If you consider the experience of Kevin Rudd, Australia's former Prime Minister, even being fluent in another language doesn't necessarily help you in a country that speaks said language. Rudd speaks excellent Mandarin from his days working as a diplomat in Beijing, but his tenure as PM was marked by a series of gaffes when it came to China culminating in him being overheard calling the Chinese delegation at the Copenhagen Climate Change talks "ratfuckers". Still, he does speak the language rather well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bro4mkb_VKc

Huntsman should worry less about trying to show off on lightweight TV interview shows and more time trying to influence the Republican conversation away from birtherism, climate change denial and religiosity.

The words expressed in your piece discounting the knowledge of a foreign language in foreign affairs are typical for many Americans, but not so much for the rest of the world nor ourselves when it comes to English. I think that it is pretty logical to believe that the average citizen inside a community would reflect in a more positive manner when approached in their own native tongue; especially if that language skill was in the true sense, fluent. Beyond the respect value, it is far simpler for them to understand and follow. Moreover, in a world today where many feel the US is talking down to them when it comes to their nation's domestic and foreign policies, the ability to hold lengthy conversations with their leaders/news hosts/etc. in their country and in their tongue for all to see would be beneficial in expressing the US's rationale and in the end, go lengths in implying a more balanced approach to our foreign policy. Not to mention that a society that feels that there is no value or worth in the ability to travel for long lengths of time in distant lands to understand the culture/values/and language of a foreign culture will also birth leaders who also tend to have such isolated mentalities. I feel it is a great step forward for our nation to desire such skills in our leaders as irrelevant to what language they know, it denotes an understanding that there is also a world outside of the US where these things matter.
Of course, a leader can't know all languages and simply knowing a foreign language will not encourage people to give you what they have or change their policies to simply suit you in a more beneficial manner; but it would go a long way in the arena of image and understanding. As the world becomes ever more connected and hopefully becomes more democratic through our democracy promotion, their leaders will hopefully have to reflect more of what their constituents think and feel. Thus, it might not be too shabby of an idea to think about addressing their citizens in a manner that denotes respect, understanding and familiarity. We all see this in our daily lives with who we watch on tv, listen to on the radio, give respect to, etc. So why would we think it would be detrimental in the foreign policy arena? Is knowing the history of a country and the ability to talk at lengths with locals about their nation's history also detrimental? Of course not and those who have lived and worked abroad would very logically agree that it is always a plus to know the language of the people who you are trying to impress/persuade/convince/understand, not to mention their culture/history/values/etc. Now, should this ability to speak a foreign language be paramount when choosing a President or feeling confident in their capabilities to lead this great nation: I would certainly hope not for many reasons. However, such abilities and skills should never sit dormant, be discounted or shunned in a world where so many citizens are receiving their news through information channels that rely on image and familiarity. As a nation and people, we have a plethora of opportunities in this field that could be taken advantage in a more beneficial manner for the US's foreign policy agenda were they to be coordinated more effectively. Obviously, the policies that follow such communication attempts would have to be similar to what was communicated or else it would be all in vain and distrust would ensue even more so than we experience currently. But I would be hesitant to discount the ability to speak in a way that disarms those who listen and fosters the warm feelings of familiarity and understanding in those whose support we need and desire in the future. Looking at the past isn't always an indicator of future potential as from what I saw, former President Bush's (42) Spanish wasn't necessarily used in a manner similar to what I am describing beyond a few sound bites. Not exactly the type of communication that persuades or disarms people.
Personally, I would have thought that this would be very clear-cut and straight forward for how many times does the average American citizen intend to pay much attention to who those similar to Anderson Cooper/Rachel Maddow/Glenn Beck/The View/Oprah/etc. interview in a foreign language? It simply doesn't happen for the obvious reasons of comfort and familiarity. We should take more advantage of that and not discount it. For example, just imagine how much more distrusted in the US a leader like Hamid Karzai would be if he couldn't at least answer the questions thrown at him by our numerous news personalities in English and was left speaking to an audience in a manner that wasn't familiar? It is always so easy and predictable to villainize those who are different. Food for thought.

In reflecting on the previous response by 'JordanKing,' I would say that though knowing a foreign language (any foreign language) is always a benefit, per the reasons outlined in my earlier response, I think that to many American voters, there would be a distinction between the idea of learning a foreign language for the added benefits it brings in general versus learning and using English as your secondary language while being an American raised in the US for inside a language lies so much of a culture's thought process, values, traditions, etc. Moreover, I believe that there is also a distinction between those members of Government to whom such a skill would enhance the US's foreign/domestic policy agenda and those to which it is simply more of a personal attribute that wouldn't be necessarily outwardly used in their official job duties for any benefit to the US's foreign/domestic policy agenda. Taking this one step further though in this discussion, I would imagine a common worry for many whose families have lived in the US beyond two generations is that if the desire for a foreign language skill became normal in all levels of federal politics (such as at the Congressional level per 'JordanKing's' suggestion), then where does the exclusivity of English play a role in American daily life and what if a particular foreign language, such as Spanish, became the most prevalent in political discourse. There is always a benefit and right to speak/study whatever language you want, but what happens when the language you speak in your daily routine and/or career becomes of equal balance/focus or even in majority to the native language of a nation that is used in public spaces? To be more direct, what happens when a child who is raised in an English-speaking household/community starts to lose out on education and job opportunities inside the US simply due to the fact that they can't communicate with the other US citizens who are working there who were raised to use other languages more prevalently or who were raised in multi-ethnic families and therefore have the added benefit naturally of another language being taught to them from birth? I could see this being linked to the above discussion and becoming a hot-button issue in the US, especially if what 'JordanKing' stated as 45 million Americans primarily using the Spanish language and not English in their daily routines in the US was true and that some of these individuals were in the future to try to run for governmental office accentuating that foreign language capability as a plus. For it is one thing to see a foreign language skill as a benefit for an international company working with partners/clients abroad, but quite another thing to see it as a benefit for a domestic company/politician dealing with a domestic constituency. Just like in France or most other countries, I could likewise see that being another divisive and ugly moment in the US as to what it means to be an American. Food for thought...

that's what they have always been for, for centuries.

Some of this expectation of positive results to be gained by a politician's fluency in a foreign language is an expectation that people are going to be dumb enough to like a person simply because he is speaking directly to them. Sadly, this is often the case, but not always and usually only works for a domestic audience.
It's a variation of "that's a guy I want to drink a beer with" idea of political appeal. I don't want to just pick on the hoi polloi, the middle-brows eat this stuff up, it appeals to their vanity. They are as shallow as those they look down on. Remember all the comments about how intellectual Tony Blair sounded in contrast to Bush? Blair was just a posher version of the same message, but who cares about underlying reality.

All that said, any bonuses from such shallow appeals will quickly disintegrate if not followed up with more substantial policies. Witness the disenchantment with Obama around the world. He isn't hated as much as Bush, but the hopey-changey, multiculti appeal of Obama has worn thin. Obama has been seen as someone who will not change core American foreign policies.

And to JORDANKING, how would a knowledge of Spanish make a leader any better? We have had plenty of Spanish-speaking politicians who are duds, or worse than duds. Keep the emphasis on ideas and policies, not presentation. If you want to appeal to the Latin American population, and not just the elites, then that will require a lot more than addresses delivered in Spanish.

Perhaps Geoffrey Sant could take a few moments away from translating Huntsman's Mandarin into a totally dissimilar language like English, turn off the late night comedy shows, and question his own idiomatic carelessness.

To "beg the question" does not mean to provoke or 'raise' a question. It is a form of logical fallacy where, in essence, one assumes that a point being argued is truthful in order to support the argument that the same point is truthful. I am grossly simplifying the concept, but I'm sure Mr. Sant is intelligent enough to get the point. After all, he does watch some of the 'smartest' shows on television

To the OP on the subject of Gov. Huntsman's fluency, readers on this site who speak more than one language can attest that many times (especially in non-Romance languages) direct translations do not come out coherently, but make perfect sense in the original language. This is a problem anyone who has used tools like Google Translator to directly translate larger segments of text is familiar with. Not speaking Mandarin, I myself can offer no claims to refute the source in the article. However, voters should be supporting him for his knowledge and experience in diplomacy in China, not for his Mandarin abilities.

You are missing one of the key points. It’s not that Huntsman knows the language from studying it in high school, it’s that he knows it from living and working in the country on several occasions. He has an understanding of the culture, politics and history of China, which would bode well for him.

Think about the opposite end of the spectrum, for instance when Bush gave Merkel a shoulder massage or referred to then Korean President Kim Dae-Jung as “this man.” These type of manners are a bad representation of him as a President and reflect poorly on the United States as a whole. Huntsman has worked as a diplomat in other countries outside of China as well, and when dealing with his counterparts in those nations, having an understanding of and experience interacting with people from that country would be a positive.

I believe they speak a foreign language completely, on in which might have WMD's means no reason not to invade right now and the international law of Might Makes Right means we might as well be right... snd leaving means some are going and some are staying and some may secretly stay forever.

It's very interesting for me, great post..
upcoming phones

I've read your post, and your post is the best from the other.. Many thanks
upcoming phones

I think, if the president can speak foreign laguage, it's really good.
upcoming phones

I think your articles is very great articles for me.. Keep posting
upcoming phones

Your article was the best article I've read.. Thank you very much
upcoming phones

Its very fantastic to read your article.. I'm very interested to reading your article..
upcoming phones

I think, the greastest articles who I've read is yours..
upcoming phones

I was read your article, and I think your job is very good. Keep it good.
upcoming phones

great.. The best article is yours.
upcoming phones