Jon Huntsman withdraws from Republican race

Former Utah governor to endorse Mitt Romney amid poor polling results in South Carolina.

Jon Huntsman is bowing to the inevitable and quitting the Republican race after trailing in the polls in South Carolina. He will endorse frontrunner Mitt Romney.

This narrows the field to just five: Romney, the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former senator Rick Santorum, and Texas governor Rick Perry.

The former Utah governor positioned himself to the left of Romney (a fellow Mormon), but his moderate brand of conservatism failed to resonate with a Republican party that has increasingly moved to the right.

His exit from the race comes as no surprise. He opted out of competing in Iowa earlier this month, as he believed the state was too conservative for him to win. Instead, he concentrated his efforts on New Hampshire, where he needed a second place finish. He came third, and surprised commentators when he vowed to fight on, saying third place was "a ticket to ride". But since arriving in deeply conservative South Carolina, he has struggled to gain traction.

Huntsman's personal fortune is estimated at $50m. His father, worth an estimated at $900m, set up a super PAC which advertised on his behalf, but had become wary of throwing more money at the bid. He is not the only family member to take an interest in the campaign; Huntsman's daughters hit the spoitlight when they filmed videos to support their father's flagging campaign, including this spoof of Herman Cain's campaign ad:

 

The endorsement of Romney will not make a huge difference since Huntsman's supporters are limited in number -- he was polling at around 5 per cent in South Carolina -- but those who did back him will naturally gravitate towards the former Massachusetts governor, a fellow moderate.

Formerly an ambassador to China, Huntsman's sober, diplomatic style in debates meant he failed to capture the imagination of Republican voters, who are keen for charisma and fighting talk.

His departure follows that of former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty in August, pizza mogul Herman Cain in December, and Michele Bachmann after the Iowa caucuses earlier this month. Perry, whose polling in South Carolina is barely better than Huntsman's, looks set to be the next scalp.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.