Senior Fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses political pragmatism on the John Batchelor Show.
Peter Berkowitz: Identity Politics Is A Threat To Society. Is There Anything We Can Do About It At This Point? (17:15)
Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses his RealClear Politics article "Liberal Education as an Antidote to Identity Politics."
Human Rights attorney Scott Horton debated Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Peter Berkowitz on human rights and the rules of warfare in a debate organized by the Pomona Student Union on Mar. 4 at 7 p.m. in Edmunds Ballroom. . . .
Speeches -- even or especially when they are intended to obscure the truth -- reveal something of the convictions of the speech giver and clarify his opinions about the character of his audience.
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.
Why do conservatives believe in free markets and limited government? Because they make life better—especially for those in need.
Moderation—the tendency to avoid the extremes and strike sensible balances—does not appear to be President Trump’s strong suit. That so much of the opposition to him is bereft of this much-disparaged but essential virtue poses an even more alarming threat to the long-term public interest.
In August of 2001, President Bush announced his decision to limit federal funding of stem cell research to already established lines of embryonic stem cells, while forbidding funding for any research that required the destruction of additional human embryos. But his decision ended neither stem cell research nor the debate over the ethics of such research. How do we weigh the medical benefits of this research against the destruction of embryos? Where do we draw the line on research using human embryos and are we on a slippery slope toward even more controversial research?
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. . . .
Masters of the art teach that subtlety, indirection, and on occasion mis-direction are crucial to successful diplomacy...
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 controversy sparked by the Sept. 15, 2009, publication of the Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, otherwise known as the Goldstone Report, may appear to exclusively concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . .
Be careful when one uses the superlative case—best, most, -est, etc.—or evokes end-of-the-world imagery...
In discharging their constitutional duty to provide advice and, if they deem appropriate, give consent to President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Senators should examine the critical importance the president attaches to empathy...
Defeated at nearly every level in the 2008 elections, Republicans were supposed to be using the current four-year stretch in purgatory to rethink the issues, redefine themselves as a party, and (most of all) select a charismatic leader to get them back in the game...
Admirers and critics have two diametrically opposed views of President George W. Bush. The admirers see a compassionate conservative at home and defender of the nation against terrorism and rogue states abroad. Critics see a radical conservative at home who led the nation into a destructive and unnecessary war abroad. Why do conservatives and liberals so often seem to be describing two different men when discussing President George W. Bush? Is it possible to find any common ground on which view of President Bush is closer to the truth?