Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. In 2019-2021, he served as the Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, executive secretary of the department's Commission on Unalienable Rights, and senior adviser to the...
His reading list focuses on how liberty is won, lost, and neglected. By Jonathan Rauch.
Hoover senior fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses religion in the United States on the John Batchelor Show. Topics include the discourse on freedom of religion in the United States, Islam in the United States, and John Rawls’s political theories.
Yesterday, the Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with the Hoover Institution, hosted an event with this blunt title: “Identity Politics Is a Threat to Society: Is There Anything We Can Do About It At This Point?” The panel consisted my friends John Fonte and Peter Berkowitz; my hero Heather Mac Donald; our long-time blog nemesis Andrew Sullivan; and Michael Lind, an original thinker whose book about the Vietnam War was the subject of the first post I ever wrote on Power Line, more than 16 years ago.
In her new book, “Unfinished Business: Women, Men, Work, Family,” Anne-Marie Slaughter, the president and CEO of the Washington-based think tank New America, argues that while we have made great progress, we must still knock down plenty of “obstacles and barriers to true equality.”
Thirty years after the phrase came into vogue, the culture wars are alive and well—and more heated and complex than ever. A comprehensive peace is not in the cards.
A new theory of Jewish nationalism promises to be more liberal than the old one. But it profoundly misunderstands Zionism—and liberalism.
Last week in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court threaded the needle. Whether the thread will hold is uncertain. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s narrowly crafted majority opinion protected religious liberty without impairing gay rights.
The Grandy Group Monday-Friday from 5:00am-9:00am...
The acrimony and disorder of contemporary American politics, according to a host of conservative commentators, stem in significant measure from progressive elites' incendiary words and antagonistic conduct.
Among their many aspirations for his presidency, Barack Obama’s admirers nurse a persistent hope that he might be able to end the culture wars...
Progressives are fond of saying that they stand for empathy and compromise, and are quick to blame conservatives for polarizing our politics. Their feverish reaction last week to the Supreme Court’s thoughtful 5-4 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. shows that progressives could use more of the virtues they claim as their own.
A program at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, will bring together 25 of the country’s best and brightest students in August in an effort to train the next generation of leaders in the principles of liberal democracy and the ideas that constitute the foundation of the state...
The callous taking of George Floyd’s life has provoked both peaceful protests and violent rioting in American cities. The turmoil in our streets underscores the essential importance of a criminal justice system rooted in the rule of law and of a free press that reports accurately on the actions of citizens and government officials. The questions roiling the nation about police brutality, civic unrest, and America's commitment to human rights will linger.
On Jan. 20, right on schedule and without interruption, Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Joe Biden as the 46th president of the United States. Yet all is not well. That 25,000 National Guard members had been summoned to Washington to stand watch over the city’s streets and provide security for the inauguration testified to the distrust and anger roiling the nation.
A few years ago on a lazy Friday afternoon, my friend Ronit Vardi—a veteran journalist and longtime resident of this frenetic city perched between the Mediterranean and the Middle East—looked askance when I told her that I was headed to Jerusalem to teach a seminar on Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
In a classic example of civic action, conservatives have undertaken a variety of initiatives to counter the upsurge in progressive efforts to enlist American schools, U.S. corporations, and all levels of government in the promotion of the doctrine that the United States is systemically racist. Progressives, who generally favor civic action, have responded with indignation, derision, and calumny.
For more than a half century, popular culture, public policy, law, and universities in the United States have wrestled openly with questions of race and justice. Yet today’s progressives demand that schools, universities, corporations, and the federal government institute aggressive new curricula, training, and protocols because, according to them, the nation has scarcely begun to address the poisonous legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
The partisans going to the barricades on opposing sides of America’s gaping political divide are united in the conviction that the old-fashioned liberal spirit has outlived its usefulness. A system that is rotten to the core and requires a radical overhaul, say the rabble rousers on the left, precludes toleration, civility, and the disposition to consider the merits of contending perspectives.
Should the U.S. Census stop collecting racial and ethnic data? The 2000 census asked Americans to identify themselves according to 126 possible racial and ethnic categories, up from just 5 categories in 1990. Movements are now afoot to add even more racial categories to the 2010 census. Does the collection of all these data stand in the way of the creation of a truly color-blind society? Should we drop questions of race from the census and other government forms? Or are these data critical tools in the ongoing fight to end inequality and discrimination?