Many well-meaning advisors to today's Republican Party suggest "putting aside the social issues" and instead focusing exclusively on fiscal policy and foreign affairs. But the problems we face in those arenas cannot be separated from the threats to our cultural traditions, as all manifest a deep desire to deny reality. Responsible, democratic self-governance must begin from recognizing the world as it is.

Conservatives want a smaller, leaner government in line with our Constitution. But not all government functions are created equal. What standards could help us distinguish between appropriate and illegitimate state interventions? And what would the application of such standards mean for today's era of bloated, intrusive government?

The Romney campaign was the first to operate under a new federal law that provides funding and support for presidential transitions several months before Election Day. The history of presidential transitions demonstrates why such lengthy preparation is necessary, and the untold story of Romney's pre-election transition effort offers lessons for all future campaigns.

In recent years, conservatives have struggled to communicate their basic economic message to the public. Their unwillingness to confront the causes of the 2007-08 financial crisis has allowed the left to blame the economic downturn on the right. Meanwhile, conservatives' lack of clarity about their own agenda for both near- and long-term growth has left them ill-equipped to respond to the left's critiques. It is time to set the historical record straight and to help the public see what pro-growth conservatism has to offer.

Medicaid — the joint federal-state program of health coverage for the poor — is deeply flawed and immensely expensive. And thanks to Obamacare, its costs and its troubles are about to increase. Still, there are reasons for optimism. The experience of a few states suggests that, if policymakers enact caps on federal spending tied to consumer-oriented reforms, it may be possible to save state and federal budgets — and, more important, to provide better coverage and health care to Americans in need.

According to many on the left, rising inequality is stifling economic growth, crushing the prospects of the poor and middle class, and even undermining American democracy. But the evidence behind these common claims is remarkably thin. How much do we really know about the costs of inequality?

When critics complain of over-regulation, the Obama administration insists that its rule-making has been a model of empiricism and restraint, pointing in particular to its commitment to cost-benefit analysis. In truth, however, the government's regulatory-review process is grossly inadequate, excluding some of the most significant regulatory agencies and most costly rules. With a barrage of new rules likely in Obama's second term, now is the time to reconsider how our government reviews its proposed regulations.

Washington has long been enthralled by automatic budget mechanisms, from sequesters to spending caps to various "triggers." These clever gimmicks offer the promise of fiscal discipline in the future without political pain in the present, thus answering the lawmaker's prayer: "Lord, make our budget sustainable — but not yet." The problem, however, is that these mechanisms usually fail, and a history of their shortcomings offers some sobering lessons for today's budget battles.

Conventional wisdom maintains that our society is becoming increasingly unequal and that technology is a major driver of this trend. But technology is in fact a great leveler, spreading access to information and ideas — sources of ever-greater value in today's economy. If they want to address inequality, then, policymakers should promote greater technological innovation. They should also ensure that more Americans have the education and training required to reap the benefits today's technology offers.

Through "corporate social responsibility," "hybrid businesses," and "triple bottom lines," corporate America is being pushed toward business models that elevate faddish social and environmental concerns above returns for investors. But in seeking to replace traditional capitalism, this movement ignores and endangers the very real social benefits of America's corporate model: vastly improved standards of living for people at all income levels, and a vibrant, flexible charitable sector made possible by the profits true capitalism provides.

Welfare reform has been among the most successful, yet least understood, policy initiatives of the past few decades. The main reason the 1996 law succeeded was its requirement that welfare recipients work in exchange for benefits — a requirement that has now been undermined by the Obama administration. Rather than eliminating the welfare work requirement, policymakers should instead build on its achievements, applying workfare to the scores of other means-tested programs untouched by the '96 reform.

The Supreme Court will revisit affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas, and defenders of the practice worry that the Court's decision may end the use of racial preferences in higher-ed admissions. But those concerned about minority students' achievement should seriously consider social-science research long overlooked by the Court — research showing that affirmative action actually harms the very students it is intended to help.

The American electorate is rightly frustrated by both the government bailouts of big banks and Republicans' blanket defenses of Wall Street against regulatory reform. Instead of reflexively protecting the financial sector from all regulation, conservatives should instead focus on the rules the industry really needs: regulations to prevent financial firms from gambling on the taxpayer's dime.

Troubling reports about the growing "income gap" in this country have led some to believe that the American Dream is a thing of the past. But social mobility is not just about money: Strong character and good habits are often even more important to "making it" in America. To encourage these habits, we must remove the perverse incentives created by the welfare system and foster an environment in which civil society is allowed to flourish.

While there is broad consensus that America's uncontrolled spending has produced a grave fiscal crisis, remarkably little has been done to solve the problem. There is no shortage of viable proposals; what is lacking is the political will to make those proposals binding law. Under our current system, all the political incentives for both parties align against reform. Only by changing the actual process of budgeting can we reach a bipartisan solution to our crushing deficits and debt.

The debate over the 11 million illegal immigrants living in America is often conducted in clichés. Some analysts depict these immigrants as victims of circumstances beyond their control; others see them as dangerous criminals or public charges lurking on the fringes of our society. In reality, they are neither victims nor villains but responsible agents who have made difficult choices in a complicated and risky environment — an environment for which all Americans bear some blame. If we succeed in removing the hyperbole and stereotypes from the immigration debate, our politics may open itself to a balanced approach to the problem: legalization for as many undocumented immigrants as possible, but citizenship for none of them.

Everyone agrees that Abraham Lincoln was an exemplary leader. But what kind of leadership did he exemplify? By considering the special challenges of leadership in a democratic republic and examining Lincoln's unique ways of meeting those challenges, we can begin to see what effective and principled leadership in our particular republic can look like.

Increasing rates of obesity pose grave problems for both the nation's health and finances. Government can play a constructive role in addressing this challenge, but lawmakers must find a proper balance between legitimate intervention and ineffective overreach. One government anti-obesity initiative is advanced enough to offer some useful lessons: In the campaign of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, the nation has an example mostly of what not to do in the effort to reduce obesity.

The Supreme Court opinion in Arizona v. United States was premised on the notion that immigration policy is not a matter for the states to decide. While this may be true today, American history tells a very different tale. A look at this history also shows how our immigration policy usually follows larger American political trends, and suggests that our current confusion on immigration stems from much deeper problems in our politics.

Both the excessive cost and inefficiency of our health-care system today can be traced in large part to the peculiar character of health insurance in America. Unlike auto or home owner's insurance, we use health coverage to pay for some part of almost every health expense, and so make prices in health care opaque. By developing a universal system of true health insurance — full coverage for catastrophic losses but a real consumer market for routine care — we could both extend coverage to more Americans and reduce costs.