David Frum se decide por Huntsman

David Frum:

I’m looking for two chief things in a candidate for 2012:

1.The temperament, judgment, deftness and largeness of spirit required in the presidential office; and

2.The creativity and intellect to respond to the global economic crisis — a crisis threatening to actually get worse if (or when) the euro implodes.

Those conditions obviously and categorically exclude the clownish Herman Cain, the daffy Ron Paul, the dim Rick Perry and the firebrand congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

A step up from those four is former U.S. senator Rick Santorum. Santorum, who is the only candidate in the race to talk about the stagnation of wages and the slowing of upward mobility in the United States. Unfortunately, Santorum — a fierce social conservative — speaks for too narrow a slice of modern America. Santorum has also never held any administrative responsibility. It’s not enough for a president to say “do this” or “do that.” Issuing the orders is the easy part. The president must ensure that “this” and “that” actually happen. If you have never had such a responsibility before, the White House is a bad place to learn — as President Obama (who also lacked any prior administrative experience) proves on a daily basis.

The Republican flavour of the month, Newt Gingrich, likewise flunks condition one. As Speaker of the House, Gingrich was notorious for his indiscipline. Where he does excel is in the use of rhetoric to divide and provoke. Take, for example, his musing last September in front of reporters: “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behaviour, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? … That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behaviour.”

(...) So that leaves us with the two governors, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. Romney has the better record as an administrator. I still think that his Massachusetts health-care plan showed creative leadership on an important problem — even if he himself now declines to defend his own accomplishment.

Romney has spoken well and firmly about the need to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He has a keen understanding of the debt and financial problems of the U.S. and Europe.

Yet it’s also true that Romney has reversed so many of his positions so abruptly that voting for him is like taking a random walk. We can be sure that a Romney White House will be well-run. But what will it do? That’s anybody’s guess.

Huntsman, by contrast, has bravely challenged the Republican party’s strident, uncompromising radical style. I also like Huntsman’s willingness to re-examine the Afghanistan commitment and to focus more on the economic challenge from China. On the other hand, Huntsman’s economic platform is pure Wall Street Journal editorial page: Big tax cuts for the highest-income earners, radical cuts in retirement benefits for people now under 55. The more supple Romney has carefully avoided any such radical commitment.

The Washington, D.C., primary is set for April 3. I’ll probably cast a vote that day for Huntsman, if only to show support for a brave and independent-minded candidate — and in hope that a strong Huntsman showing will be interpreted as a call for a more modern and inclusive Republican party.

If Mitt Romney emerges as the ultimate nominee, I’ll place my hope that the Romney who enters the Oval Office will be the innovative, solutions-oriented Romney 1.0 — and not the placate-every-GOP-interest-group Romney 3.0 we’ve seen on the 2011 campaign trail.

Any other nominee would gravely test my commitment to the political party I’ve supported since I entered the United States as a college student in the fall of 1978.