​

In our increasingly global society, being multilingual is a valuable talent. Many universities, Penn included, require that students demonstrate proficiency in a language of their choosing in order to increase their cultural knowledge and job prospects. Many job recruiters, especially with the federal government and multinational corporations, indicate that fluency in a foreign language — especially a non-Western language — confers a large advantage in the hiring process.

In light of this, it seems incredibly unusual that if you’re running for president, speaking another language is definitely not a plus. Both Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman were recently attacked on the campaign trail for their language skills — Romney for his ability to speak French and Huntsman for his fluency in Mandarin.

Newt Gingrich’s campaign released an online ad titled “The French Connection,” in which the narrator intones over the strains of French music, “just like John Kerry, [Mitt Romney] speaks French too.” The ad then cuts to a clip of Romney saying, “Bonjour, je m’appelle Mitt Romney” (“Hello, my name is Mitt Romney”). Presumably, we are supposed to believe that not only is Romney politically akin to the democratic Kerry, but that he has some sort of nefarious connection to the French because he could introduce himself to a French-speaking person in their native language.

The attack on Huntsman came in a similar attack ad titled “The Manchurian Candidate.” “NHLiberty4Paul” posted the video on YouTube; it is unclear whether the ad was in fact a product of the Paul campaign. Ron Paul and his official campaign publicly denounced the ad — Paul’s New Hampshire supporters likely created it without the campaign’s permission. The ad features three clips of Huntsman speaking Chinese and then asks, “Weak on China? Wonder why?” It ends with a doctored photo that depicts Huntsman in a Chinese military uniform. It is a blatant attack on Huntsman’s viability as a candidate, implying that if he speaks Chinese, then he must be soft on China and too connected to the country to still have “American values.”

It is hard to comprehend why the ability to speak a foreign language would be an advantage for many jobs, but not the presidency — the one job that is arguably the most globally connected post in the nation. At a time when America is accused of having a sense of “cultural exceptionalism,” having a president who is fluent in a foreign language could help to show that Americans value and respect other cultures. It is unclear how much French Romney actually knows, but it is unlikely that his ability to speak a foreign language would make him an unconditional ally of France.

Huntsman’s ability to speak Chinese could prove invaluable as a diplomatic tool — instead of the Chinese having to communicate with the President in English, the President could speak with them in Chinese. This ability to interact on an equal level could potentially communicate that the US views China as an equal and demonstrate an intimacy with Chinese culture that could generate respect. Huntsman’s understanding of the Chinese language and culture could make it easier for him to understand the significance of American policies towards China, a rising power in today’s world.

In fact, many leaders of foreign countries must speak a foreign language — English — to function well in their jobs. Imagine if all of the leaders of European countries spoke only their own language — there would be a huge market for translators because no interstate business could be transacted without them. America is unique in its adamant desire that its leader be unable to speak a foreign language — maybe this is derived our supposed feelings of cultural exceptionalism, or a belief that we don’t have to speak another language because anyone worth talking to already speaks ours. Or maybe it really does stem from the fear that learning another language would make the president too connected to that country to “get tough” with them should the need arise. However, it doesn’t seem realistic to think that a potential president’s foreign language ability could hurt the country, yet this idea was a central focus of the various attacks on Huntsman, and a target for Gingrich’s attack on Romney.

Whatever the reason for this dislike of a candidate’s language abilities, Americans should recognize that their negative perceptions are unfounded. Attack ads, like the two mentioned above, only work when viewers believe or identify with the negatives highlighted. If everyday Americans came to believe that having a multilingual president would be an asset to the country, or at least not a hindrance, we might see a Chinese- or French-speaking president inaugurated in 2016. A positive change in America’s relationship to foreign cultures could be the ultimate, and indeed quite beneficial, result.

Follow The Red and the Blue on Twitter: @redandblueDP.