In a previous blog posting (http://thewritestuff.blogtownhall.com/2009/08/05/on_the_existential_threat_to_israel.thtml), I discussed a host of existential threats to the State of Israel as described in several pieces of recent literature. I argued that the threats could be subsumed under the rubric of "three mega-trends that encompass them, and which pose a mortal danger to more than just tiny, beleaguered Israel. Those trends are:

1. A worldwide resurgence of Islam, much of it in a radical and deadly mode;
2. A worldwide resurgence of virulent Anti-Semitism, much of it cloaked as anti-Zionism, but in reality nothing more than old-fashioned Jew hatred;
3. The steep decline within Western Civilization of self-esteem."

That the portentous eruptions implicit in numbers 1 and 2 pose a grave threat to Israel is totally self-evident. On the other hand, the identification of the third trend as the parent of certain existential threats to Israel required some explanation. Now by that trend I meant "the declining belief by the peoples of Europe and North America that the fundamental political, cultural, religious and social principles, which undergird the advanced civilization they constructed and maintained during the last half-millennium, have any validity any longer. No civilization, lacking faith in its own bedrock principles, legends, stories, religions and history can long endure. Witness the demise of the late, unlamented Soviet Union, occasioned by precisely such a loss of self-esteem. The West appears headed down the same road with Europe in the lead — but with Obama in the saddle, the US is rushing to catch up. And Israel, which is surely an outpost of Western Civilization, has moved toward the head of the pack." A more precise tie-in to Israel was via the observation that "the growing leftist, multicultural, pacifistic, egalitarian, anti-patriotic, anti-religious, corruption-riddled mentality that inhabits the Israeli body politic is, I believe, a manifestation of exactly the same kind of loss of self-esteem that is crippling Europe and increasingly the United States."

The question left unanswered by the article was: What is Israel to do about these threats? How can it deal with the three trends in order to preserve not only its existence, but its vibrance as an independent state, governed by the rule of law, with a (mostly) free and vigorous economy and a society characterized by high levels of education, culture, achievement and faith? It is my humble goal to offer here a few suggestions.

In truth there is precious little that Israel can do about the first two trends. The emergence of radical Islamism in the latter part of the twentieth century has far more to do with the end of the Cold War than it does with any actions taken by Israel. Yes, it is fashionable to assert that the failure to conclude a peace between Israel and the Arab World, and especially between the Jews and Arabs in the lands that constituted the British Mandate of Palestine, is the root cause of Arab unrest in the Middle East and Muslim hostility to the US in particular and the West in general. That is complete and utter nonsense. There is not a shred of evidence indicating that, had Israel not come into existence, the Arab and more generally the Muslim world would be a sea of tranquility, content to live in peace with its non-Muslim neighbors in the West and East. On the contrary, with the demise of Soviet Communism and the increasing demoralization in the West, the Muslim world sees itself as ascendant and, moreover, it appears anxious to spread its influence and rule over vast stretches of the planet. Israel is just one small obstacle in its path — albeit one it has found difficult to overcome. Israel could agree to every demand of the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ahmedinejad — which of course would be tantamount to national suicide — and it wouldn't decrease by one iota the Islamic assault on Western Civilization.

Similarly, there is not much Israel can do about resurgent world-wide anti-Semitism. Treatises have been written offering numerous reasons for the continued existence of this deadly malady. The horror of the Holocaust — the systematic murder of one-half of European Jewry, one-third of the Jews on Earth — put the disease in remission for a period of time. But that period is over. Jew hatred is once again rampant in Europe and of course it never really disappeared from the Muslim world. There is no conceivable course of action by Israel and world Jewry that could cure this deadly disease — save perhaps mass suicide. And even that might not work. The expressions of anti-Semitism in corners of the world where there are no Jews (e.g., Southeast Asia) makes one blink in wonder. Our very existence — past as well as present — is a casus belli.

I believe the people of Israel recognize these facts. Islam has been at war with them for nearly a hundred years. How could the Israelis not notice? Indeed, the memory banks of most Israelis — so many of whom are descendants of victims and survivors of the Holocaust, of other pogroms in Europe and the Middle East, and of Arab terror in Israel itself — are indelibly stamped with the ability to recognize Jew hatred in the Muslim world or wherever they see it. The Jews of Israel have been dealing with it for generations with enough success to allow themselves to stay alive. How?

The answer is by being resolute, strong, courageous, determined — and violent when necessary. Realizing that you are in a fight to the death is more than half the battle. If you do, then you have a shot at building and maintaining the strength and courage to face down your enemies. Denial or appeasement on the other hand is a prescription for death. The Jews of Israel have pursued a policy of strength for 80 years. But there are some signs lately that Israel's prosecution of this policy is weakening. The reason is precisely because Israel has fallen prey to the phenomenon of declining self-esteem that is so widespread in Europe and North America. (For more on this, see http://thewritestuff.blogtownhall.com/2009/09/04/is_the_united_states_of_america_doomed.thtml and http://thewritestuff.blogtownhall.com/2009/07/07/the_nature_of_obamas_liberalism.thtml.)

Thus I believe that trends 1 and 2 are manageable — not easily and not without great sacrifice — but only if number 3 is dealt with successfully. And it is here that I believe there are some concrete steps that Israel could take.

The first main step is to recognize that the issue is cultural, not political. As was recognized a hundred years ago by radicals like John Dewey and Antonio Gramsci, one can change the nature of a country by capturing its culture, the politics will follow. (This is also discussed at some length in http://thewritestuff.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/17/what_culture_is_it_that_the_politics_have_caught_up_with.thtml and http://thewritestuff.blogtownhall.com/2009/04/10/different_visions.thtml.) Of course this is precisely what has happened in Western Europe, as well as in the US and Israel — although not quite as deeply in the latter instances as in the former. The solution: take back the culture. I am not as conversant with Israeli society as I am with American society, but it seems to me that conservatives and traditionalists in Israel need to:

• develop extensive conservative, cultural media outlets analogous to American talk radio, the Washington Times and magazines like Commentary and the American Spectator;
• develop robust think tanks that will promote traditional ideas and policies — e.g., like the Heritage Foundation;
• try to displace the leftists who control the educational system;
• resist judicial usurpations that cripple the nation's ability to defend itself and that diminish the Zionist creed that gives meaning to the State;
• continue and intensify Israel's defiance of anti-Semitic regimes around the globe — and the spineless governments and organizations that appease them — who demonize her and attempt to delegitimize her.

I am sure there is no shortage of Israelis who could easily embellish this limited set of recommendations in order to produce a more extensive program of self-renewal and pride in Israeli culture. Implementing it is another matter.

Next, any objective observer would agree that Israel has the right — inherent from the Bible and more than three millennia of history, and codified in the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate and the United Nations' resolutions of the late 1940s — to its existence as a Jewish State in the formerly British-administered territory of Palestine; and that any threat to that existence is an act of war, with genocidal overtones, against the Jewish inhabitants of that State. Moreover, Israel has the unquestioned right to defend itself from those who promulgate such threats. These unalienable truths must be drummed into the heads of Israeli youth and repeated incessantly to the nations of the world who deign to doubt them.

The third major step is an acknowledgement that the record compiled by Israel in its 60+ years of existence is at least as meritorious as that of any other nation in that time and easily exceeds most. It includes:

• defending itself successfully against its mortal enemies despite vastly unfavorable odds;
• developing a national culture of scientific development, artistic achievement, aid to less fortunate nations, tolerance and respect for its non-Jewish minority, and constructing a society governed according to the rule of law;
• becoming a world leader in technological innovation and development;
• reviving Jewish nationhood and language after an hiatus of two millennia;
• building a robust economy and increasing the prosperity of its citizens;
• assimilating millions of immigrants successfully.

This is a record of achievement of which any nation would be proud to boast. But like its basic rights, these achievements must be trumpeted endlessly to its own people and to the world. Together, these steps — initiating a domestic "culture war" to recapture the cultural (and political) initiative and promulgating, to their own people and to the world, the country's rights and accomplishments — would go a long way toward helping Israel deal with its self-esteem problem, and consequently with the existential threats it faces.

Even if Israel takes these steps — and I believe it must if it is to survive — it will still face formidable challenges, some of which could prove fatal. For example, here are five, at least the first two of which have lethal potential:

• the Arab demographic problem;
• the nuclear threat from Iran;
• an overdependence on the US, especially in light of the fact that the new US President is less than favorably inclined toward the Jewish State;
• the inability in six decades to satisfactorily reconcile the religious-secular divide in the body politic; and
• a leadership that is unworthy of the people's trust.

Apropos the last, Netanyahu is now the key person facing these formidable challenges. The nearly universal assessment is that he didn't perform so well in his first stint as Prime Minister. We shall know soon whether he fares better this time.

I recently read two compelling pieces of work describing what their authors characterize as existential threats to the State of Israel. The first was an article in the May 2009 issue of Commentary magazine by Michael Oren entitled "Seven Existential Threats." The second was the book by Aaron Klein published this year with the shocking title The Late Great State of Israel. Michael Oren is a well-known historian who was recently appointed Israeli ambassador to the United States; Aaron Klein is an intrepid journalist who has broken many major stories on the Middle East in the last decade. Two serious men in a position to know. Thus when both, in dead earnest, lay out highly plausible, even probable, scenarios for the purposeful and imminent destruction of the 61-year-old Jewish State, it is impossible not to be startled.

But before I go any further, dear reader, please stop and contemplate the enormity and barbarity of the deed these authors have forecast — the purposeful and imminent destruction of the State of Israel. There is no other nation on Earth whose existence is so threatened. Not moral monstrosities like North Korea, Burma or Zimbabwe; not intensely dysfunctional countries like Somalia; not the recently invaded Georgia, nor the hopelessly poverty-stricken (Democratic Republic of the) Congo; not even the criminal banana republic that lies 90 miles off our southern shore. Only Israel!

Genocidal maniacs in nearby countries promise that not only will the Jewish State perish at their hands, but its five-plus million Jews will be slaughtered, scattered and/or reduced to vassal status. Moreover, the peoples of the world barely utter a peep in opposition to this deranged intention. And even worse, there is evidence that a not insignificant portion of the people of Israel do not take the threat all that seriously . . . and too many of their leaders pursue policies that actually aid and abet the madmen who chase their ghoulish goal.

Tiny Israel, comprising a land mass in size no more than 0.0625% of that of the Arab world and 0.005% of the Muslim world, and totaling in population roughly 0.03% of the Arab world and again 0.005% of the world's Muslims, this tiny Israel represents a cancerous growth to the Arabs and Muslims that must be excised. Israel, whose people have made the desert bloom, revived an ancient language, established world class educational institutions, pioneered breakthroughs in science and engineering, created art, music, theatre and literature that rival per capita the output of any nation in the world, developed agricultural techniques that have inspired mankind, and who have established and maintained a representative democracy under the rule of law unequaled by any Arab or Muslim neighbor — all while under a constant threat of annihilation from its birth; this country and its people, under an obscene death sentence, are not important enough for Western Civilization to come to their defense.

The cowards in Europe are more interested in oil and playing nice with the Muslim world. Israel's presence in the Middle East interferes with those objectives. And while the Europeans acknowledge that they perpetrated some nasty business on the Jewish people some 65-70 years ago, well, Europe also considers the debt incurred by that business to be paid off and now it is time to move on. Even the new administration in the United States shows signs of "having had it with Israeli intransigence" and is tilting toward policies that play into the hands of those bent on Israel's destruction.

In this article I will review the evidence presented by Mssrs. Oren and Klein and then I will offer a broader theory that incorporates the thinking of both gentlemen.

Oren's seven existential threats are, in the order he presents them: The Loss of Jerusalem, The Arab Demographic Threat, Deligitimization, Terrorism, A Nuclear-Armed Iran, The Hemorrhaging of Sovereignty and Corruption. Anyone who is paying even the slightest attention to Israeli affairs in recent years will know immediately what Oren means by the second, third, fourth and fifth threats. So I shan't elaborate on them. But let us be clear on his meaning for the other three. 

In "the Loss of Jerusalem," Oren identifies the usurper as the city's non-Zionist population. He points out that the combination of Arab residents plus Haredim, that is, the so-called ultra-Orthodox, who reside in Jerusalem but arguably are opposed to the existence of a Jewish State in pre-messianic times, now constitutes a majority of the city's population. The dwindling number of secular Jews in the city has translated into a diminishing tax base, declining industry, fewer professionals and a hollowing out of the city's cultural life that strips it of any ability to attract the country's youth to visit, much less live there. Oren asserts that "the preservation of Jerusalem as the political and spiritual capital of the Jewish state is vital to Israel's existence . . . The city represents the raison d'etre of the Jewish state, and without it Israel would be merely another miniature Mediterranean enclave not worth living in, much less defending."

With the term "Hemorrhaging of Sovereignty," Oren highlights the fact that Israel is losing effective control over large portions of its land mass and population. Once again, he identifies the growing Arab and Haredi communities, more specifically, the regions in which they live as increasingly outside the normal legal jurisdictions of the Jewish Sate. In a parallel vein, where else in the world would you find a country with a legislature that contains a significant percentage of members devoted to the dissolution of the State?

Finally, there is the matter of corruption. Certainly in recent times, Israel has been afflicted by an unusually large outbreak of corruption among its leaders — a former President, a former Prime Minister and too many others. Oren claims that this is the most severe threat that Israel faces. Here I do not agree with him. Sadly, pervasive corruption at high levels is endemic around the world. Unlike its other threats, there is nothing singular to Israel about this one.

Klein does not compile in his book a list of threats like Oren does. Rather he presents a sweeping portrait, in much greater depth than Oren's magazine piece, of a country that is losing (or has already lost) its soul. Building around a description of approximately a dozen calamities that have befallen Israel (almost all self-inflicted), he paints a picture of a weak and vacillating leadership, a naive and borderline subversive media, a population too fixated on its own material well-being to focus clearly on the external and internal threats to the State, friends (US and Europe) who do more harm than good and a host of hostile neighbors who are determined to bring an end to the Jewish State — soon!

The calamities are well-known to any follower of the Israeli scene; they include: the ill-advised unilateral retreat from south Lebanon, which has only led to rocket attacks on Israeli territory and an ineffective Israeli incursion that failed to achieve any meaningful objective; the equally ill-advised retreat from Gaza, with the same consequences; the unnecessary abandonment of the Temple Mount to Arab authority; the surrender and ultimate destruction of Joseph's Tomb; foolish attempts to engage the Syrians in negotiations, including offers to abandon the Golan Heights — a military mistake of such enormous import that only suicide can be the conscious motive; allowing the illegal construction of tens of thousands of Arab domiciles while severely restricting the development of Jewish neighborhoods on the so-called West Bank; a reluctance to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat, which could haunt Israel not just by giving Iran a capability to strike Israel with nuclear-armed missiles, but could also put WMD in the hands of Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza; not dismantling the UN-administered "refugee camps" in areas under Israel's control; toying with the idea of retreat from (areas of) the West Bank, ignoring the fact that Hamas will take over those areas exactly as they did in Gaza and whence rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and finally, dancing with the duplicitous Palestinian Authority, which is just as determined to bring about Israel's destruction as is Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran.

One striking feature that is common to both works: while the fact that many threats to Israel originate externally is not minimized, both authors raise the notion that much of the danger is due to cowardice and stupidity on the part of Israel's political and cultural leaders. Klein drives the point home forcefully, Oren more obliquely.

I concur with these distinguished gentlemen that the threats to Israel are multiple, real, profoundly serious and if not confronted and dealt with, they could signal the death knell of the Jewish State. But I also believe that most if not all of the threats can be subsumed under three mega-trends that encompass them, and which pose a mortal danger to more than just tiny, beleaguered Israel. Those trends are:

1. A worldwide resurgence of Islam, much of it in a radical and deadly mode;

2. A worldwide resurgence of virulent Anti-Semitism, much of it cloaked as anti-Zionism, but in reality nothing more than old-fashioned Jew hatred;

3. The steep decline within Western Civilization of self-esteem.

It is easy to fit many of the threats to Israel outlined by Oren and Klein under the umbrella provided by the first two trends. It is perhaps less clear in the case of the third. By that trend I of course mean the declining belief by the peoples of Europe and North America that the fundamental political, cultural, religious and social principles, which undergird the advanced civilization they constructed and maintained during the last half millennium, have any validity any longer. No civilization, lacking faith in its own bedrock principles, legends, stories, religions and history can long endure. Witness the demise of the late, unlamented Soviet Union, occasioned by precisely such a loss of self-esteem. The West appears headed down the same road with Europe in the lead — but with Obama in the saddle, the US is rushing to catch up. And Israel, which is surely an outpost of Western Civilization, has moved to the head of the pack.

Much of the cowardice and stupidity identified by Oren and Klein are merely manifestations of said loss of self-esteem. Of course Israel is in the cross-hairs of all three trends, but the West is not far behind. That is, the forces that are poised at Israel's throat today will be at the throats of the nations in the West very soon — in some instances, they already are.

The malignant form of Islam that infects significant parts of the Muslim world is intent on conquering and subjugating not only Israel, but also the West, indeed the entire world. That goal might sound preposterous to Americans, who are far removed from the call of the muezzin. But that does not mean that it is not a professed goal — one that is vocalized and acted upon every day by its adherents. We ignore it at our peril.

As for the loss of self-esteem by Western Civilization, that is an increasingly explored topic in America today, especially in the conservative literature. I too have addressed it in previous installments in this magazine. The election of Barack Obama and his cohort of ultra-liberal Congressional allies bear vivid testimony to the advancing state of decay in the United States. My point here is that the growing leftist, multicultural, pacifistic, egalitarian, anti-patriotic, anti-religious, corruption-riddled mentality that inhabits the Israeli body politic is, I believe, a manifestation of exactly the same kind of loss of self-esteem that is crippling Europe and increasingly the United States.

Finally, why is resurgent anti-Semitism a problem for the West as it is of course for Israel? Simple. History has shown that the words of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 12:3, "Now the Lord said unto Abra[ha]m: . . . And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.") are indeed true. Those nations that have welcomed and nurtured the Jews, like the US, have prospered and succeeded; those that have persecuted the Jews, like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, have been consigned to the ash heap of history. Once upon a time, not that long ago, the disease of anti-Semitism nearly destroyed Europe. The Europeans are apparently foolish enough to give it a second try. Pray that the US is not so foolish.

On my recent summer vacation, I read three fascinating books: Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives, by Grover Norquist, Who Killed the Constitution, by Thomas Woods, Jr & Kevin Gutzman, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization by Anthony Esolen. Although they differ markedly in style and content, there is a theme that is common to all of them. Namely, each both asserts and attempts to demonstrate that the United States of America has slipped the moorings established over two hundred years ago by our founders—especially in the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the slippage is broad, deep and seemingly permanent. The liberties we have lost, the limited government that we aspired to, the culture that we have shed, the morals taught by our religiously-inspired forefathers, these are bid good riddance by nearly half our population; and the vast majority of the rest—who might rue these changes if they thought seriously about them—do not even realize what has happened.

Over the last century, the captains of the ship that have plotted this voyage have steered the USA away from the open waterways of: limited government, a strong allegiance to Western Civilization, the preservation of the traditional family, and a clear vision of the USA as Winthrop’s and Reagan’s shining city on a hill; instead, they’ve steered the ship straight down the narrow isthmus of: the nanny state, multiculturalism, multilateralism, a socialist economy and an enfeebled national defense. The final port of call is the besotted, morally degenerate, week-kneed, aging, nearly defenseless, ill-fated continent that Europe has become.

Woods’ and Gutzman’s book examines twelve case studies of US government actions—in every case detailing precisely how and why the action constituted a gross violation of the US Constitution. Naturally, many of them are Supreme Court decisions, but not all. Others involve actions of the executive and legislative branches of the government. Several of them are very well known, like the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision or its 1962 Engel vs. Vitale ruling. The former mandated racial integration of the public schools, the latter banned public prayer in the schools. Woods and Gutzman argue that, whatever one thinks about the merits of these aims, the Constitution provided no authority for the judiciary to issue either ruling. Both matters should have been handled by the people’s local legislative representatives or at worst by the US Congress. Another well known government activity the authors consider is congressional earmarks—which they discuss in the context of federal spending on US roads and highways. They give a long constitutional analysis in which they demonstrate that our founders clearly did not intend to give the federal government such authority. Yet another constitutionally troubling  move—this time by the executive—was President Truman’s seizure of the steel mills in 1952. In a similar vein, they castigate Franklin Roosevelt for confiscating all the gold held legally by private citizens in 1933. In every one of the 12 cases, the authors document how a branch of the federal government embraced, then invoked a power far beyond any intended by the drafters of the US Constitution.

Esolen’s book in the popular PIG (politically incorrect guide) series deals with a much broader issue than American constitutional politics. Basically, he examines in depth the modern assault on the fundamental tenets of Western Civilization. Clearly he has little sympathy for the attackers and in a series of clever arguments he turns virtually the entire American school system’s presentation of Western Civilization on its head. He resurrects much that is worthy in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome; argues that the onset of ethical monotheism—under Judaism and Christianity—changed the world immeasurably for the better; points out that the traditions and stability of the Middle Ages (or as they are usually known, the Dark Ages) contributed as many positives to Western Civilization as did either the Renaissance or the Enlightenment; and he argues that the horrors of the twentieth century are the culmination of the latter rather than the former. In short, he believes that the secularism of modern society is the death knell, not the savior of Western Civilization. His discussion of the Constitution is surprising, especially when he asserts that the founders looked more to Athens and Rome than they did to European enlightenment thinkers. He emphasizes the Constitution’s elaborate system of checks and balances and highlights the oft-overlooked fact that the founders were striving to create a robust federalism rather than a pure democracy. He does not dwell on it, but it is clear from the rest of the book that he agrees with Woods and Gutzman on what has happened to the Constitution, and he sees that as a sign of the deterioration of Western Civilization.

Norquist’s book divides the people of the USA into what he calls the “Leave Us Alone Coalition” and the “Takings Coalition.” These might be thought of roughly as conservatives and liberals, but Norquist gives a more precise description of the constituents of these coalitions. The former consists of: “businessmen and –women, entrepreneurs and investors who wish to run their own affairs without being regulated and taxed out of existence; property owners who do not wish to be taxed out of their houses or property; gun owners protective of their Second Amendment rights; home schoolers who are willing to spend the time and energy to educate their own children, asking only that the government leave them alone; all members of the various communities of faith who wish to be left alone to practice their faith and pass it on to their children.” The members of the latter  coalition are primarily: “trial lawyers; labor union leaders; government employees (except for those in the military and police); government employee unions; recipients of government grants; Americans working in the non-profit sector; professors; those on welfare; and those managing the vast welfare system.”

Norquist then examines many trends in American life and assays which will enlarge which coalition. He examines the growth of the investor class, the decline of labor unions, geography, demographics, the influence of the media and the internet and many other facets of American life. Perhaps surprisingly, he concludes that more trends favor the leave us alone crowd than favor the takers; from which he predicts that—despite what recent events might suggest—the former will prevail. Norquist doesn’t say so explicitly, but it is clear that he views the leave us alone coalition as adhering to the basic principles set down in the Constitution whereas the takers are inclined to rip it apart when it suits their needs.

The three books are thoroughly researched and very well written, but two of them are exceedingly depressing. Woods’ and Gutzman’s case studies lay painfully bare how deeply we have violated both the spirit and letter of the Constitution. Our political system has evolved to the point wherein we routinely and cavalierly disregard clear precepts that our founders set for us in the Constitution. These violations are perpetrated by all three branches of government and virtually no one—not journalists, constitutional scholars, nor state government officials—calls them on it. Presidents make war with no constitutional authority; Congress interprets the commerce clause so as to bring under the purvey of the federal government an unchecked bevy of powers that are expressly reserved to the States by the Constitution; the Courts invent “penumbras” and “emanations” in the Constitution and then use those phantoms to give the people “rights” not even hinted at in the document, rights which of course are enforced on us by the federal government. The most depressing feature of the book is that the authors offer no prescription for righting the ship. They only suggest that perhaps their book will open a few eyes so that we’ll at least be less ignorant of our increasing enslavement to the soft tyranny the federal government is imposing upon us. There is barely a ray of hope offered for reversing the trends that they identify and which they clearly believe have effectively destroyed the Constitution.

Esolen’s book is not much more hopeful. As I said, the fundamental treasure whose violation he depicts is Western Civilization, not the Constitution. Thus the sweep of the book is grander and the stage on which developments are investigated is much bigger. But in fact that only highlights the magnitude of our loss. Actually, it occurred to me that the Constitution is more intact than Western Civilization. Those who break its rules at least pay it homage. They pass laws and institute regulations that disrespect the Constitution but they purport to do so in furtherance of the Constitution itself. On the other hand, the destroyers of Western Civilization have identified it as evil and the source of much of the world’s ills. They make no pretension of trying to preserve it; they want it overthrown.

Only Norquist’s book holds out any hope that our constitutional slide might be reversed. Not that he lays out any grand program for achieving that. Rather he believes that the favorable trends that he has uncovered and the inherent wisdom of the American people will turn the trick. Moreover, his presentation and arguments are so upbeat and optimistic, and his logic is so compelling that it is very tempting to have faith in his analysis. Well, in light of my last comment comparing the status of the Constitution to that of Western Civilization, perhaps he is right. But I am not sure. After finishing his book, which ends with a consideration of the possible outcomes of the struggle between the two coalitions—namely, either the leave us alone viewpoint prevails, or the takings folks run the table, or the current stalemate continues, I sent him an email with the following words: “…the situation resembles one that calls forth the classic football coach's lament--namely, when you pass the ball one of three things can happen and two of them are bad. Unfortunately, that is also true of the scenarios you laid out at the end. Either we win, or they win, or the current stalemate continues. But as you point out, the current stalemate essentially is a win for the statists because, if the coming built-in economic/entitlement train wreck is not addressed, then its fulfillment will effectively mean that they win. Thus two of your three possible scenarios are bad.” His simple response: “We will win.” God, I hope he is right.

In his 1987 book, Allan Bloom bemoaned the Closing of the American Mind. In his densely-written, trenchant and devastating depiction of the average American undergraduate's intellectual equipment, Dr. Bloom laid the blame (partly) on how the nature of "general education" in academia had changed for the worse in the preceding generation. Whereas up until mid century, no university student could escape with a degree without a classical education, that assertion was demonstrably false by 1980. In fact I was an undergraduate student in the early 1960s and to my good fortune, I received such an education. Its components included: mathematics and science; an in-depth history of ancient Greece and Rome; the art, literature, music and architecture of Western Europe from the Renaissance through the 19th century; the economic system of laissez faire capitalism pioneered by the Dutch and British and carried forward by the Americans; the notion of political freedom and liberty under the rule of law, exemplified by England and the USA, and highlighted by the stark differences between the American and French Revolutions; philosophy and morals, with an emphasis on the role played by the Church (sometimes good, sometimes bad); all of it subsumed under the rubric of Western Civilization. There was also a large dose of American history and government and, perhaps to the surprise of today's youngsters, most of it was portrayed in a positive light.

In the 1960s and 1970s, these core components of a classical curriculum in higher education were not so much thrown out as shoved aside. The doyens of higher education decided that, while a classical education might have made sense in a classical age, the progressive times of the latter third of the 20th century demanded that more important ideas be imparted to the eager young minds entering the campus. Furthermore, not only were the components of a classical education obsolete, they shielded the youth of America from much that was unpleasant, even evil, about American history and Western Civilization—e.g., slavery, oppression of women, religious fundamentalism, colonialism and the ubiquitous presence of war. Thus a new, improved general curriculum was developed that embraced: deconstructionism, moral relativism, various "studies" (black, women's, gay & lesbian, urban, environmental, ethnic, etc.), cultures of the underdeveloped world, Marxism, and a de-emphasis, if not denigration of American society and Western Civilization.

I might mention that some of these drastic changes had already crept into the curriculum during my college days. For example, the Bible was still in the curriculum, but only as literature, certainly not in the context of history, philosophy or morals; the emphasis in economics was on Keynesianism; government was viewed as the ultimate arbiter of all American problems—based on the accepted wisdom that the New Deal saved America from the ravages of the Depression (whereas in fact, as most economists now acknowledge, it actually prolonged the Depression); and Soviet Communism was portrayed as a competing economic system, not the brutal totalitarian society that it was. Nevertheless, I would say that the basic underlying nature of the classical curriculum was largely intact at the time of my college education (early 60s). But it wouldn't survive the decade.

The new curriculum introduced in American colleges in the 60s and 70s, in the words of Dr. Bloom, "failed democracy and impoverished the souls of the students." Indeed much of it was specious, sophomoric and subversive. A major undercurrent was that Western Civilization and American society were no better than and maybe worse than almost any other social, political or economic system. The new thinking completely ignored or devalued the achievements of Western Civilization such as ethical monotheism, democratic capitalism, European architecture, literature and art, the English/American concept of the rule of law, sanctity of private property and the economic prosperity that resulted. In their stead, the oppression of peoples of color and women, the evils of colonialism, the economic imbalances that result from free market capitalism and the injustices perpetrated by WASP legal systems were seen as the hallmarks of Western society. Of course, these defects would be corrected when enough of the populace was sufficiently inculcated with the ideas of the new curriculum.

Bloom also pointed out that critical and independent thinking was another casualty of the new curriculum. In the history, philosophy and political science courses of a classical education, students were encouraged to not simply blindly accept what was in the curriculum but to question for themselves the opinions and actions of the peoples and cultures they were studying. The scholars who taught the courses didn't pretend they knew less than their students, but they were willing to listen and give credence to alternate views. In the new curriculum, although great lip service was paid to the idea that students should discover their own truths, in actuality it was made perfectly clear to them that there would be no deviation from the wisdom they were receiving. Bloom decried the mind-numbing conformity and ignorance that resulted. Students graduated without knowing the name of the river that Washington was crossing in that boat and why he was crossing it, who Adam Smith was and what the invisible hand is, who said "Out, damned spot!" and its moral implications, what judicial concept Chief Justice Marshall introduced in 1803 and why it is still so important today, or exactly how many theses Martin Luther nailed on that Church door in Wittenberg or what ticked him off so much to do so. As their minds closed up, the students didn't even know why it was so disappointing that they didn't know these things.

Well another generation has passed and the "new" curriculum is not wearing so well. Impetus for changing it has come lately from students and their parents. Of course in its desire to please its "customers," as many higher education officials are wont to call their students these days, revisions are the order of the day. A high level committee at my university has recently completed a draft of a new core educational program to replace the one that has been in force since the 70s. Alas, an examination of the document reveals that the minds of our students are not about to be pried open, but likely to remain firmly shut. Yes, the emphasis on "studies" is gone; there is little about colonialism and oppression of third world cultures or the moral shortcomings of Western Civilization; and the word "deconstruction" does not even appear. But these awful ideas have been replaced by the modern claptrap that has supplanted them in the minds of today's great thinkers. The new document is shot through with buzzwords and cockamamie notions that have gained popularity in the last decade or so: sustainability, diversity, multiculturalism, equity, social justice, globalism (not the economic variety, rather one world political nonsense) and of course CHANGE. I emphasized the last topic since the word has now become holy. Heaven knows who is to change what to benefit whom, but the status quo is clearly totally unacceptable, we must all embrace change.

A new curriculum! But its components are still specious, sophomoric and subversive, just packaged slightly differently. The monumental achievements of Western Civilization remain off the menu. And the place of America in world history and affairs is not an exalted one. There is no hint of a society that saved the world twice from totalitarianism, created the greatest overall economic prosperity in the history of human existence, and is in fact one of the most tolerant multicultural societies on the planet.

One can take consolation from the following thought. Despite the banalities and inanities of the previous general curriculum, my university and others in the United States have continued to produce first class minds, genuinely creative thinkers and talented scientists, businessmen and artists—some of whom even managed to get a degree. (Sergey Brin, co-inventor of Google, is one of ours.) This means that either there is enough solid meat left in the curriculum to generate and succor terrific minds. Or perhaps the precise curriculum is irrelevant; there are a sufficient number of genuine and independent scholars among the faculty to motivate the most fertile minds among their students toward meaningful and objective scientific, political, economic and artistic pursuits. Either way, I am optimistic that the new drivel will also not prevent the cream of America's youth from rising to the top.