Hey, Ho, Western Civ Has Got to Go

I am not sure that many in my generation are aware of protests at Stanford in the late ‘80s demanding that its required introductory course in “Western Culture” be replaced with more “cultural diversity,” or the works of ethnic and minority thinkers, which would make perfect sense considering that I have neither seen nor taken a course in Western Civilization. In fact, for our generation and, I would assume for the one directly preceding us, we have been encouraged to take courses in exactly the opposite - that is teaching that promulgates the idea that there is nothing exceptional about Western Civilization.

While witnessing the disastrous meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian Volodymyr Zelenksy after the US sided with Russia at the UN, I was envious of previous generations who grew up with leaders whose both foreign and domestic policy was shaped around ambitious but firm principles - principles that balanced societal compassion with individual dignity. These two ideas, in my opinion, formed the bedrock of all post-World War II policy. It was the combination of societal compassion and individual dignity that encouraged leaders to combat socialism, maintain economic liberty, advocate self-determination, and defend democratic government - both at home and abroad. It is true that these principles often led to over ambition - as exemplified in the burgeoning of the welfare state bureaucracy at home and failed military campaigns abroad from Vietnam to the Middle East, but the reality is that these principles have produced all that is beneficial to the modern world: relative peace, economic prosperity, and a rules-based order that defends human rights. 

The harsh truth is that these principles are uniquely Western. They are all the legacy of an ancient tradition rooted in, one must assume Christianity, but nonetheless the idea that the world can be improved - improved to be more fair, to be more peaceful, and even to be more equal, diverse, and inclusive. They are of the same culture that produced three of the primary accomplishments of the modern world - the scientific method, representative government, and free markets - all of which are why the West advanced to such an extent that it has been able to enforce such ideas around the world for the past seventy-five years. 

However, despite being beneficial to the entire world, the values of Western Civilization are not shared by the entire world, and if their benefits are to be conferred on humanity, they must be enforced. Such is what the American-led West has done since the last world war. The only problem is that a civilization is only inclined to enforce the benefits of its values on the rest of the world at cost, if it truly believes it is a unique civilization, and that that civilization is indeed exceptional.

Stanford’s, along with many other universities,’ Western Culture class was replaced with “Culture, Ideas, and Values,” jargon one may confuse with IDEAs in Action or some other general education requirement today here at UNC. The irony of course is that only in the West would a civilization denounce its own history in favor of others. It is a beautiful thing, until the very fabric that defines that civilization unravels as a result. My freshman year at UNC, I was required to take Ideas, Information, and Inquiry: Borders and Boundaries, in which we were taught that enforcing borders between Palestine and Israel or Turkey and Greece are antithetical to humanity because such borders were not enforced in ancient Egypt and Persia - a very fascinating qualification considering that both Egypt and Iran enforce very strict borders today. 

And thus, today, the rest of the world watches as Europe roils in domestic political turmoil, and the United States abandons our allies in Europe and security partner in Ukraine for a transactional relationship with Russia. 

But why not? There is nothing exceptional about the West. Why take risks to defend democracy? There is no culture to be maintained as positively unique. Why defend such ambitious ideals? There is no reason because they, supposedly, do not exist. There is no such thing as the moral idealism or exceptionalism that permeates the West and its affiliates. There is only the realism and existentialism that permeates the rest of the world - a transactional world. To defend Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression may be risky or ambitious, but to do so is to reinforce the values of the West. To not do so is to denounce those values, and without values, there is no civilization. To water down this historical change in ideology to merely a “shift in decades-long foreign policy” is exactly the problem. Thus, for those wondering how we arrived at this point in history, or how we are to save NATO and the rules-based international order from Trumpian ideology, we cannot have our cake and eat it too. We must reject what our parents accepted to save what our grandparents defended. Otherwise, we cannot be surprised when “hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go.”