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."
Constitutional Conservatism: Liberty, Self-Government, and Political Moderation by Hoover fellow Peter Berkowitz
Hoover Institution Press released Constitutional Conservatism: Liberty, Self-Government, and Political Moderation, by Peter Berkowitz. Berkowitz contends that constitutional conservatism encompasses a distinguished tradition of defending liberty that stretches from the great eighteenth century British statesman Edmund Burke through the authoritative exposition of the Constitution in The Federalist to the high points of post-World War II American conservatism.
Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses his Real Clear Politics article "Double Jeopardy At The University Of California."
Senior Fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses political pragmatism on the John Batchelor Show.
Both the quest for purity and the quest for unity [among conservatives] are misguided...
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.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, chair of the Koret-Taube Task Force on National Security and Law, and cochair of the the Boyd and Jill Smith Task Force on Virtues of a Free Society, notes, on Wall Street Journal TV, that public colleges are legally obligated to keep the classrooms free of politics and that classrooms should be places where students are free to explore ideas.
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.
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. . . .
Today, according to Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams, “multiculturalism and its politics of identity pose an existential threat to the American political order comparable to slavery in the 1850s or communism during the Cold War.”
Raise the banner of individual liberty and govern under it.
In early July, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo launched the Commission on Unalienable Rights. “The commission’s mission,” he explained in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, “isn’t to discover new principles but to ground our discussion of human rights in America’s founding principles.” The announcement of the panel’s existence and mandate immediately triggered a barrage of skepticism, indignation, and anger. The misunderstandings that the criticisms embody underscore the urgency of the commission’s work.
In “Why Liberalism Failed,” Patrick Deneen contends that today’s liberal regimes deserve to perish because they do not live up to the classical conception of political excellence. But the spirit of his critique clashes with the purpose of the ancients’ examination of the best regime.
Patrick Deneen, professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, has written an angry and breathless polemic against liberalism in the large sense — that is, the school of political thought that holds that human beings are by nature free and equal, and that the chief purpose of government is to secure individual rights.
The term “liberalism” ranks among the most contested in our political lexicon. It should also be regarded as among the most vital. In the large sense, liberalism names the modern tradition of freedom. Liberalism so understood was the dominant strand in our nation’s founding. Appreciating the standard accusations against it and why it is worthy of defense is crucial to conserving the best of the American constitutional tradition.