At a ceremony this past Thursday in Washington, D.C., my friend Peter Berkowitz was awarded a 2017 Bradley Prize. Berkowitz’s body of work is important, in part, because it constitutes a powerful reply to so many of our reigning intellectual orthodoxies.
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.”
Hoover senior fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses, with Ron Owens of KGO Live, the government shutdown, including such topics as repealing the Affordable Care Act, the state of compromise and negotiation in Washington, the creation of the Affordable Care Act, and the budget.
Berkowitz on the John Batchelor Show: “The way to make dramatic transformations of law in the United States is to win significant majorities in the House and the Senate and win the presidency”
Hoover senior fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses recent domestic political events, including Republican efforts to defund the Affordable Care Act, the health care rollout in Oregon, government debt, and the budget.
In response to Jonah's query below , I think that Peter Berkowitz's selection of the "big three" of American conservatism is defensible, but debatable...
What is the proper role of the U.S. government in regulating the economy and providing a social safety net?
Conservative lawyer Teresa Manning, who previously accused the University of Iowa College of Law (UI) of refusing to hire her because of her political persuasions, will soon get a second chance to prove her case in federal court.
Michael Walzer’s name is associated with the summons to undertake social criticism that is engaged: that is, rooted in actual circumstances; cognizant of real people’s wants, needs, and desires; and respectful of the diversity of beliefs, practices, and forms of association by which groups of men and women organize their moral, political, and spiritual lives.
Donald Trump’s flamboyant incursion into the Republican primary has not prevented the return of the quadrennial spectacle featuring conservatives arguing among themselves, often vociferously, about the principles that define their movement.
Pledging to spend more money on the military was once an easy way for Republican presidential candidates to showcase their conservative bona fides.
In the Trump era, the conviction has spread among elites—especially, but not only, among progressive elites—that the people have failed them. This very conviction, though, is an indication of how American elites have failed the people.
How much does the gap between rich and poor matter? In 1979, for every dollar the poorest fifth of the American population earned, the richest fifth earned nine. By 1997, that gap had increased to fifteen to one. Is this growing income inequality a serious problem? Is the size of the gap between rich and poor less important than the poor's absolute level of income? In other words, should we focus on reducing the income gap or on fighting poverty?
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. . . .
In recent years, a series of startling global developments has provoked a new round of thinking among students of international affairs about the international order and America's place in it...
In his 1955 mission statement that launched National Review, William F. Buckley made plain that while it’s the job of centralized government to “protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property,” all “other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress.” Buckley added that the “profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the moral organic order.”
In the last decade and a half, India and China have both engaged in extensive economic reforms, in effect bringing their joint population of some 2.3 billion into the worldwide system of capitalism and free trade. Those 2.3 billion people, many of whom are extremely well educated, are by and large willing to work harder and for less pay than are Americans. Are India and China's expanding and modernizing economies threatening America's long global dominance of science, technology, and industry? If so, what should we do about it? Peter Robinson speaks with Craig Barrett, Stephen Moore, and Peter A. Thiel.
Building America's electricity system was one of the great achievements of the twentieth century, providing inexpensive energy to homes and businesses throughout the country. But in the twenty-first century, two crises occurred. In 2001, California experienced massive electricity shortages, leading to rolling blackouts and skyrocketing electrical bills. And in 2003, a blackout swept across eight states in the Midwest and Northeast, leaving tens of millions in the dark. Why did these problems arise now, after a century of progress? Were they the result of ill-advised attempts to deregulate the utility industry? Or is more deregulation actually the solution?
The September 11 attacks in New York and Washington have already cost America thousands of lives and billions of dollars in damages. But those are only the direct costs. How severe and how lasting will the impact be on our economy as whole? And how will new burdens on the federal government, including a military buildup and a bailout of the airline industry, affect fiscal policy? Should the government cut taxes or increase spending to get the economy moving again?
In 2001 President Bush established a bipartisan commission to study and report recommendations for restoring fiscal soundness to the current Social Security program. All three of the commission's models for reforming the system included the creation of individually controlled retirement accounts—a process commonly referred to as "privatizing Social Security." Some critics of the proposals argue that Social Security is not in as much trouble as the president's commission would have us believe and that major reform is unnecessary. Other critics say that creating private accounts will compound Social Security's problems rather than solve them. Who's right, the president's commission or its critics?