Discourses

What is most significant for our country’s future is how we understand the liberty and equality that forms us and how much we can preserve the natural sources of happiness in family and friendship. On these depend our individual virtues and our appreciation of the worth of free speech and a free economy. A single midterm election will not affect this very much, although we tend to over-interpret immediate results. It will be good for the country that Republicans will continue to be able to confirm judges, and good as well if they can recapture in 2020 voters lost in 2018. It would be useful too if the less-extreme Democrats moderated the others, although the allure of confronting the administration and maneuverings among prospective Presidents make this unlikely. The country needs two sensible parties, and the extremism of so many Democrats is our most obvious political concern.

is the Fletcher Jones Professor of Political Philosophy and director of the Salvatori Center for the Study of Individual Freedom in the Modern World at Claremont McKenna College, and a fellow of the Claremont Institute.

More Thoughts

discourse

The Administrative State’s German Roots

James Poulos is very fair-minded in his treatment of Paul Gottfried’s “mixed” review of John Marini’s new book. Gottfried wrote: According to Marini, “contemporary ideology and politics become intelligible only with reference to a philosophy of history, which originated in the political thought of Kant and Hegel.” As someone who has written on both German…

discourse

Up From Administration

Must we reconcile ourselves to the federal bureaucracy? Paul Gottfried’s mixed review of Claremont senior fellow John Marini’s summa on unconstitutional government, Unmasking the Administrative State, leaves the reader with the more than sneaking suspicion that the answer is yes. “It represents a dramatic departure from what our federal union was intended to be, and…

discourse

David Brooks’s “Case” for Reparations

David Brooks’s New York Times piece, “The Case for Reparations,” is so dumb, irresponsibly emotive, and wrong in both its premises and conclusions, that it deserves a section-by-section commentary. Brooks: …So let’s look at a sentence that was uttered at a time when the concept of sin was more prominent in the culture. The sentence…