Yesterday I discussed the need to rebuild America's foundation at the most basic level in order to save this "last best hope."   

A majority of Americans have forgotten our historic roots of freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government.  It's not enough anymore just to point out the need for a return to traditional Americanism; too many people don't understand what that means and lack the capacity for analytical thought.  We must go back to the basics and explain why traditional Americanism is good and why the modern trend toward socialism is bad. People in our self-centered culture must be educated as to "what's in it for them" before they can move on to acting and voting in a manner based on "what's in it for society" or better still "what's right."

We will need to educate our fellow Americans because the institutions which have historically done so--the institutions of education and journalism--have demonstrated they are no longer willing to do so.  Traditional Americans must therefore work in and within those institutions to foster change.  We must also engage our fellow Americans on a personal level--at work, at church, across the back yard fence, and at the ball game.

But educating and providing facts is still not enough.  Fundamental change is needed in the hearts of the American people.  Since leaving our roots, we have spawned generations who have not cultivated a moral compass.  We will not return America to societal greatness unless we cultivate a strong moral compass in the people.

PART 1

People also no longer understand the relationship between private morality and public behavior.  Since the days of Bill Clinton we've been told that it doesn't matter if someone is a scoundrel and dirtbag in their personal life; what matters is whether they're a good leader.

But we saw with Bill Clinton that his "private morality" or lack thereof dragged the nation through the mud hole of his depraved infidelity.  We also saw him lie to the American people--not only about his unzipped fly but about policy issues--almost every time his mouth opened. He lied about seeing black churches burning in Arkansas, reducing the size of government (he gutted the military while bloating the bureaucracy), lied about reining in the welfare state (congressional Republicans did this), and he lied about reducing spending (again, congressional Republicans did this).  It was almost impossible to keep up with his lies and lack of faithfulness to the people he was elected to serve. 

And in the same way he was derelict in his duty to be faithful to his wife, he was derelict in his duty to protect the United States.  So we saw terrorist attack after terrorist attack unmet with any decisive response until our broadcast weakness brought on the devastating attack of 911 and nearly 3,000 dead Americans.

Why is it the American people could be so stupid to think that someone who would break their vows to the person they sleep with would somehow NOT break their vows to people they don't even know (i.e. members of the American public)?

Obviously, private moral strength is a great indicator of the public moral character of an elected official. It is the height of naiveté to assume someone who is dishonest and immoral in their personal dealings will somehow prove trustworthy in their official capacity.   

Apparently many in the American public will need the dots connected for them in order to grasp truths of this nature. It may be a daunting task just to get many people to understand how bad policies affect them personally, much less how they harm society as a whole.  Many people may need to see "what's in it for them" before they can take the next step and comprehend "what's in it for society."

I would advise one caution in the effort to enlighten the public: don't expect your children to carry that burden.

I would not advise those who are homeschooling to pack away their textbooks and send their children back to public school, nor the same thing for those who have their children in good private or religious schools. While it is important that we have good teachers with a traditional education and understanding in the public system, I do not believe subjecting our impressionable children to that environment is wise.

Some would argue that the children of informed Americans can themselves make a difference with the other children, but common sense tells us that is a risky prospect. The odds are that bad habits will rub off on good children, rather than good habits rubbing off on misguided children and teachers.  With the prevalence of liberal propaganda in our culture, our young, impressionable children are outnumbered and out-gunned.  Please, don't put them in an impossible position of holding the line against institutional ignorance and peer pressure, and expect them to hold fast to what you're teaching them at home.

But as a Christian I firmly believe that education only goes so far, especially in a culture primarily driven by emotion as ours is.

You can fill the mind with facts all day long...but if there is no change of heart, the visceral self-interested reaction will usually win out.

C.S. Lewis pointed out in The Abolition of Man that while both intellect and emotion are involved in driving a human being, there is one more element necessary to combine the two into positive action: a moral compass.

Says Lewis:

The head rules the belly through the chest--the seat, as Alanus tells us, of Magnanimity, of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment--these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.

To paraphrase and simplify, it is the chest, or the heart (the moral compass, the "stable sentiments") which combines inactive intellect and raw emotional appetite into something useful.  Mere intellect considers and appreciates, but takes no action.  Emotional appetite is pure action, but without reason, logic or regard for good.  These two elements are combined in the human heart to enable human beings to act in a positive manner.

But we are not born with these "stable sentiments;" they are, as Lewis said, formed by trained habit, i.e. solid moral instruction.  Once formed and trained, they become what is often referred to in modern times as the "moral compass," or the conscience which prompts us toward morally good acts and away from away from morally bad acts.

We do not have to force religion on our fellow Americans.  In fact, we cannot; no one can force another person to believe something, and our constitution forbids the legal imposition of religious fealty.   

Yet if we want to see our foundations repaired, we do have an obligation to present solid arguments and explain how they benefit our society.  It is then up to the individual to accept or reject those arguments.

We must do this through the "old media," through the "new media," in letters to the editor, in phone calls to TV and radio talk shows, in our churches (if they are lukewarm, they need to be fired up), as we teach our children, in our communication with public officials, at the water cooler at work, at the ballgame and across our backyard fence. 

If we articulate those ideas clearly, they will likely be understood and accepted.  Polls indicate that more than 80 percent of Americans identify with Christianity; why would Americans not want to better understand that which they already identify with?  What's more, all major religions share a similar basic moral foundation; none extol dishonesty, while all value integrity and responsibility.   

Any effort to see the American people return to our traditional heritage and values which does not incorporate moral training--Christian moral training--is doomed to limited success at best.

After all, our nation and all its greatness were founded on the Christian worldview.  All our noble ideals spring from the philosophy of the Bible. That is why our second president, John Adams, said, "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."

Even more clearly, Adams pointed to this connection between our Christian foundation and our liberty when he said

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

I don't know about you, but I'd like to continue living under the United States Constitution--especially as it was intended to operate.  I think it's the best plan for government ever devised by man.

But the prospect of producing and maintaining a moral and religious people is a daunting task, isn't it?

We must explain Americanism and competing philosophies at every opportunity.  We must engage the culture. We must get involved in the education system. We must point out the law of cause and effect.  And we must help our fellow Americans develop the moral compass necessary to be a free people.

Obviously if we want to save our nation and return it to its full greatness, we have our work cut out for us.

But isn't our nation worth saving?  Don't we want to pass this American legacy on to our children?