Sam Weaver
War of the Worldviews
By Sam Weaver
NOTE: This is the third in a series of columns designed to proffer my peculiar views and insights concerning Western worldviews and culture.
In any culture, a liberal is one who seeks fundamental change in one or more of the four basic institutions upon which his society is established. America’s Founders were classical liberals because they wanted to abolish every vestige of the political system of monarchy. They endeavored to replace that political system with a republic. America’s Framers sought fundamental change in the established economic philosophy of mercantilism. They eventually replaced that economic system with free-enterprise.
A conservative, on the other hand, is one who wants to fundamentally conserve (i.e., to maintain or to preserve) all four cultural elements upon which his society is established. Contrary to popular opinion, a true conservative both welcomes and encourages progress—but only within the guidelines of the religious, political, economic, and scientific systems/philosophies upon which his nation was established. (Much more on that in a future column!)
Since at least the end of World War II, as America began to emerge the dominant power in the Western World, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have essentially been defined in all of Western culture in terms prescribed by American culture. In other words, a modern Western liberal can be characterized by the degree to which he wants to alter (or to compromise) any of the four cultural institutions upon which America was established. Conversely, a modern Western conservative is one who wants to fundamentally conserve all four founding elements of American culture as the conception of the ideal societal model. (If all of this is as clear as mud to you, perhaps my next two or three columns will clean things up a bit!)
In all of Western culture today, there is a great struggle between modern liberals (e.g., Democrats, Labor, socialists, and progressives) and modern conservatives (e.g., Republicans, Tories, Likhud, capitalists, and conservative Republicans). I call this struggle “the War of the Worldviews.” This war is an internal war—a “civil war,” if you will—between two distinct factions (two opposing worldview philosophies) within Western Culture. The War of the Worldviews is not to be confused with the external war against radical Islamic terrorism in which the West is presently (albeit reluctantly) engaged. The external war against terrorism is a battle royal against a great threat to Western civilization as we know it.
It is my contention, however, that our internal war is an even greater threat to Western (esp., to American) civilization. As a case in point, please consider the “liberal” attitude against the war on terror and against regime change in Iraq. This attitude is only a tiny example of “liberal” nonchalance whenever the protection of the ideal societal model is required. With only few and scattered exceptions, the reluctance among the Western world to fully engage the dire threat of radical Islamic terrorism comes from the “liberal” element of society.
Several great thinkers have had the wisdom, the courage, and the knowledge to expose the two dominant worldview philosophies that are currently vying for supremacy in today’s Western culture. No moral, educated, or informed person can fully appreciate these two opposing philosophies or the impact of these philosophies on Western society without input from these great thinkers. No voter could possibly be educated or informed without hearing from both sides!
A colleague in the small plant where I work is taking a junior college course in philosophy. Her required reading to-date has consisted of works by Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche. These men were all avowed atheists. My experience in both junior college and university tells me that my co-worker will not get the full story. She will never hear the religious (or the conservative) side depicted in an equally forceful way unless she determines to strike out on her own in a search for truth! The really great philosophical thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries are almost completely overlooked in today’s institutions of “higher learning.” When they are not absolutely ignored, they are ridiculed and despised.
One of these thinkers is Dr. Francis Schaeffer. Dr. Schaeffer identified the two dominant and competing worldview philosophies as the humanist worldview versus the Christian worldview. Dr. Schaeffer is second only to C. S. Lewis, in my opinion, as the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century. Perhaps my favorite explanation/definition of these two dominant modern Western worldviews is set forth by Balint Vazsonyi in his book, America’s 30 Years War.
Balint Vazsonyi is a world-renowned concert pianist who grew up in Hungary from the mid 1930’s to the late 1950’s. He personally experienced the socialistic totalitarianism of both the Third Reich and the USSR. In his book, America’s 30 Years War, Vazsonyi defines a worldview ideology that is based upon a long line of French and German philosophers (e.g., Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and even Sartre). Vazsonyi eloquently places the blame for both forms of socialistic tyranny that he was forced to endure as a youth squarely at the feet of this “Franco-German philosophy.” He goes on to develop the premise that this Franco-German philosophy is currently engaged in all-out war with what he calls “Anglo-American ideology.” (Is this not a bit ironic, if not outright prophetic in light of current events? If one is to believe the “mainstream” media, one would think that the U. S. and the U. K.—Anglo-American—are acting “unilaterally” for regime change in Iraq. Could a logical argument not be made, then, that France and Germany—Franco-German—are acting unilaterally to oppose such action?)
The subtitle of Vazonyi’s book should send a chill down the spine of everyone who deeply loves and understands both the meaning and the promise of American liberty! The subtitle is, “Who is Winning?” Needless to say, I highly recommend this book.
Will my co-worker ever hear the ideas of Schaeffer, Lewis, Vazsonyi, or countless other conservative/religious philosophers over the course of her academic career? NOT LIKELY! Just like far too many students of Western “liberal arts,” she will be “educated” from an ant-religious (or purely secular) standpoint. She will not get both sides of the story.
The Western world is at war with itself. Given time, great leadership, and undying resolve, we can and eventually will defeat our external enemy. We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism just like we defeated fascism, imperialism, and soviet-style communism. But can we win our own internal War of the Worldviews?
Call it a war between humanists (or secularists) and Christians. Call it a major struggle between Franco-German philosophy and Anglo-American ideology. Call it a significant conflict between modern liberals and modern conservatives. One could even express this struggle in the terms that St. Paul laid out in Ephesians 6:12. But, please, make no mistake about it: this IS war!
My next two columns will describe and discuss the two combatants in the War of the Worldviews in terms of all four institutions of worldview and culture. What are the four institutions that die-hard, “bleeding-heart,” modern liberals want to establish for the global community? What are the four institutions—the institutions upon which American culture was originally founded—that modern conservatives want to preserve intact? Please stay tuned.
© Sam Weaver
NOTE: This is the third in a series of columns designed to proffer my peculiar views and insights concerning Western worldviews and culture.
In any culture, a liberal is one who seeks fundamental change in one or more of the four basic institutions upon which his society is established. America’s Founders were classical liberals because they wanted to abolish every vestige of the political system of monarchy. They endeavored to replace that political system with a republic. America’s Framers sought fundamental change in the established economic philosophy of mercantilism. They eventually replaced that economic system with free-enterprise.
A conservative, on the other hand, is one who wants to fundamentally conserve (i.e., to maintain or to preserve) all four cultural elements upon which his society is established. Contrary to popular opinion, a true conservative both welcomes and encourages progress—but only within the guidelines of the religious, political, economic, and scientific systems/philosophies upon which his nation was established. (Much more on that in a future column!)
Since at least the end of World War II, as America began to emerge the dominant power in the Western World, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have essentially been defined in all of Western culture in terms prescribed by American culture. In other words, a modern Western liberal can be characterized by the degree to which he wants to alter (or to compromise) any of the four cultural institutions upon which America was established. Conversely, a modern Western conservative is one who wants to fundamentally conserve all four founding elements of American culture as the conception of the ideal societal model. (If all of this is as clear as mud to you, perhaps my next two or three columns will clean things up a bit!)
In all of Western culture today, there is a great struggle between modern liberals (e.g., Democrats, Labor, socialists, and progressives) and modern conservatives (e.g., Republicans, Tories, Likhud, capitalists, and conservative Republicans). I call this struggle “the War of the Worldviews.” This war is an internal war—a “civil war,” if you will—between two distinct factions (two opposing worldview philosophies) within Western Culture. The War of the Worldviews is not to be confused with the external war against radical Islamic terrorism in which the West is presently (albeit reluctantly) engaged. The external war against terrorism is a battle royal against a great threat to Western civilization as we know it.
It is my contention, however, that our internal war is an even greater threat to Western (esp., to American) civilization. As a case in point, please consider the “liberal” attitude against the war on terror and against regime change in Iraq. This attitude is only a tiny example of “liberal” nonchalance whenever the protection of the ideal societal model is required. With only few and scattered exceptions, the reluctance among the Western world to fully engage the dire threat of radical Islamic terrorism comes from the “liberal” element of society.
Several great thinkers have had the wisdom, the courage, and the knowledge to expose the two dominant worldview philosophies that are currently vying for supremacy in today’s Western culture. No moral, educated, or informed person can fully appreciate these two opposing philosophies or the impact of these philosophies on Western society without input from these great thinkers. No voter could possibly be educated or informed without hearing from both sides!
A colleague in the small plant where I work is taking a junior college course in philosophy. Her required reading to-date has consisted of works by Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche. These men were all avowed atheists. My experience in both junior college and university tells me that my co-worker will not get the full story. She will never hear the religious (or the conservative) side depicted in an equally forceful way unless she determines to strike out on her own in a search for truth! The really great philosophical thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries are almost completely overlooked in today’s institutions of “higher learning.” When they are not absolutely ignored, they are ridiculed and despised.
One of these thinkers is Dr. Francis Schaeffer. Dr. Schaeffer identified the two dominant and competing worldview philosophies as the humanist worldview versus the Christian worldview. Dr. Schaeffer is second only to C. S. Lewis, in my opinion, as the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century. Perhaps my favorite explanation/definition of these two dominant modern Western worldviews is set forth by Balint Vazsonyi in his book, America’s 30 Years War.
Balint Vazsonyi is a world-renowned concert pianist who grew up in Hungary from the mid 1930’s to the late 1950’s. He personally experienced the socialistic totalitarianism of both the Third Reich and the USSR. In his book, America’s 30 Years War, Vazsonyi defines a worldview ideology that is based upon a long line of French and German philosophers (e.g., Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and even Sartre). Vazsonyi eloquently places the blame for both forms of socialistic tyranny that he was forced to endure as a youth squarely at the feet of this “Franco-German philosophy.” He goes on to develop the premise that this Franco-German philosophy is currently engaged in all-out war with what he calls “Anglo-American ideology.” (Is this not a bit ironic, if not outright prophetic in light of current events? If one is to believe the “mainstream” media, one would think that the U. S. and the U. K.—Anglo-American—are acting “unilaterally” for regime change in Iraq. Could a logical argument not be made, then, that France and Germany—Franco-German—are acting unilaterally to oppose such action?)
The subtitle of Vazonyi’s book should send a chill down the spine of everyone who deeply loves and understands both the meaning and the promise of American liberty! The subtitle is, “Who is Winning?” Needless to say, I highly recommend this book.
Will my co-worker ever hear the ideas of Schaeffer, Lewis, Vazsonyi, or countless other conservative/religious philosophers over the course of her academic career? NOT LIKELY! Just like far too many students of Western “liberal arts,” she will be “educated” from an ant-religious (or purely secular) standpoint. She will not get both sides of the story.
The Western world is at war with itself. Given time, great leadership, and undying resolve, we can and eventually will defeat our external enemy. We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism just like we defeated fascism, imperialism, and soviet-style communism. But can we win our own internal War of the Worldviews?
Call it a war between humanists (or secularists) and Christians. Call it a major struggle between Franco-German philosophy and Anglo-American ideology. Call it a significant conflict between modern liberals and modern conservatives. One could even express this struggle in the terms that St. Paul laid out in Ephesians 6:12. But, please, make no mistake about it: this IS war!
My next two columns will describe and discuss the two combatants in the War of the Worldviews in terms of all four institutions of worldview and culture. What are the four institutions that die-hard, “bleeding-heart,” modern liberals want to establish for the global community? What are the four institutions—the institutions upon which American culture was originally founded—that modern conservatives want to preserve intact? Please stay tuned.
© Sam Weaver
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
