David Brooks, in this provocative critique of Republican Libertarianism, uses the insights of Hayek without mentioning him...
Fifty years ago, critic Lionel Trilling declared that "in the United States at this time, liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition." Today, however, even most Democrats avoid calling themselves liberal. What happened to the liberal tradition in the second half of the twentieth century? What does liberalism stand for at the beginning of the twenty-first century? Can liberals reclaim their once-dominant position in American politics, or is their ideology history?
In much of the world, conservatives clamor for subsidies while liberals fight big government. In the United States, it’s the other way around. Here’s why. By Charles Wolf Jr..
In America we have what’s called a republic. . . .
There’s a debate going on in the punditsphere about whether America is ungovernable. . . .
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks...
What politics needs is better partisanship.
Peter Schweizer and Wynton C. Hall tell how they captured history in their new book, a look at oratory that was powerful bot on the podium and in society.
The political science departments at elite private universities such as Harvard and Yale, at leading small liberal arts colleges like Swarthmore and Williams, and at distinguished large public universities like the University of Maryland and the University of California, Berkeley, offer undergraduates a variety of courses on a range of topics...
At Big Think, they used one of my questions in their interview with Barney Frank: Question: How can Fannie and Freddie be structured to avoid the moral hazard problem and a too-cozy relationship with regulators? . . .
It has nothing to do with the bloated budget, the payoffs to political friends like the unions in bailing out Detroit and exempting them from health care taxes, the rising debt, the coddling of Wall Street, the stimulus package that didn’t stimulate, the grandiosity of redesigning the health care system and the energy sector. . . .
Charles Kesler outlines the “grand liberal project” that began a century ago...
Radically different conclusions about a whole range of issues have been common for centuries...
These are exciting though scary revolutionary times, akin to the constant acrimony in the fourth-century BC polis, mid-nineteenth century revolutionary Europe, or — perhaps in a geriatric replay — the 1960s. . . .
Does Wall Street's meltdown presage the end of the American century?...
More than a quarter century ago, as U.S.-Soviet Cold War tensions peaked, President Ronald Reagan declared, "The only value in possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they can't ever be used. . . .
More than a quarter-century after completing two terms as California governor, Democrat Jerry Brown will announce today that he is campaigning to return for a third term as chief executive of the nation's most populous state. . . .
The roots of conservatism go back to philosophers of the 17 and 18th centuries, such as John Locke, David Hume, and Adam Smith...
Bernard-Henri Lévy, on point and off
David Davenport, a counselor to the director and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, discusses the genesis of modern conservatism. Modern American conservatism, Davenport avers, was born in the 1930s, when Herbert Hoover took on the excesses of the New Deal. The New Deal overturned the way in which the United States worked and was governed. Eighty years later the New Deal is still the paradigm for US domestic policy. Obama is adding to the New Deal ideology with many of his policies, which are undermining US liberty and its rugged individualism. In his recent book, The New Deal and Modern American Conservatism: A Defining Rivalry, Davenport goes back to the 1930s to illustrate how the twenty-first-century discourse between progressives and conservatives grew out of the Roosevelt-Hoover debate of the 1930s.