Henry Agard Wallace, served as 11th Secretary of Agriculture (1933-1940), during the tumultuous time of the New Deal as the America recovered from the Great Depression. In this book discusses the ethical basis of the New Deal and its relationship to other reform movements.

A Nation Under God? raises the question of why the ACLU relentlessly attacks public expressions of mainstream religious faith. The answer, according to the book's argument, is that the work of the ACLU is informed by a larger political project-modern liberalism-to transform American government and society into an administrative-welfare state. Modern liberalism requires two decisive changes in American politics if it is to be successful: First, the government of limited powers mandated by the Constitution must become a government of unlimited powers and scope. Second, free, self-reliant, and independent citizens must become dependent on and understand themselves as subservient to government. The ACLU's drive to remove religion and morality from the public square advances both goals. Limited, constitutional government rests on the idea that rights come from God; the power of government should be limited commensurate to the limited purpose of legitimate government: to protect our natural, God-given rights. With God removed from the public square, it becomes much easier politically to argue that government is the source of rights, and that every expansion of government power is tantamount to an expansion of rights. Further, self-reliant citizens are not in need of and are unlikely to support large government welfare programs. But self-reliancy is largely a function of self-control and moral responsibility. Immoral and irresponsible citizens are incapable of providing for themselves and their families. Driving God and morality out of the public square serves to break down public morality, which in turn creates classes of citizens who are dependent on government assistance and regulation. Through endless litigation against public expressions of religion and morality and its distorted interpretations of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, the ACLU reveals its real agenda and its real allegiance, which is not to the Constitution or Bill of Rights, but to a radical liberal ideology that seeks

Annotation. The first study to examine More's complete works in view of his concept of statesmanship and, in the process, link his humanism, faith, and legal and political vocations into a coherent narrative.b.

Magnanimity and Statesmanship, a collection of studies by a number distinguished political scientists, traces the changing understanding of great political leadership through the history of political philosophy. Covering thinkers from Aristotle to Nietzsche, and including treatments of such statesmen as Washington and Churchill, the book addresses the timely question: What makes for great statesmanship?

In the eyes of many, liberalism requires the aggressive secularization of social institutions, especially public media and public schools. The unfortunate result is that many Americans have become alienated from the liberal tradition because they believe it threatens their most sacred forms of life. This was not always the case: in American history, the relation between liberalism and religion has often been one of mutual respect and support. In Liberal Politics and Public Faith: Beyond Separation, Kevin Vallier attempts to reestablish mutual respect by developing a liberal political theory that avoids the standard liberal hostility to religious voices in public life. He claims that the dominant form of academic liberalism, public reason liberalism, is far friendlier to religious influences in public life than either its proponents or detractors suppose. The best interpretation of public reason, convergence liberalism, rejects the much-derided "privatization" of religious belief, instead viewing religious contributions to politics as a resource for liberal political institutions. Many books reject privatization, Liberal Politics and Public Faith: Beyond Separation is unique in doing so on liberal grounds.