What can be said of George H. W. Bush beyond the personal accolades is that, as president, he was a man who did nothing by half measures. He was hands-on, engaged, and thought deeply and seriously about the purpose of the nation.

In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, everyone in America assumed that there would be wars to follow - wars over the reunification of Germany, over the nations within the sphere of Soviet influence, and more. There weren't, because George H. W. Bush's policies and diplomacy prevented that.

We saw a true wave election in 2010 for Republicans. There was no such repudiation offered by Resistance Democrats in 2018.

Trump's supporters have taken over the Republican Party - not just because they like him but because they believe his approach to politics has been consistently vindicated.

It is a common thing for supporters of President Trump, even as early as when he was a candidate, to say, 'He fights.' And yes, he does fight. He fights everyone. He gets into all kinds of scraps that are pointless and unnecessary. He insults when he doesn't need to.

Making a good meal for someone, even if it is nothing complicated, is an expression of love: it is an invitation to share, for one dinner at least, in our common humanity.

The disturbing truth we have to recognize is that Bourdain is not alone in his loneliness and depression.

Racist assumptions, ethnolinguistic assumptions of inferiority or superiority, are as old as mankind.

Contemporary defenders of the Enlightenment shouldn't overgeneralize: the Enlightenment, however it is defined, is not an unalloyed good.

It is at best insufficient and at worst inaccurate to settle on a definition of the Enlightenment, for the obvious reason that there was not just one.

The ongoing argument over whether the Enlightenment is a good thing is hardly a new facet of American political life.

Trump knows where his strengths exist, and he is emphatically in favor of doubling down on them. This goes far beyond appointing Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

There are consequences for just expressing generally conservative views. And if those views take on the more extreme dint, the judgment can be swift.

It used to be you could just write vaguely conservative things while running a Starbucks - now, you can't.

Ordinary people in such positions - working at firms, companies, or chains - have the absolute right to have their voice in the public square.

You shouldn't have to be a chair at a think tank to speak your mind.

When contrarian voices are elevated to publications once viewed as places where contending ideas shared space, organized online backlash is now inevitable.

The firing of Kevin Williamson from 'The Atlantic' on the day he was set to give an opening Q&A in their offices was sadly unsurprising given the pattern of these types of hires.

Writers who do crap work believe they have turned in spun gold and all their little darlings must be defended.

Writers who do great work must be coddled and encouraged.

A smart, intellectual magazine is a difficult thing to run because of the need to manage conflicting personalities and opinionated writers who clash constantly, whose clashes make the publication better. It is exhausting and draining, and honestly, the only thing that's harder is probably running a university.

The world of campaign consulting is full of hype. It is designed to offer those desperate for an edge on their opponent the promise of a silver bullet and a consultancy willing to go to any lengths - including all those things you'd like to do but can't - in order to win.

A repeated problem with the Obama administration has been the lack of understanding that contracts only matter if they are enforceable - and if there is a party willing to do the enforcement.

Jindal's record in Louisiana is controversial, in part because, in a state which has historically favored patronage culture and a bureaucracy that offered uninterrupted employment for those who backed the right horse, he aimed to destroy the old spoils system.