To say that President Donald Trump marches to his own drummer is to cut off debate before it even begins. You may or may not like the way he’s gone about things—but either way, you’re pretty much forced to agree that his has been a unique approach.

But just suppose that one of his aides were to email you this week to say: “The president is seeking some thoughtful outside-the-box thinking. If you had the ability and power to change just one thing about his administration, what would it be?”

Of all the people in the world, the folks at the Associated Press should have gotten it right. AP’s January report on the so-called “Stillwater School” case, now being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, was largely a helpful and evenhanded piece of reporting. For the most part, they got the five “w’s” of traditional news reporting right (who, what, when, where, and why).

“I WAS WRONG.” Some wise soul says those are the three hardest words for a human being to say.

Hard or not, I think it’s time for me to apply the confession to my long-standing disdain for those who think we’ll soon be heating our homes and powering our cars with solar energy. “Maybe in 100 years,” I’ve stubbornly conceded. “But no way in my lifetime.”

Civil governments, by their very nature, are better at telling people what not to do than what they should do. That’s why affirmative action, as a function of civil government, fails so miserably.

If I’ve heard the question once, I’ve heard it a hundred times: “Joel, of all the projects you’ve got going at WORLD, which one most deserves my financial help?” It’s almost like hearing, “Of your five daughters, which has given you your favorite grandchildren?”

The truth is that—just as I delight in all my grandchildren—all three of our divisions are undertaking major projects that will need member support. If it weren’t for your support along the way, we couldn’t even consider these projects, let alone start them. 

Every now and then, during the 33 years since we launched WORLD Magazine, I’ve thought it might be helpful to our readers to make an editorial confession. You may remember my telling you of the discomfort I have felt when we found it necessary to report on the negative behavior of some Christian leaders or organizations. 

Beto O’Rourke at least had the political sense to backtrack. His earlier response to a reporter’s question about homosexual rights had been preposterous—earning dissent even from his ultra-liberal, fellow presidential candidates. But O’Rourke’s follow-up “clarification” served mostly to show what the former U.S. congressman from Texas really thinks on the subject. And what he thinks suggests he should have no place of influence in government.