Not bad. Now, I will fix it:
Anyone paying attention knows that radicals are actively attacking the West. They do so through calumny, for example, by exaggerating Western crimes. Racism, for example, is much worse in Hindu civilization, reinforced by the caste system, then it has been over time in the West; it is worse in Japan and Korea, even without such direct religious sanction; and it is present in Chinese civilization. In Africa or among the Amerindians, it took the form of regarding unaffiliated tribes as Other. Additionally, the Incas and Aztecs were much crueler to their subject populations than the Spaniards, which is why handfuls of conquistadors could conquer, by enlisting oppressed tribes. Meanwhile, they minimize Western accomplishments, like the abolition of slavery, which is still prevalent in parts of Muslim Africa, and exists surreptitiously in some Asian countries; the rule of law, which is stigmatized as being merely a cover for class interests; science, which is accused of Phallocentrism by radical feminists; the development of a varied and humanistic literature, which is thematically reduced to the unholy trinity of Class, Race, and Sex; the introduction of meritocracy over class privilege, which is stigmatized as a way of keeping minorities down; and so forth. Now, many liberals do not share the radical viewpoint, certainly not on all issues, but they tend to take an indulgent attitude, as if it were not a danger to be combatted. Some political liberals are on board, defending the West, but comparatively few.
The modern world is, to all intents and purposes, the West, with all it has to offer in conceptions of human rights and liberal democracy, economic development, medicine and science, technology, and so forth. It is incumbent upon us to advance the course of modernization, not retard it through a lack of confidence in the worth of what we have to offer, if the peoples of the world are to be freed from poverty, disease, and ceaseless toil.
Again, radicals are prone to put everything up for grabs, and liberals tend to be too indulgent.
Yes, it is not smart to run to the Federal government to force the pace of change, in most cases, especially if there is likely to be social "blowback".
One does not have to be a "traditionalist" per se. The main thing is that it is disruptive to be provocative through aggressive challenge of entrenched beliefs and customs, including through coercive government action, and that one should be leery of creating turmoil, and weigh carefully whether the cause is worth it.
Basically, liberal judges created the Christian Right. Their agenda is not always correct, but it is true that they are mostly seeking to restore practices taken for granted in the '50, and sometimes later, which permit community standards to prevail.
Your end "take", in terms of particular referrents, was very good. I would add that it is a matter of emphasis, whether on personal fulfillment, or on one's obligations, particularly with reference to citizenship and "family values". |
