Oh Calm Down ('Huntsman 2012' Dept)

Several friends in China have written to ask what I think of this Newsweek report that Jon Huntsman Jr., currently the US Ambassador to China, is planning to run for the GOP presidential nomination next year.

What I think is: Are you kidding?

Anything is possible in politics, so this could be too. But this is why it is wildly improbable.

Huntsman -- whom I have met several times over the years, in China and the US -- is indeed a very attractive long-term national prospect for the Republicans, whenever they have gotten to the other side of their current Palin/Limbaugh/ Gingrich phase. As I wrote at the time, I thought that Barack Obama's selection of him as ambassador in 2009 was a shrewd move for both sides. It was good for Obama, as a early token of bipartisanship (remember that?) and as a way to keep a future Republican star out of Iowa for a while. It was good for Huntsman, in giving that same potential star a way to stay out of the post-Palin fratricide (yes, he'd been governor of Utah -- but he is "soft" on gay rights, being in favor of civil unions etc) while bolstering his international-affairs reputation and experience. And it has been good for America (remember that?). Huntsman is fluent in Mandarin, from his days as an LDS missionary in Taiwan, and he has done well in China at both high-end and retail-level on-the-street diplomacy, the latter while biking around town with his young children, one of them originally from China. (That's her, Gracie Mei, with her father, in a photo from the US Consulate in Chengdu.)

So why doesn't this mean, "Huntsman 2012"? Let's start with the most obvious deal breaker. The basic narrative of the "out" party, when a first-term president is running for a second term, is "Your Administration is Wrecking Our Country! We can't stand Four More Years! We need a total change!" That is what every Republican will have to say about the Obama Administration.

Huntsman is part of the Obama Administration. He is right in the middle of dealings with America's most important foreign-policy partner/challenge. So in the GOP Primaries, how exactly is he going to out-anti-Obama anyone else in the field, given that he has served Obama (and, yes, the country) so loyally? The retorts from all the other Republicans are almost too easy. "If Ambassssadorrr Huntsman is so concerned about the Obama threat to America, then why,...?"

And if he got through that process, he would run against his current commander-in-chief .... how? And why? What is the issue of principle so important that it compels him to challenge Obama's continuation in office, but has not justified any disagreement while he's serving now? "Huntsman 2016" would be a very logical inference from his current position. "Huntsman 2012" would require suspension of basic laws of politics and common sense.

Political speculation is fun, and we do a lot of it (a) because so many weird things do happen, and (b) there's so little penalty for being proven wrong. But before Newsweek gave this such splashy display, they might have asked: does this pass the "are you kidding" test? To me, it does not. And if the real news is that, despite all the above, Huntsman himself actually is planning to run, then that calls for a different kind of story, and would raise questions like: What on earth is he still doing as Ambassador? And what will be the issue that will suddenly justify a breach with the Administration that he is, as of this moment, still loyally serving?

About the Author

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne.

President Trump is reportedly considering drastic action to end the Russia investigation.

Why do Donald Trump and his advisors keep floating the possibility of firing Robert Mueller, an act that would spark the greatest constitutional crisis since Watergate, perhaps the greatest in modern American history?

Partly, it’s simple rage. Mueller threatens Trump. And when Trump sees someone as a threat, he tries to discredit and destroy them—conventional norms of propriety, decency and legality be damned.

But there’s another, more calculated, reason. Trump and his advisors may genuinely believe that firing Mueller is a smart move. And if you put morality aside, and see the question in nakedly political terms, they may be right.

The chances that Mueller will uncover something damning seem very high. Trump has already admitted to firing former FBI Director James Comey over the Russia investigation. Donald Trump Jr. has already admitted to welcoming the opportunity to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from people he believed were representatives of the Russian government. Even if Mueller doesn’t accuse anyone of a crime, he’s likely to paint a brutal picture. And that’s just on the question of election collusion and obstruction of justice. If Mueller uses Russia to segue into Trump’s business dealings, who knows what he might find. An all-star team of legal and financial sleuths, with unlimited time and money, and the ability to subpoena documents and people, have been let loose on the affairs of a man whose own autobiographer called him a “sociopath.” No wonder Trump is scared.