Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Cherishing our institutions: Notre Dame’s miraculous reopening

Notre Dame at night

People gather to watch the reopening ceremony of the Notre Dame Cathedral on Dec. 7.

Telmo Pinto/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

We witnessed a marvel in Paris this weekend.

When a devastating 2019 fire nearly brought Notre Dame Cathedral to the ground, President Emanuel Macron set the ostensibly impossible goal of restoring and reopening the 860-year-old Gothic masterpiece within five years. Restorations on that scale usually take decades. It took almost 200 years to complete the cathedral in the first place, starting in 1163 during the Middle Ages.

Could Macron’s audacious challenge — made while the building was still smoldering — be met?


In the weeks following the disaster, more than 340,000 donors responded to Macron’s clarion call by contributing over $900 million in restoration funds. Under his direction, an extraordinarily talented leadership team led by Philippe Jost marshaled 250 companies and painstakingly coordinated a vastly complex endeavor. Thousands of workers who have dedicated their entire careers to restoration came out of the woodwork.

In addition to the financial resources, Macron’s appeal ignited a passion in these 2,000 workers, many meticulously trained artisans, to rise up to the challenge. As an indication of their level of devotion, the onslaught of the devastating Covid-19 pandemic (less than a year following the commencement of the restoration work) would only hinder but not foil their efforts.

To avoid any doubt regarding just how miraculous this feat was, please read The New York Times’ wonderfully detailed profile of the overall effort as well as an illustration of the power of Notre Dame’s symbolism throughout the world. The Times described the effort to reconstruct the lattice-like roofing structure dubbed “the forest,” originally sourced from timber of 800-year-old trees:

“Each oak tree had been selected to match the contours of the ancient beam it would replace. The tree was then carved to duplicate the peculiarities of the hand-tooled silhouette of the original, with the medieval carpenter’s mark even tattooed back onto it. ‘Faithful’ only began to describe the effort, which was not for show. The public won’t get to see the rafters that are now behind the restored ceiling vaults.”

The history of cathedral is so rich that Victor Hugo advocated for its preservation and lauded its significance in France's cultural heritage in his famous novel “The Hunchback of Notre-Dame,” published almost 200 years ago. Under its now restored roof, Mary Queen of Scots was married, Joan of Arc beatified, Napoleon crowned and Charles de Gaulle celebrated. The cathedral has been so central to France that it serves as ground zero from which all distances in the nation are measured.

We must not fail to recognize the symbolism of this astonishing and successful venture. Notre Dame is not only among France’s most cherished institutions; it is arguably one of the greatest accomplishments of western civilization. What does its miraculous rebirth represent in a 21st century ravaged by war and destruction, where zeitgeist forces seem all too eager to demolish rather than preserve and reform our institutions? As the Times reports, “For a wider world, it underscores that calamities are surmountable, that some good and true things endure — that humanity may not yet have lost touch with its best self.”

During this same past weekend a different set of activities was proceeding on this side of the Atlantic. In Palm Beach, Florida, President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has been busy mapping out its plans for the new administration. Trump is surrounded by both loyalty-hardened advisors and a fresh group of tech-wealthy oligarchs lining up to do his bidding. We now hand over leadership of American institutions to these latest stewards.

As I have frequently written about in this series, the leaders of many of our current institutions must be held accountable for their failures. The most effective institutions need to be respected, but can only be sustained through adaptation and modernization. As David Brooks wrote recently, “Over the course of our lives, we inherit institutions, steward them and try to pass them along in better shape to the next generation. We know our institutions have flaws and need reform, but we regard them as fundamentally legitimate.”

So what concerns me is the level of disdain that Trumpism in general seems to hold for these same institutions. At almost every turn, the MAGA minions have willingly attacked both their legitimacy and the kinds of people who work for them. In a Substack essay, Damon Linker writes: “Trumpism is seeking to advance a revolutionary transvaluation of values by inverting the morality that undergirds both traditional conservatism and liberal institutionalism. In this inversion, norms and rules that counsel and enforce propriety, restraint and deference to institutional authority become vices, while flouting them become virtues.”

Admittedly, many of our nation’s institutions are led today by an elite establishment positioned left of center that has failed millions of working class Americans over recent decades. But as opposed to endeavoring to increase their representation in the ranks of such institutions with an eye towards reform, politicians in Trump’s reinvented Republican Party have openly degraded and attacked their very legitimacy in recent years. Instead of constructive critique, they openly disparage mainstream media platforms, take control of the governing boards of state university systems and prohibit the teaching of disfavored ideas in public schools. Conservative media sources portray teachers, professors, scientists, journalists and civil servants as ideological enemies to be punished or ignored.

As they sit around the conference room tables at Mar-a-Lago, I imagine many on Trump’s transition team truly believe that tearing down is easier than reforming, preserving and rebuilding. I can only hope that they also watched the reopening of Notre Dame this weekend and heeded the important message illustrated — that the latter is indeed possible if the will is tenacious and paramount.

Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation ” and serves on the Advisory Council at Business for America. This is the 15th entry in what was intended to be a 10-part series on the American schism in 2024.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less