Recently, Shelby Steele has caused a bit of a stir with a recent article entitled, White Guilt and The Western Past. I, of course, have my own take on Steele’s article, but first, let me offer a quick quote to give you the gist of the article:

There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II…

Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy.

Why this new minimalism in war?

It began, I believe, in a late-20th-century event that transformed the world more profoundly than the collapse of communism: the world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy and even sovereignty.

This is one of those articles which caused me to do a “say what?!” while I was reading it. So, let me do that now.

Say what?!?!

We’re not talking about “white power” here. What we’re talking about is the vigor of Western Civilization. Western Civilization, which derives it’s moral authority, not from “white power,” whatever that means, but from God. Or, as you secularists might put it, from “Judeo/Christian values.”

We’re talking Western Civilization, with its peculiar mix of Judeo/Christian philosophy, its democratic mindset, and its love of Capitalism. All of which adds up to a peculiar emphasis upon the needs, rights, and power of the individual. “We the people” sums it all up.

And all of this is what has empowered western culture in recent centuries.

Free societies are incredibly vigorous. They grow faster, they emphasize competition, place a high value on science, reward success on a far less partial basis, minimize interferences from government, etc.

In particular, I believe that Christian values helped fuel a population boom in the west, allowing the disciples of western civilization to move out and settle into every corner of the globe. The population boom came to the west first because of the emphasis Christians have always placed on the value of the individual.

Christians in the first century and beyond were noted for their radical practices, such as rescuing babies who had been left out in the elements to die (a common practice in ancient Rome), and caring for the old and infirm, even if they were dying. The roots of the modern Hospice movement come from such practices.

So, if we boil the term “Western Civilization” down to its very basic values, here is what I think you’ll find:

• Faith
• Family
• and Freedom

Not only are these values key ingredients in the west, they are, as well, highly tranferrable.

How do we know?

There are some interesting and, I think, conclusive, examples. Germany and Japan, for instance. After WWII, these two nations were transformed when they adopted western values. Within just a couple of decades, both nations became major economic and social powers and remain so today.

In 1991, after the Berlin Wall fell, India chose to restructure its economy, placing greater emphasis on free enterprise and western capitalism, as opposed to the socialist approach it had embraced earlier. In 1991, India’s economy had just $1 billion in foreign capital. By 2001, over $100 billion in foreign capital had been invested in India’s economy.

Thus, the “faith, family, and freedom” approach of western civilization transformed nations en masse. The number of democracies throughout the world has grown steadily, especially in the latter half of the 20th century.
And if there has been any dilution of “white power,” then it is merely the natural result of the expansion of “people power.” True freedom favors no one race or gender, it serves all.

Of course, the reality of life is that no system is perfect and western civilization has a whole string of failures of which critics have made much political hay. What critics have not said, however, is what they think is better? Or perhaps they have said what is better, but not shown much evidence to support their theory.

Theocracy was claimed to be superior, but it has declined. Fascism was called “superior,” but it has been shown to be quite weak. Communism was supposed to be the ultimate system (some still claim that “true” communism is superior. Yeah… right!), but communism as a system has declined and, even where it exists, struggled to compete against more vigorous western-style democracies.

So, why is the US applying kid gloves to the insurgency in Iraq? Their are, I’m sure, a myriad of explanations. Politics is the number one answer that comes to my mind. Right now, the US is sharply divided, with most of the opposition around Iraq coming from a hatred of our current sitting President.

If President Clinton had taken on Saddam, or President Gore for that matter, as part of the response to 9/11, liberals in general and the mainstream media in particular, would have proclaimed him a hero. But in the minds of so many liberals, President Bush has never been a legitimate President.

And the efforts of Democrats in Washington have continually undermined our efforts in Iraq.

First, the President was loathe to commit too many troops because Democrats were demanding a moderate response and, of course, predicting heavy American casualties. Then, when Democrats began demanding more troops in Iraq, there was a fear that ramping up troops after-the-fact might spur on a larger insurgency because of a larger US footprint there.

Now, of course, every time someone dies in Iraq, it makes the front page of the NY Times, the Washington Post, and just about any mainstream media outlet in this country. The message peddled by al Jazeera and the NY Times is largely indistinguishable today. Go figure.

If a Democrat becomes President in 2008, you’ll see issues related to Iraq fade. If, however, Democrats take control of the House this November, I’m sure that all hell will break loose. The Nancy Pelosis of the world are chomping at the bit in anticipation of all the investigations they’ll be launching come late 2006 and early 2007. If they have their way, President Bush will be the most heavily investigated president in American history.

But is all this the result of the collapse of “white power”? Hardly. This is simply another chapter in the ongoing culture war here in the US.

Can this cultural war hurt our ability to protect ourselves? Definitely. And this is especially true if American culture allows itself to become too passive. Freedom of choice is fine until someone wants the freedom to choose for you.

Islamofascists have the benefit of a very vigorous culture, but one that is predicated on the belief that you must choose Allah or die. If we in the west bow to that belief system in fear, as Europe bowed to the violently aggressive fascist movement in the 1930’s and 40’s, then we are all in dire straits.

But if western culture can maintain its own aggressive stance and push back, insisting that freedom is the standard rather than force, then we’ll outlast this threat. Ultimately, though, passive cultures disappear, vigorous cultures grab hold and multiply. If you’re a materialst, you can call it “evolution in action.” As for me, I call it “life.”

Nuff said.