Commentary
Western civilization is unique not because it has been free of the great moral ills and failings that have plagued every major civilization, but because it has worked to overcome its failings, and in doing so has been responsible for every major human rights advancement. Given this, it is not surprising that it is Western civilization that has produced the most prosperous and tolerant societies the world has ever seen. Yet today there is a movement in Western countries that seems intent on attacking and destroying the very foundations that give those involved in the movement the time and wealth to engage in such horrendously destructive activities. I call this movement Nihilistic Deconstructionism (ND).
This Nihilistic Deconstructionism goes far beyond communism in attacking the foundation of human rights and prosperity. As is the case with communism, ND of course portrays capitalism and the free market as institutions created by oppressors, usually white males, designed to oppress anyone not white males. Borders and countries are artificial constructs designed to enable the oppressor to stay in power and to oppress. But going far beyond communism, the ND movement has mocked, attacked, and denigrated the traditional family, without which Western civilization would not have prospered. Even the concept of men and women is under attack. And ND finds even math to be sexist and racist. At its heart, it is diametrically opposed to the Christian ethos that has powered Western civilization to unmatched heights of freedom, prosperity, and tolerance. How did such a horrendous, downright evil movement/mindset gain such traction in the United States and the broader Western civilization?
It didn’t happen overnight. In 1964, nearly every leading American university required students to ground themselves in a Western civilization survey or its equivalent to ensure students were illuminated by the ideas and principles that profoundly changed the world for the better. But by 1985, these foundational curricula were already under siege, culminating in the famous 1987 Stanford protests where students chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Culture’s got to go.” By the 21st century, the move to sever college students from the thinking and philosophy undergirding such principles as free speech and academic freedom had been completed. Comprehensive curricular tracking by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) reveals that mandatory Western civilization survey courses have dropped to 0 percent among top-tier elite universities. In their place, universities have implemented classes that present a distorted and false view of the history of the West.
This systematic dismantling of Western history and philosophy curricula has not liberated students; it has intellectually impoverished them and has put the future of the United States as being the freest, most prosperous, most tolerant nation the world has ever seen at severe risk. The mindset behind getting rid of Great Books-type curricula is a threat to the United States and Western civilization in general. With the West under assault from without and within, now more than ever we must be teaching our young people that they can be proud of their heritage not because it is perfect, but because it is superior to any the world has seen to date and is the only robust, transcendental foundation for advancing human rights.
Assuming that Western democracy and freedom will automatically flourish is a fatal error. Jean-François Revel, in How Democracies Perish, notes: “And, really, only a tiny minority will have experienced it. In both time and space, democracy fills a very small corner. Democracy tends to ignore, even to deny, threats to existence because it loathes doing what is needed to counter them.” On this battleground, it is necessary for one to have the intellectual wherewithal to defend the principles upon which democracy is founded. Not being able to do so is to risk its death.
Yet here in the United States, and even more so in Europe, those who say they value democracy are enabling and protecting those whose goal is to destroy it. On university campuses, college professors who profess their love of democracy defend those who are using violence and intimidation to shut down free speech with which they disagree. Conservative speakers who defend Western principles like Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and many others have been threatened with violence and at times prohibited from speaking on college campuses just because the school administrators don’t like their views.
For many, the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” These transformational words, as most of you will surely recognize, come from the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the United States and its Constitution. The point of all this is that a democracy tethered to inalienable rights that cannot be denied by the majority is a uniquely Western institution that was built upon strictly Western philosophy, not Middle Eastern, not Eastern, and not African.
It is only in the West that women have gained anything like equality. The Cato Institute publishes what is arguably the most comprehensive index on human freedom and flourishing. Unsurprisingly, the index has the top 15 countries as being from the West, with the notable exception of Taiwan at #14, a country that has embraced Western democratic principles so thoroughly it now outshines many European countries. And when it comes to women-specific freedoms, as measured by the Cato index, North America leads, followed by Western Europe. Also unsurprisingly, the study found women’s rights to be least protected in the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
And let’s not forget it was the West, specifically the United Kingdom and the United States, that not only led the charge to eliminate slavery, but also persuaded and forced/persuaded the rest of the slave-practicing world to accept just how morally reprehensible slavery is. Sure, just like every major civilization, Western civilization practiced slavery, but unlike other civilizations, the rationalizations made by those in the West in support of slavery could not stand against its own core principles that demanded its elimination.
The biblically based, revolutionary philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, that in God’s eyes people of all colors and sexes have equal value, is the best possible philosophical position upon which to base human rights. It is an eternal statement not subject to the vagaries of governments, a statement that crosses both time and culture. That is why our Founding Fathers based the United States upon it. And with that document in place, it took just 89 years to see an institution that had flourished for millennia throughout the world outlawed in the United States, an achievement only exceeded by William Wilberforce in England, who managed to get slavery outlawed without having to suffer over 600,000 young men killed in that cause. This stands in sharp contrast to the major civilizations where slavery thrived for hundreds of years and even millennia.
Have the people of the West always heeded the tenets of their philosophical/religious heritage? Of course not. The desire for money and power has always been a powerful force for rationalization and injustice. But it is the bright light of Western philosophy, when honestly interpreted and applied, that has been used to expose the immorality of things like apartheid and totalitarianism. It has been the force that has advanced human rights in the West and the broader world.
Should university students be aware of alternative viewpoints and cultures? Certainly, but more important is to endow students at all levels of education with the arguments and rationales that support the greatest civilization and country the world has ever known—Western civilization and the United States.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
