Michael Cromartie created something—a web of people with a distinctive light infusing their work and relationships—that will persist long after his death.
124 search results for: voting
In an age increasingly marked by incivility, we need places where we can learn (or relearn) the practice of civil disagreement. The family is uniquely suited to serve as a training ground for this crucial virtue.
If the Benedict Option is just Christianity, it is neither inherently Benedictine nor is it optional. If it is a feeling and an intuition, it needs to be guided by careful thought.
For Alexis de Tocqueville, American democracy’s passion for equality was a potentially fatal flaw—one that religion could help address. But what happens when religion also becomes preoccupied with equality?
Prudent foreign policy does not multiply the country’s enemies unnecessarily.
Title IX exists to address discrimination faced by women and girls. Now it’s being used to privilege the interests of one male over many females.
The framers of the Constitution designed the elector system to balance the need for the people to have a voice and the desire to have a refined, informed body actually choose the president in order to avoid the election of a demagogue or charlatan.
The Electoral College was conceived for just the kind of national leadership crisis we now face.
What would happen if a justice with the judicial philosophy and record of Justice Ginsburg were to replace Justice Scalia on the Court?
If you have been tempted by the utilitarian, lesser-of-two-evils argument for Donald Trump, then you must appreciate how his latest and most serious scandal changes that calculation.
Contemporary politicians would do well to emulate the virtues of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a liberal who understood the conservative lesson that intermediary institutions—particularly families—are essential for preserving liberal society.
When picking a Supreme Court justice, the next Republican president should look to federal appellate judges who have also served on a state supreme court.
Voting always requires a weighing of consequences. The paramount question for the conscientious voter in 2016 is, “Which outcome among the feasible alternatives will promote the greatest good or prevent the greatest harm?”
High-principled conservatives who would abstain from voting this November rather than vote for Donald Trump embrace a faulty model of political action, which threatens to undermine the resistance to radical liberalism.
In deciding how to vote this November, one should be guided both by political science and one’s conscience.
In evaluating potential nominees to the Supreme Court, Republican presidents should seriously consider state supreme court justices. Their independence gives a clearer indication of how they would behave if appointed to the high court.
Anyone who hopes to see a major shift among the major parties has to ask himself: when am I going to stop voting for them? If not during the year of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, then when?
The conservative should not act the ideologue in order to attack the demagogue, because the simplistic thinking of the ideologue is just as hostile to true statesmanship as the angry passions of the demagogue.
By invoking the principles of the Declaration of Independence, Republicans can wholeheartedly embrace the ideas of integration, inclusion, and respect in a way that remains consistent with their commitments to morality, patriotism, and liberty.
Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever—except the shape of your own character.
Congress should pass the Conscience Protection Act to send a message to the entire nation that our freedom of speech and religious freedom are protected and valued.
There comes a time where gross disregard for human life and for our constitutional order should stir us from docile obedience and impel us to resistance.
Until a solid conservative independent candidate has made a run for the presidency and is coming up far short the Monday before the election, there is no reason for a conservative (or anyone else) to consider Donald Trump as the answer to the Democratic candidate.
There will be no true justice—and no real political discourse—until the Rawlsian illusion of neutrality is rejected and the Rawlsian tyranny strangling political discourse is overthrown. The second of two parts.
With Trump as nominee, social conservatives might think that by not voting for him they are keeping their hands clean. These people fail to recognize that under a Clinton regime there will be no refuge from a systematic agenda that seeks to destroy the very notion of “nature” and of any restraint on federal power.