If we want a society of smaller and medium-sized firms, we can have it -- there are no constitutional constraints. We need a strong antitrust regime and stronger antitrust laws, and the capacity to enforce those laws located in people who aren't tied into the oligopoly.

Why is religion in decline in countries where ordinary people enjoy a better standard of living? It seems that there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives. Consequently there is less need for religion to help people cope with the feeling that they have little control over their lives.

We need active industrial and social policy on an ambitious scale if we are ever to put this economy back onto the high-investment, high-wage growth trajectory from which the Reagan years took us away.

FDR didn't panic in the face of the GOP's paint of him as an architect of evil government. He stayed the course, remained true to his populist faith, turned the tables back on his foes, and dared them to move the country forward not backward. Obama appears willing to do the same.

WASHINGTON -- Addressing the nation on Tuesday night, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio came with a simple message. "More government isn't going ...

To say government must be small is nonsense. Government must be the size necessary to make a society and economy work, and that is not fixed -- nor could it possibly have been known by farmers in the late 1700s.

For those of you who are attracted to Mitt Romney's business background, I think it is useful to view the choice between Obama and Romney as a choice between two very different business strategies. Which candidate is the better investment?

It's Obama's fault on a statewide level when the nationwide economy tanks, but when it recovers it's the individual states, and their respective governors, who are responsible for the growth. If that sounds like disingenuous political double-talk, it is.

Voters' decisions at the ballot box are increasingly tied to their overall views on the role of government, according to a poll released Monday by the...

The Republicans have raised the bar very high for the Democrats when they meet in Charlotte. It will be difficult for Democrats to supply a more rousing defense of their own party's programs than the one Republicans just gave them in Tampa.

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem like the Republicans just keep right on raising the bar for craziness right up into the stratosphere?

Independents need to be reminded of who is blocking sane policies for economic reconstruction and social justice in contemporary America. It certainly isn't the Democratic Party, and next week we need very loudly to say so.

The wedge that divides America today is a familiar one; simply, to what extent we should have "more" or "less" government in our lives.

If this campaign were a debate over economic growth, Obama would probably lose. Instead, Republicans are turning it into a debate over the safety net.

Roosevelt declared that the GOP must stand "for the rights of humanity, or else it must stand for special privilege." Addressing the GOP convention in 2012, he would be sickened.

Would one describe the policy as a ban or a limit? Would one include that the larger beverage would be available at certain locales but not others (i.e., a ban at certain locales)? Would you include 16-plus ounces in the question, or describe it simply as large?

We must support policies and candidates committed to restoring constitutional wisdom to our political institutions. This means that we must be willing to see unsustainable programs cut, even programs that we like and depend on.

Mitt Romney's campaign released its second general election television ad Thursday. It is another iteration of what Romney will do on his first day in...

The Obama and Romney campaigns have shed any pretense that the Republican primary is still ongoing, and have fully engaged one another. On Wednesd...