That Russia’s invasion should have come as a surprise attack largely derives from the idealistic excess of the democratic peace theory.

Reinhold Niebuhr differs from twenty-first-century foreign policy realists in that he viewed an accurate and explicit portrait of human nature as the crucial starting point for any theory of international relations.

Some idealists may blame the selfishness of wealthy governments and their citizens for COVAX’s failure, but the organizers should have considered mankind’s selfish nature when designing the program.

“The Unbroken Thread” by Sohrab Ahmari shows us that our human capacities and loves are not and cannot be strictly contained within the horizons of philosophic liberalism.

It is childish to demand the real world conform to one’s fancy; it is childlike to learn about the real world by playing in an imaginary one. Both the idealist and the cynical realist are childish. The Christian realist, by contrast, should be childlike.

I want to illuminate this conspiratorial approach, which I term “Christian Virtual Reality Politics,” by contrasting it with a more familiar approach, which I call “Christian Religious Politics.”

Mitchell’s contrast of wokeism with Christianity not only explains our confused and confusing times, but also showcases the truth, beauty, and freeing peace of the true Christian Gospel.

Today any serious book searching for the meaning of rights, natural rights, and human rights is welcome, but in “What’s Wrong with Rights?” Biggar seems preoccupied with a straw man—the claim that rights are absolute.

In his book “A World Safe for Democracy,” John Ikenberry writes an impassioned defense of liberal internationalism and the international order it helped to create.