Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz
Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz gives his thoughts on how schools are not doing a good job teaching world and civic history.
Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses the threat to democracy worldwide with a focus on democracy in Europe.
His reading list focuses on how liberty is won, lost, and neglected. By Jonathan Rauch.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at Hoover, speaks on “Restoring Prosperity: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives.”
The College Board wants to ensure that students learn about America only at its worst.
When society and politics become degraded, when American communities crumble, merely “conserving” isn’t enough. Conservatism must restore.
What have people meant across the generations when they say, "I believe in America"?
The Obama administration's embarrassment over the exercise of U.S. power encourages the hesitant, half-hearted use of it, thereby threatening American security and global political freedom.
Colleges and universities honor free inquiry in theory, but not always in fact. How to keep higher education true to its values.
The Constitution blends political ideas into a harmonious whole. Modern partisan warfare, on the other hand, sharpens differences and dulls the harmony, and democracy suffers.
Speaking in praise of freedom has fallen out of fashion in American politics. That throws public discourse out of step with the country’s constitutional system, which puts a premium on protecting individual liberty.
The prospect for peace in the Middle East requires believing in miracles.
In “Why Liberalism Failed,” Patrick Deneen makes an eye-opening contribution to the critique of liberalism. Equating liberalism with the modern tradition of freedom, he distills abuses of state power, nature, culture, technology, and education that are undertaken in freedom’s name yet leave citizens less self-sufficient, less disposed to cooperate, and less capable of looking beyond material goods and social status to the cultivation of character and to the claims of duty.
Patrick Deneen’s disdainful review last month in the Washington Post of George Will’s splendid new book, “The Conservative Sensibility,” reasserts fashionable misconceptions about liberalism, conservatism, and America. The review — and, more importantly, the book — provide an occasion to clarify the character of the conservatism that takes its bearings from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and from the ideas about human nature and freedom that undergird them.
Perhaps at no time since the decade or so preceding the Civil War have debates about America’s commitment to fundamental rights been as rancorous as today. Yet at no time have fundamental rights in the United States been enjoyed by so wide and diverse a population as they are now. The contrast in contemporary America between the public rancor and the political reality reflects an estrangement from history and an accompanying loss of perspective.
Factions, argued James Madison in Federalist No. 10, had ever been the bane of governments grounded in the consent of the governed. However, an improved political science informed the new charter of government that he and his fellow delegates drafted a few months before in Philadelphia over the course of the summer of 1787. Well-designed institutions that minimized freedom’s costs offered a more promising approach to preserving freedom. So effective is Madisonian political science that it provides remedies for such up-to-date threats to freedom as social media and the giant companies that monopolize the provision of information about us and about others.