In recent decades, any challenges to the reigning hegemony of American leadership, NATO allies, and a network of neoliberal NGOs, financial institutions, and corporations has often been depicted as threats to “liberal democracy.” This charge has been aimed at a variety of dissidents, from state actors, such as Russia or

Doughty, courageous little Rhode Island was the last state left. It is generally assumed that—even by the most staunchly Antifederalist historians—Rhode Island could not conceivably have gone it alone as a separate nation. But such views are the consequence of a mystique of political frontiers, in which it is assumed that a mere change in political frontiers and boundaries necessarily has a profound effect in the lives of the people or the validity of a territory or region.

It is summer in the United States, which means temperatures are hot and western forests and grasslands are burning—as has been the case as long as people have lived here. In our current age, however, in which there is alleged to be a political “solution” to nearly every problem, politicians believe they can use governmental policies to give us better weather and change the nature of wildfires.

It struck me recently just how frequently we use the word “law” in our conversations. I read or hear, “That’s against the law” when someone wants someone else not to do something, and “There ought to be a law” when someone wants to further restrict others. I read arguments about what it really means to say that the Constitution is the highest law of the land. But few people seem to be thinking more than a millimeter deep about law—is there any law beyond civil law? What do we mean when we say “law” in a particular context? What are the current limitations on law?

Globally, there is a movement to remove the residues of Western imperialism from all quarters of society. Throughout the world, monuments dedicated to Western explorers and statesmen are being toppled. Activists in the developing world and their allies in the West assert that developing countries must be permitted to chart a new course without the cultural interference of the West.

The July Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting this week had many interesting sound bites and a lot of Fedspeak, as is typical from one of the nation’s most powerful central planners, talk of the Fed’s “liftoff” being among them. Don’t bother looking in any textbook in search of an economic model or the theory behind liftoff; there is none.

It began when a reporter pressed Fed Chair Jerome Powell on his inflation target, asking:

The term “the state” is a term that gets thrown around a lot with various meanings. Even excluding the confusing American terminology in which the United States is composed of “states,” we’re still left with many other meanings. For example, in the international relations literature, most independent countries are generally referred to as states. Historically, governments and polities of all types have been referred to as states.

What is the modern state? The answer to this question will—and perhaps already has—split the once unified white evangelical voting bloc.