don't know for sure cos I wasn't there - but did GHWB really seem like an invincible titan in 1991? Did people think he was in anything like the same league as Obama, as a communicator or organiser? Or that the Democrats had problems of the scale of today's GOP in terms of demographic trends etc? I don't think the analogy holds. But then you seem to agree...

Post comment

Back to top

Cartoons

Tag Cloud

Search this blog

Alex Massie's blog archive

sponsored links

Spectator recommends

Spectator classifieds

THE PRESENT FINDER

1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk

OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS

Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844

RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings

62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk