Is the West Weak?

A treatise standing athwart the national populist critique of classical liberalism.

Les Romains de la décadence “The Romans in Their Decadence” by Thomas Couture, uploaded from Wikimedia Commons

There are those who say that classical liberalism is decadent. That free societies are soft. That liberty dissolves the bonds of community and atomizes citizens.  

Alternatively, they may not say that liberalism itself is decadent, but they will say that America is.  

There’s some truth to the notion that we’ve grown a little dissolute as innovation and risk-taking have slowed and as Americans are increasingly consumed by petty anxieties. Perhaps America is not so decadent as Nero’s Rome, but certainly more than the Rome of Cato or Marcus Aurelius.  

It’s also true that free societies can grow weak. Citizens in a republic can choose to eat, drink, and be merry, while neglecting the world and letting their cities crumble around them. For that matter, autocracies can be decadent, if the rulers prioritize trappings over power.  

But decadence is a choice. Weakness is a choice. So is strength. Citizens in a free society can choose to give their lives over to porn and drugs and cocoons of digital comfort. Free people can choose to waste their energies on petty online feuds and virtue signaling.  

Or we can choose self-control, discipline, and self-government. We can choose not to engage in toxic behavior on Twitter. We can choose not to use screens to distract ourselves from the world and the people around us. We can choose not to hyperventilate over imagined crises and perceived slights.  

In this essay, I will examine some of the criticisms leveled at the West by various nationalists and integralists and populists and isolationists. I will explore what they get wrong, what they get egregiously wrong, and where they may actually have a point (and what we can do to address that). 

What is Freedom For? 

Some of the post-liberals mock freedom, but their more serious cousins ask us what the purpose of freedom is. Does liberty mean freedom for virtue, or freedom for vice? That is a good question. But perhaps they should ask whether the restrictions necessary to eliminate vice might do more evil in the end than the vices they seek to eliminate. 

Freedom isn’t libertinism. Yes, it’s true that the absence of external restriction allows for libertinism. But it’s also true that freedom lets people not to be libertines. The absence of a law against adultery doesn’t compel infidelity. Permitting a behavior isn’t the same as requiring it. 

When I was a small boy, my father used to tell me that, “self-government begins with governing oneself.” In other words, freedom requires the discipline to resist your temptations and order your own life. Those who cry out about the decadence of classical liberalism and the libertinism of free societies seem to think it’s too much to ask people to exercise a little discipline. If this is true, then the next question to them must be, “Do you believe people are capable of learning from experience and developing virtues through practice?” If America’s critics answer, “No,” then the final question must be, “Do you believe that human beings are incapable of governing themselves?” 

If the answer is, “Yes” (which for some of these revanchists seems to be the case), then the critics of liberalism have declared themselves to be anti-liberals, enemies of the American Constitution, enemies of free societies, and enemies of liberty.  

Of course, not all critics of classical liberalism are inherently anti-liberals. It isn’t reactionary to suggest that there is a tension between freedom and virtue, much as there is a tension between freedom and security, or freedom and equality, or equality and virtue. Not all of those who worry about the effects of freedom are revanchists. There are always tensions in society between competing goods. Self-government is about balance.  

A market economy nurtures some virtues (thrift, industriousness, ingenuity), is neutral towards others (integrity, piety, courage), and has at best a complicated relationship with others (selflessness, wisdom, temperance). Every type of economy or society has traps that it can fall into, some of which pose unique dangers depending on the particular socioeconomic and political structures. Defenders of market economics and free societies must reckon with the traps particular to that socioeconomic arrangement, precisely because they wish to see it succeed. They must grapple with criticisms leveled by nationalists and others, at least when those criticisms are valid or hold some merit. 

But those who suggest that freedom is incompatible with virtue are anti-liberals, whether they call themselves reactionaries or populists or integralists or anything else.  

Does Freedom Erode Virtue? 

The anti-liberals point out that – if granted the freedom to do so – some people will always choose vice. If alcohol is legal, you’ll have alcoholics. The anti-liberals will dismiss those who mention self-discipline, because large numbers of people don’t have any. It would be utopic to suggest that we could rely on men becoming angels in order to achieve virtue in society.  

That leads us to the possibility that perhaps some human beings are not fit to be free. Given freedom, they will gladly give it away to substances that will control their lives, or they will squander it without ever understanding what was good about freedom in the first place. Some don’t even want freedom: Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, was probably sadly correct when he said that many people “don’t want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.” 

Of course, this harkens back to an age-old philosophical debate about human nature, of which our Founders were well aware. Which is, incidentally, why we live in a republic (or a democratic republic), not a democracy.  

That debate is beyond the scope of this essay. True anti-liberals will already have answered, “No,” to our earlier question about the capacity for human beings to be self-governing. But I would say that we need to ask a further question, “Is it worse to take away freedom for all of the people, because some of the people will abuse it?” 

(It’s worth noting as an aside that if all of the people are unfit to govern themselves, then nobody is fit to govern anyone else. But that’s a matter for another day.) 

Some social conservatives will argue here that they’re not anti-liberals. They will point to the notion that the Founders supposedly meant for America to be a “Christian nation,” or at least a religious one. They’ll quote John Adams to the effect that American government is only suited to “a moral and religious people” and no other. Thereby implying that a secular, multicultural society, is incompatible with the principles of classical liberalism.  

Setting aside the fact that many of the Founders were deists, not Evangelical Christians (Adams was a Unitarian), I will point out that the Founders explicitly did not establish a “Christian nation.” Unlike every European nation, America has never had a state church. Instead, the Founders established a nation of Christians, which is a different thing. 

Of course, religion is a vital component of ordered liberty. Religion educates people to use freedom wisely and virtuously while avoiding the temptation to vice. But as Tocqueville noticed in the 1830s, religion flourishes where it is separated from the state and withers where it is integral.  

But let me make a Christian argument to those social conservatives who find themselves questioning once again the principle of self-government.  

It is out of Christianity that we get the idea that human nature is fallen, that the human heart is tempted towards sin, that the capacity for both good and evil live within each individual. Out of this comes the conservative constrained worldview.  

But Christianity is also the religion that taught that every human being is capable of redemption – Jew and Gentile, Greek and Roman, slave and free. And if every individual has the capacity to return to God and ask for forgiveness and receive it, then who are we to say that individuals do not have the capacity to better their lots? Who are we to say that humans cannot learn to love liberty and live virtuously? Who are we to judge some humans unfit to rule themselves and others fit to rule over many? 

Self-government isn’t natural and humans aren’t naturally good at it. Our understanding of the fallenness human nature teaches us that. But do we have no ability improve ourselves and learn from our mistakes? Do we have no ability to teach people to love liberty and live virtuous lives? Or can we equip people with the skills and the moral compass necessary to navigate a world in which they are free to do what they want? Can we teach people to want the right things?  

The anti-liberals believe we can’t. Those of us who love liberty believe we can. But if we wish to preserve liberty and defend it from its critics, we must be serious about the project of educating people to love liberty and lead virtuous lives. 

Why All This Talk about Virtue? What Does Virtue Have to Do with Whether or Not the West is Weak? 

First, liberalism’s critics love to talk about unvirtuousness, which they rightly point out makes a society weak. Nobody is arguing that decadence is strength. Instead, I’m arguing that decadence and wantonness aren’t the inevitable outcomes for a classically liberal society. Lack of virtue in society can and does make a society weak, but a free people can choose to live upstanding lives. And illiberal regimes can fall into the decadence trap just as easily. 

But more importantly, the ability of people to choose virtue in free societies has direct bearing on the strength of a society (or its ability to reorient itself towards strength). Why? Because it includes the ability to choose the hard virtues: courage, toughness, discipline, perseverance, resilience. Absent any restraint, people can spend their days watching porn, stuffing their faces, and withdrawing from the world around them. Or they can choose to maintain their fitness, volunteer in their communities, and serve in the National Guard.  

Furthermore, the question of whether the defenders of liberty can teach people to exercise it properly has direct bearing on whether we can improve the strength of our societies by improving the strength of our people. In other words, whether a weakened West can become strong again.  

Finally, the hard virtues are necessary to the proper exercise of freedom, which requires the discipline to control oneself, the courage to take risks, and the resilience to solve problems.  

And just as freedom isn’t incompatible with virtue, it also doesn’t guarantee it. Free societies can be strong. But they don’t have to be. There is a false utopianism on the part of those who declare that America is strong because we are good and free and that therefore we will always win. There is also utopianism on the part of those who believe that “since every human heart yearns to be free,” maintaining a liberal society requires no actual work.  

We don’t come into this world naturally in possession of all that we need for citizenship in a self-governing democratic republic. We don’t even come into this world in possession of the requisite skills to become adults. Parents were put on this earth to teach those skills to their children, and to the extent that they don’t, we have a generational failure to grow up, which no doubt contributes to the fact that so many people in 2022 seem to struggle with the ability to navigate in our liberal society.  

So, the free world doesn’t come easily or naturally and societal self-maintenance doesn’t just happen. Which brings us to the question posed by the nationalists, “Is the West weak?”  

The Weakness in the West: 

I’ve hinted throughout this essay that the nationalists and populists and their ilk actually have a little validity to their assertion that the West has grown weak. Although I question their choice of Russia – which Ukraine has shown to be a paper tiger – as an avatar of strength. 

But it isn’t lost on me that the operative comparison forced upon us by the war in Europe isn’t just between Ukraine and Russia, but also between Ukraine and us. Would we respond as the Ukrainian people have when faced with such a threat? 

In March, a poll indicated that a majority of young Americans wouldn’t or couldn’t defend America if we were attacked. In 2018, the Heritage Foundation put out an infamous report that 71% of American aged 17-24 were ineligible for military service, the majority on health and fitness grounds (absolute majority, not just a majority of those ineligible). Meanwhile, we have the “coming-of-age crisis,” among America’s youth, which I already alluded to. Millennials and members of Gen Z are struggling just to become adults, let alone adults capable of governing and defending a nation. 

But it isn’t just the young. We’re an unhealthy nation, a nation of petty grievances, a nation of anxiety, and a nation that failed the test of COVID-19. Although we’re far from a second Civil War, we’re in a dangerous moment for our democracy. Many commentators openly wonder whether we could produce a Churchill or a Washington if we were faced with another crisis today. Our modern political system isn’t producing competent leaders, let alone statesmen. 

Some of the anti-liberals openly talk of an “American Caesar.” But the Roman general we need is Cincinnatus, not Caesar. We had one Cincinnatus: George Washington. But it’s hard to imagine his like today. 

Lest I throw all my punches rightwards, I must note that the nationalists are absolutely correct that raising children to hate the nation they were born in, telling them that it is an “evil nation founded in slavery,” contributes materially to the weakness of the West. But this is nothing new. The West has lost confidence in itself in large part because of decades of academics working to deconstruct it. The antipatriotic left cringes at the thought of anything that would strengthen the West. The self-loathing that comes when we replace love of home with disgust for home has absolutely made the West weaker. 

But that self-loathing is shared by the anti-liberals on the right. How can someone be a nationalist if his response to the misdeeds of other nations is, “We do bad things, too?” How can someone love America if he hates the things that made it great, most especially the ideals of liberty and natural rights? The populists mock ideals and the integralists scorn liberty. But if we don’t have those, what is it about our nation that is worth preserving? Blood and soil? Lines on a map? 

Where Do We Go from Here? 

I depart from the nationalist-populist crowd in their assessment of the weakness of the West as inevitable or uncorrectable. I depart even more strongly from their proposed solutions, especially when they involve Caesarism. I depart most strongly from their worship of false strength that is the opposite of real strength.  

Instead, I offer the following suggestions. First, if we really cared about the strength of the West, we would redouble our commitments to our allies. More importantly, we would dramatically increase our defense budget to meet the threat of a rising China, while rebuilding the hollowed-out force that we currently have, repairing the damage done by decades of neglect, and maintaining our presence around the globe. We would bolster our nuclear deterrent and invest in growing our fleet.  

We would also begin to make the impassioned case for freedom, for the West, for classical liberalism and for what really made America good and great.  

Personal confidence isn’t about covering up flaws but about working to correct them. So, it is with national or civilizational flaws. If we believe that Western Civilization is good, we must make that case, but we must also acknowledge our mistakes and work to overcome them. 

Finally, if we wanted a strong West, we would set about strengthening our citizens, by teaching them to love freedom and live with virtue and dignity. We would show free citizens how they can develop the hard virtues in their own lives, and why they should want to do that. And we wouldn’t take the gifts we’ve been given for granted, but we would instead strive to preserve them for the next generation, and a thousand generations after.  

Strength begins are home and it begins with you and me. It saddens me that the West has lost confidence and has grown decadent. I live for the day when that is no longer the case.  

If you liked this essay, you might also like my weekly email/Twitter newsletter which comes out on Tuesdays, called “Grit in a Free Society,” based on my book, Grit: A Practical Guide to Developing Physical and Mental Toughness. 

There are those who say that classical liberalism is decadent. That free societies are soft. That liberty dissolves the bonds of community and atomizes citizens.  

Alternatively, they may not say that liberalism itself is decadent, but they will say that America is.  

There’s some truth to the notion that we’ve grown a little dissolute as innovation and risk-taking have slowed and as Americans are increasingly consumed by petty anxieties. Perhaps America is not so decadent as Nero’s Rome, but certainly more than the Rome of Cato or Marcus Aurelius.  

It’s also true that free societies can grow weak. Citizens in a republic can choose to eat, drink, and be merry while neglecting the world and letting their cities crumble around them. For that matter, autocracies can be decadent, if the rulers prioritize trappings over power.  

But decadence is a choice. Weakness is a choice. So is strength. Citizens in a free society can choose to give their lives over to porn and drugs and cocoons of digital comfort. Free people can choose to waste their energies on petty online feuds and virtue signaling.  

Or we can choose self-control, discipline, and self-government. We can choose not to engage in toxic behavior on Twitter. We can choose not to use screens to distract ourselves from the world and the people around us. We can choose not to hyperventilate over imagined crises and perceived slights.  

In this essay, I will examine some of the criticisms leveled at the West by various nationalists, integralists, populists, and isolationists. I will explore what they get wrong, what they get egregiously wrong, and where they may actually have a point (and what we can do to address that). 

What is Freedom For? 

Some of the post-liberals mock freedom, but their more serious cousins ask us what the purpose of freedom is. Does liberty mean freedom for virtue or freedom for vice? That is a good question. But perhaps they should ask whether the restrictions necessary to eliminate vice might do more evil in the end than the vices they seek to eliminate. 

Freedom isn’t libertinism. Yes, it’s true that the absence of external restriction allows for libertinism. But it’s also true that freedom lets people not be libertines. The absence of a law against adultery doesn’t compel infidelity. Permitting a behavior isn’t the same as requiring it. 

When I was a small boy, my father used to tell me that, “self-government begins with governing oneself.” In other words, freedom requires the discipline to resist your temptations and order your own life. Those who cry out about the decadence of classical liberalism and the libertinism of free societies seem to think it’s too much to ask people to exercise a little discipline. If this is true, then the next question to them must be, “Do you believe people are capable of learning from experience and developing virtues through practice?” If America’s critics answer, “No,” then the final question must be, “Do you believe that human beings are incapable of governing themselves?” 

If the answer is, “Yes” (which for some of these revanchists seems to be the case), then the critics of liberalism have declared themselves to be anti-liberals, enemies of the American Constitution, enemies of free societies, and enemies of liberty.  

Of course, not all critics of classical liberalism are inherently anti-liberals. It isn’t reactionary to suggest that there is a tension between freedom and virtue, much as there is a tension between freedom and security, or freedom and equality, or equality and virtue. Not all of those who worry about the effects of freedom are revanchists. There are always tensions in society between competing goods. Self-government is about balance.  

A market economy nurtures some virtues (thrift, industriousness, ingenuity), is neutral towards others (integrity, piety, courage), and has at best a complicated relationship with others (selflessness, wisdom, temperance). Every type of economy or society has traps that it can fall into, some of which pose unique dangers depending on the particular socio-economic and political structures. Defenders of market economics and free societies must reckon with the traps particular to that socio-economic arrangement, precisely because they wish to see it succeed. They must grapple with criticisms leveled by nationalists and others, at least when those criticisms are valid or hold some merit. 

But those who suggest that freedom is incompatible with virtue are anti-liberals, whether they call themselves reactionaries, populists, integralists, or anything else.  

Does Freedom Erode Virtue? 

The anti-liberals point out that – if granted the freedom to do so – some people will always choose vice. If alcohol is legal, you’ll have alcoholics. The anti-liberals will dismiss those who mention self-discipline because large numbers of people don’t have any. It would be utopic to suggest that we could rely on men becoming angels in order to achieve virtue in society.  

That leads us to the possibility that perhaps some human beings are not fit to be free. Given freedom, they will gladly give it away to substances that will control their lives, or they will squander it without ever understanding what was good about freedom in the first place. Some don’t even want freedom: Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, was probably sadly correct when he said that many people “don’t want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.” 

Of course, this harkens back to an age-old philosophical debate about human nature, of which our Founders were well aware. This is, incidentally, why we live in a republic (or a democratic republic), not a democracy.  

That debate is beyond the scope of this essay. True anti-liberals will already have answered, “No,” to our earlier question about the capacity for human beings to be self-governing. But I would say that we need to ask a further question: “Is it worse to take away freedom for all of the people because some of the people will abuse it?” 

(It’s worth noting as an aside that if all of the people are unfit to govern themselves, then nobody is fit to govern anyone else. But that’s a matter for another day.) 

Some social conservatives will argue here that they’re not anti-liberals. They will point to the notion that the Founders supposedly meant for America to be a “Christian nation,” or at least a religious one. They’ll quote John Adams to the effect that American government is only suited to “a moral and religious people” and no other. Thereby implying that a secular, multicultural society is incompatible with the principles of classical liberalism.  

Setting aside the fact that many of the Founders were deists, not Evangelical Christians (Adams was a Unitarian), I will point out that the Founders explicitly did not establish a “Christian nation.” Unlike every European nation, America has never had a state church. Instead, the Founders established a nation of Christians, which is a different thing. 

Of course, religion is a vital component of ordered liberty. Religion educates people to use freedom wisely and virtuously while avoiding the temptation of vice. But as Tocqueville noticed in the 1830s, religion flourishes where it is separated from the state and withers where it is integral.  

But let me make a Christian argument to those social conservatives who find themselves questioning once again the principle of self-government.  

It is out of Christianity that we get the idea that human nature is fallen, that the human heart is tempted towards sin, and that the capacity for both good and evil lives within each individual. Out of this comes the conservative constrained worldview.  

But Christianity is also the religion that taught that every human being is capable of redemption – Jew and Gentile, Greek and Roman, slave and free. And if every individual has the capacity to return to God and ask for forgiveness and receive it, then who are we to say that individuals do not have the capacity to better their lots? Who are we to say that humans cannot learn to love liberty and live virtuously? Who are we to judge some humans unfit to rule themselves and others fit to rule over many? 

Self-government isn’t natural and humans aren’t naturally good at it. Our understanding of the fallenness of human nature teaches us that. But do we have no ability to improve ourselves and learn from our mistakes? Do we have no ability to teach people to love liberty and live virtuous lives? Or can we equip people with the skills and the moral compass necessary to navigate a world in which they are free to do what they want? Can we teach people to want the right things?  

The anti-liberals believe we can’t. Those of us who love liberty believe we can. But if we wish to preserve liberty and defend it from its critics, we must be serious about the project of educating people to love liberty and lead virtuous lives. 

Why All This Talk about Virtue? What Does Virtue Have to Do with Whether or Not the West is Weak? 

First, liberalism’s critics love to talk about unvirtuousness, which they rightly point out makes a society weak. Nobody is arguing that decadence is strength. Instead, I’m arguing that decadence and wantonness aren’t the inevitable outcomes for a classically liberal society. Lack of virtue in society can and does make a society weak, but free people can choose to live upstanding lives. And illiberal regimes can fall into the decadence trap just as easily. 

But more importantly, the ability of people to choose virtue in free societies has a direct bearing on the strength of a society (or its ability to reorient itself towards strength). Why? Because it includes the ability to choose the hard virtues: courage, toughness, discipline, perseverance, and resilience. Absent any restraint, people can spend their days watching porn, stuffing their faces, and withdrawing from the world around them. Or they can choose to maintain their fitness, volunteer in their communities, and serve in the National Guard.  

Furthermore, the question of whether the defenders of liberty can teach people to exercise it properly has a direct bearing on whether we can improve the strength of our societies by improving the strength of our people. In other words, whether a weakened West can become strong again.  

Finally, the hard virtues are necessary to the proper exercise of freedom, which requires the discipline to control oneself, the courage to take risks, and the resilience to solve problems.  

And just as freedom isn’t incompatible with virtue, it also doesn’t guarantee it. Free societies can be strong. But they don’t have to be. There is a false utopianism on the part of those who declare that America is strong because we are good and free and that therefore we will always win. There is also utopianism on the part of those who believe that “since every human heart yearns to be free,” maintaining a liberal society requires no actual work.  

We don’t come into this world naturally in possession of all that we need for citizenship in a self-governing democratic republic. We don’t even come into this world in possession of the requisite skills to become adults. Parents were put on this earth to teach those skills to their children, and to the extent that they don’t, we have a generational failure to grow up, which no doubt contributes to the fact that so many people in 2022 seem to struggle with the ability to navigate in our liberal society.  

So, the free world doesn’t come easily or naturally and societal self-maintenance doesn’t just happen. Which brings us to the question posed by the nationalists, “Is the West weak?”  

The Weakness in the West

I’ve hinted throughout this essay that the nationalists, populists, and their ilk actually have some validity to their assertion that the West has grown weak. Although I question their choice of Russia – which Ukraine has shown to be a paper tiger – as an avatar of strength. 

But it isn’t lost on me that the operative comparison forced upon us by the war in Europe isn’t just between Ukraine and Russia, but also between Ukraine and us. Would we respond as the Ukrainian people have when faced with such a threat? 

In March, a poll indicated that a majority of young Americans wouldn’t or couldn’t defend America if we were attacked. In 2018, the Heritage Foundation put out an infamous report that 71% of American aged 17-24 were ineligible for military service, the majority on health and fitness grounds (absolute majority, not just a majority of those ineligible). Meanwhile, we have the “coming-of-age crisis,” among America’s youth, which I already alluded to. Millennials and members of Gen Z are struggling just to become adults, let alone adults capable of governing and defending a nation. 

But it isn’t just the young. We’re an unhealthy nation, a nation of petty grievances, a nation of anxiety, and a nation that failed the test of COVID-19. Although we’re far from a second Civil War, we’re in a dangerous moment for our democracy. Many commentators openly wonder whether we could produce a Churchill or a Washington if we were faced with another crisis today. Our modern political system isn’t producing competent leaders, let alone statesmen. 

Some of the anti-liberals openly talk of an “American Caesar.” But the Roman general we need is Cincinnatus, not Caesar. We had one Cincinnatus: George Washington. But it’s hard to imagine his like today. 

Lest I throw all my punches rightwards, I must note that the nationalists are absolutely correct that raising children to hate the nation they were born in, telling them that it is an “evil nation founded in slavery,” contributes materially to the weakness of the West. But this is nothing new. The West has lost confidence in itself in large part because of decades of academics working to deconstruct it. The antipatriotic left cringes at the thought of anything that would strengthen the West. The self-loathing that comes when we replace love of home with disgust for home has absolutely made the West weaker. 

But that self-loathing is shared by the anti-liberals on the right. How can someone be a nationalist if his response to the misdeeds of other nations is, “We do bad things, too?” How can someone love America if he hates the things that made it great, most especially the ideals of liberty and natural rights? The populists mock ideals and the integralists scorn liberty. But if we don’t have those, what is it about our nation that is worth preserving? Blood and soil? Lines on a map? 

Where Do We Go from Here? 

I depart from the nationalist-populist crowd in their assessment of the weakness of the West as inevitable or uncorrectable. I depart even more strongly from their proposed solutions, especially when they involve Caesarism. I depart most strongly from their worship of false strength, which is the opposite of real strength.  

Instead, I offer the following suggestions. First, if we really cared about the strength of the West, we would redouble our commitments to our allies. More importantly, we would dramatically increase our defense budget to meet the threat of a rising China, while rebuilding the hollowed-out force that we currently have, repairing the damage done by decades of neglect, and maintaining our presence around the globe. We would bolster our nuclear deterrent and invest in growing our fleet.  

We would also begin to make the impassioned case for freedom, for the West, for classical liberalism, and for what really made America good and great.  

Personal confidence isn’t about covering up flaws but about working to correct them. So, it is with national or civilizational flaws. If we believe that Western Civilization is good, we must make that case, but we must also acknowledge our mistakes and work to overcome them. 

Finally, if we wanted a strong West, we would set about strengthening our citizens by teaching them to love freedom and live with virtue and dignity. We would show free citizens how they can develop the hard virtues in their own lives, and why they should want to do that. And we wouldn’t take the gifts we’ve been given for granted, but we would instead strive to preserve them for the next generation, and a thousand generations after.  

Strength begins are home and it begins with you and me. It saddens me that the West has lost confidence and has grown decadent. I live for the day when that is no longer the case.  

If you liked this essay, you might also like my weekly email/Twitter newsletter which comes out on Tuesdays, called “Grit in a Free Society,” based on my book, Grit: A Practical Guide to Developing Physical and Mental Toughness.