After their dismal performance in November, conservatives are taking stock...
Peter Berkowitz: Identity Politics Is A Threat To Society. Is There Anything We Can Do About It At This Point? (17:15)
Both the quest for purity and the quest for unity [among conservatives] are misguided...
Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses his RealClear Politics article "Liberal Education as an Antidote to Identity Politics."
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, discusses his new book, Constitutional Conservatism.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, discusses whether or not students at the University of California are receiving a biased and compromised education from activist professors.
In a thoughtful consideration of the state of the conservative movement, Peter Berkowitz writes of fellow conservatives: “They should distinguish among what they can alter, what they must accept and what they should embrace.
During his meteoric rise to the White House, President Obama was touted as a pragmatist -- one who overcomes ideology, transcends partisanship, and focuses on the practical and doable. The stunning repudiation of the president’s leadership on Nov. 4 exhibits the poverty of his brand of pragmatism.
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.
Why do conservatives believe in free markets and limited government? Because they make life better—especially for those in need.
Bernie Sanders’ failed Democratic Party insurgency and Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party reflect a dangerous fissure that has opened between the people and the establishment.
In back rooms and think tanks, Republicans are already mourning their party—and plotting the fight over who’s going to be in it after Trump.
Every once in a while, something you read is so otherwise inexplicable that satire seems the safest bet...
On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters delivered a stunning rebuke to the transformative agenda obdurately pursued by President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and their minions. . . .
To understand the sometimes glaring gaps between candidate Obama’s promises and President Obama’s policies, it is useful to appreciate an old tension in American progressivism. . . .
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...
The 2016 election campaign has proved a trying one for citizens who seek sobriety, integrity, and fidelity to principle in their presidential candidates. The two major party nominees’ glaring deficiencies have provoked cries of despair from many high-minded voters. But that is a luxury the nation can ill afford.
The presidential election of 2000 highlighted the significant demographic divisions between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The strength of the Republicans lies in the South and in the middle of the country. But the voters that carried those regions for George W. Bush, mostly white and Protestant, are shrinking as a proportion of the overall United States population. Are these demographic changes a serious problem for the Republicans? If so, what can they do to bring groups that have traditionally been Democratic—Hispanics, blacks, and Catholics, for example—into the Republican Party?
In 1992, Bill Clinton received 43 percent of the national vote, but he received 83 percent of the vote from film and television writers, directors, and producers. Is Hollywood as liberal as these data suggest? If so, why? Does Hollywood have a cohesive liberal agenda that affects the films and television programs we watch?