I am a Duncan Hunter fan.  I love his clarity on the war, I love his stance on the Border, I love that he has done something with his views instead of just talking.  I love that he takes a stand on China that almost no one else will take.  I love that he has served 27 years faithfully in the House, and served in Vietnam before that.  I think that his debate performances have been above average, his speeches and appearances on shows like Medved and Hewitt and Hannity have been well received and clear, he knows what he believes and why he believes it.  On the Medved show, he sounded very optimistic about the Ames poll.  Yet he finished in 9th out of 11 candidates in Iowa.  He finished with 174 votes out of 14,000 cast.  It is hard to see any scenario where he becomes a viable candidate.  I have to wonder why. 

He holds many of the same pro family views as Brownback, yet finished well behind him.  He holds many of the same border views as Tancredo, without the bluster, but finished well behind him as well.  He holds the same War on Terror views as Guiliani, who didn't even try, and finished behind him.  Why is he a non entity?  I believe it is intentional and related to one single issue.  His views on China.

He touts his views on China as we offer them free trade, but free trade is not reciprocated and so we have a massive trade deficit to them.  They promise reform, but do not deliver.  They are using the massive trade surplus they have to buy and develop weapons, Naval, air, and missile technology designed to counter our massive Naval superiority.  They clearly want our influence to reduce in their region of the world, so they can reclaim Taiwan.  But there is more to it than that.  This 1994 article from the International Herald Tribune sums up what I have heard repeated from people who know more about East Asia than I do:  China wants regional dominance.  http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/07/12/edmas.php  China wants to take the place vacated by Russia as a superpower.  And they are using our own free trade against us to do it.

Most business people in America see the vast potential of China as a market 3-4 times the size of our own for American goods.  They see trade to China as a huge untapped source of wealth.  They either denigrate or ignore the long term aims of China to this end.  Many politicians also do not see this "threat" as real.  It is their best interests to keep an open door to China in terms of trade, and to write off the military buildup as irrelevant to us.  Most of the Democratic party supports any nation they see as anti American as a matter of principle, and many Republicans support China for economic reasons.  But not Duncan Hunter.  And so on this issue, on taking a stand on trade issues, he is a threat to the business community, a threat to the Republican and Democratic establishments, and he has only two real allies in his Tough on China policy.  One is the religious conservatives, who have long been uneasy with detante with a nation that suppresses religious freedom and expression so cruelly.  But most religious conservatives are focused on domestic issues, this does not resonate with them, especially because he does not discuss his concerns with China in these terms.  The second group is Organized Labor, a long time Democratic ally who hate to see manufacturing jobs go to Asia, and also agree with him on immigration, as they hate to see a flood of illegals drive down wages in domestic manufacturing.  But they have not picked up yet that the candidate who most clearly mirrors their protectionism is Duncan Hunter.  This is because they are 1) used to voting Democrat    2) against him on many other labor issues, and 3) Do not recognize that he matches their views because he does not use the language of protectionism.

I disagreed with Hunter on this issue, because I hesitate to buy into the protectionist philosophy of anti trade people.  But Hunter makes a different arguement and it convinced me.  He goes back to WW1 and WW2, and explains that it was the industrial base of America that allowed us to crank out the machinery of war quickly and efficiently for these two wars.  Had we become a service industry nation in the 30's, trading for our cars and technological equipment from overseas, we would have been far more vulnerable to the Naval might of Japan, perhaps to a degree where we could not have fought or won the war.  In our current state, we so outman any military in the world, that it is easy to forget that much of our military might is combustible.  Lets say that the worlds 1.2 Billion Moslems set aside their own differences and declare war....we would have a huge technological and training advantage to offset their massive manpower, but most of our materials will eventually be used up....missiles, planes, tanks, and if the bulk of our manufacturing is done overseas, we will have no means to replace it.  Put this way, protectionism of our industry makes some sense.

So if the media, parties, and business do not like this view and see it as a threat, how do they combat it?  They marginalize him.  Every time he is on TV or radio, he is asked about the border or about Iraq.  This makes him appear a one or two issue candidate.  But think....He has been in the house for near 30 years, surely he has thoughts on health care, education, taxes, and social issues.  But he is never asked, and when he gets media focus at all it is on limited issues.  So Mr Hunter, break out of your box now.  Make speeches on other issues, and allow them to be published on blogs and editorial pages. Go around the media and take your message direct to voters.   Break out of the box they have placed you in, or your campaign is over.