I really don't think this is out of the question when the our culture is increasingly drifting towards believing that there is no "good and evil" but merely "healthy and unhealthy". Why have moral responsibility when you can just get a shrink?

Winning over the media is actually probably a weakness. It killed McCain is 2000. If the media embraces a Republican, the logical question is - what's wrong with that Republican??

Also, George Will said it best that Huntsman gives off the vibe that makes him "The Republican for people who really actually don't like Republicans."

I think the key is where the Obama base goes. If they holdout, he'll have to actively court them, which would make him entirely unelectable. If they fall in line, it's tough to predict the power of the man's appeal and charisma. He's an empty suit - but that suite is fantastic. All in all, I think it's certainly still Obama's to lose. 

The divide I think is fundamentally on the topic of equality. Whether or not natural inequality can be overcome, and ultimately remedied. The Right accepts natural inequality, due to our permanent, constant, flawed human nature, while the Left, holding that man is malleable and able to be improved through social progress, finds this the ultimate goal. I do think though that the left and its smattering of philosophies has much less of a core disposition or mindset like conservatives. To clarify, there is an important distinction to be made between the Right and conservatism, but that's a different topic.

I think that it's a tremendously important investment if the institution shows that certain things in fact are not subjective and relative. The truths of the physical world, learned in science/math/etc classes, are of minimal importance compared to the higher philosophical truths that academia is supposed to protect. Great literature, separated by its insight into human nature, can be a tool for this. But silly poems and modern "art" are definitely wastes. 

This is Craigslist style journalism. But, I think karma will kick in when this guy needs to read through thousands of liberal "Dear Penthouse" style stories about Governor Perry. Should be a great afternoon...

I guess everyone was posting about this around the same time - my friend recently tossed it upon on Facebook (my generation's Agora), and here's what I put:

"Fanatic"? Lacking "moral decency"? Come on. Brooks has taken a series of Democratic talking points and cloaked them in his "sensible conservative" bravado.
For example: "They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases..." Revenue increasing? By any objective standard that sounds like raising taxes. Brooks, who takes it upon himself to be the arbiter of "intellectual authorities", shouldn't so readily buy into talking points.

Furthermore: "Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion..." Who actually believes the Democrats will do this? More importantly, what bill is Brooks referring to? There's nothing!

What strikes me more as "indefensible" is the cowardice of the current administration and Democratic leadership to rely upon speeches and distortion to hide their reluctance to lead. We don't even have a budget...

By definition, the left has behaved indefensibly, because they have yet to provide anything to defend.

Great post! I'm writing a very similar piece now in regards to JQA and Libya. 

I don't think a candidate, in the general election, needs a single-issue strength as much as one does to distinguish themselves in a primary. Granted, you'd want a candidate's perceived expertise to be on the biggest issue (like Romney and the economy). However, there are a lot of other factors that go into electability.

Huntsman is the only candidate in the field to have both foreign and domestic experience, and has qualities that will easily appeal to the middle. If one is to argue the merits of his conservatism/ what issues he stands for decisively, I think there is a harder case to be made - hopefully one he will make in the upcoming months. But in terms of electability, he seems to possess clear strengths.

Reid, while upholding a terribly misguided worldview, isn't politically oblivious. Personal connection aside, is it possible that this endorsement is actually an indication that Democrats fear a Huntsman nomination? The timing seems interesting - this can really be a kiss of death in a debate where Huntsman's weakness is his alleged ties to Obama and the left. 

Huntsman is not a perfect conservative. Nor is he my pick for the GOP nominee. But I think he's an unquestionably strong national candidate. The Dems know this. Reid knows this. Perhaps they are trying to nip something in the bud?

The idea isn't as much to make the rest of the world exceptional, but rather that our exceptionalism exists because we are mindful, as a nation, of the condition of peoples beyond our borders. Our commitment to foreign aid, wars without territorial gain, policies like the Marshall Plan, etc. define our exceptionalism. With our power and general moral code, comes the responsibility to protect human dignity/natural rights on a larger stage. Granted, we are bound by realities, but the desire and commitment can exist in degrees. 

An interesting post. But, I find it difficult for conservatives to embrace American Exceptionalism without also accepting the moral burden that comes with such power. There is a fine case to be made that neoconservatism (a foreign policy view I largely hold) has led us slightly beyond our means (in a strategic sense, not financial - we still are spending historical % levels of GDP on military spending), but we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

I don't necessarily buy the argument that the Founding Fathers were so contained in their expectations for American foreign policy. We practiced (correctly) disproportionate response in the Barbary Wars, which also illustrated the wide range of foreign policy powers the President was given in the original understanding of the Constitution. Furthermore, post WW2, we have a newfound moral burden - one that stems from the core belief in natural rights that the Founders held dear- with our superpower status, that can be fulfilled both constitutionally and to our own benefit. 

Hmm. That's interesting. I'm surprised he wasn't in the curriculum. If you're interested in how he now is featured, here are some links (mainly the first):

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history/content/sessions/session-21-the-struggle-for-hegemony-in-fourth

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history/content/sessions/session-22-the-struggle-for-hegemony-in-fourth

Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and Bernard Williams' work on Moral Integrity come to mind specifically. Judith Jarvis Thompson's work adds to this as well. 

Uh-oh, utilitarianism! While I agree with his ends, scientific calculations of moral questions always scare me. As Allan Bloom said: "When the liberal, or what came to be called the utilitarian, teaching became dominant, as is the case with most victorious causes, good arguments became less necessary; the original good arguments, which were difficult, were replaced by plausible simplifications- or by nothing."

I think this comes down to the basic "leaky bucket" theory that as a governing body grows, its efficiency decreases. Looking at the Bush Administration's fantastic work in Africa, I feel the GOP can easily make the case that our foreign aid can much be better spent 1) by us, and 2) on our own projects.

Furthermore, I don't see why there is not a greater moral outrage that we are bailing out Europe than there is for our own bailout. This is an easy political point for the GOP.

Moreover, there is a secondary issue here on how much the United States spends on international aid. I am not of the school of thought that we should necessarily scale this back by a large amount, but I do think it best if it's in our control.