A nation worth defending. (American Thought).

ON SEPT. 11, 2001, America suffered more civilian casualties than on any other day in its 226 years when terrorists hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the nation's financial and military centers. Only through the heroism and courage of passengers on one plane were they prevented from striking the nation's capital. For many--especially those who lived in the cities struck--the shock and horror of that day remain with them. For others, however, the memory has faded. I recently spoke with a radio station in Portland, Ore., and asked the host how Sept. 11 had affected them. Not much, he admitted: "We think it was more of an East Coast thing."

In one way, this is a great strength of America: We move on. It is also, though, a great weakness, especially at a time like this. As Americans, we must remember more than we do. The U.S. is, indeed, a nation worth defending, but one that, surprisingly, many Americans find themselves reluctant to defend.

I am the chairman of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT), dedicated to sustaining and strengthening American public opinion in the war on terrorism. We recently conducted a poll of college students to determine their knowledge of and attitudes about the war. What we found was disturbing:

* Less than half of those we surveyed could name the U.S. Secretary of State.

* About one-third could identify the prime minister of Israel and the U.S. Secretary of Defense.

* Approximately one-quarter could identify the three nations that Pres. Bush identified as the Axis of Evil.

* Fewer than 20% could name the American national security advisor and the United Nations' secretary-general.

* Just 14% could identify the president of Pakistan, even as we rely on that nation's help in the war in Afghanistan.

Moreover, of the 55 highest-ranked colleges and universities in the nation, not a single one requires students to take a course in American history in order to graduate. Only three require a course in Western civilization. This is cause for alarm, but it should not come as a surprise. The recently released National Assessment of Education Progress reveals that 57% of high school Students are "below basic" in their knowledge of history. Just 18% of fourth-graders, 17% of eighth-graders, and 11% of 12th-graders score at the "proficient" level, the one at which the National Assessment Governing Board, the administrators of the tests, says all students should perform.

This historical ignorance is not merely of academic concern. It has real-world consequences. Returning to the AVOT poll, more than 70% of college students disagree--and 34% strongly disagree--that the values of the U.S. are superior to those of other countries. More than one-third disagree with the claim that, "Despite its flaws, the United States is the best country in the world." Eighty percent reject the claim that Western civilization, with its unparalleled achievements and human flourishing, is superior to Arab civilization. In what was perhaps the most-striking finding, one-third said that they would evade a military draft in the war on terrorism; another third would refuse to serve abroad; and just one-third would willingly go fight overseas.

Ideas, author Richard Weaver famously wrote, have consequences. Similarly, pernicious ideas have pernicious consequences. The idea that America is no better than any other nation is one pernicious idea; the claim that our values are no better than any other set of values is another; and the pernicious consequence of such ideas is that two-thirds of our college students--the future leaders of America--would refuse to serve in the military in a foreign country during the war on terrorism.

From what does this reluctance to defend America--morally and intellectually--arise? I would argue that it stems from a lack of education about America or, in some cases, a historically incorrect education about America, which is even worse. Education ought not be defined narrowly as the accumulation of knowledge; it also entails preparing a future generation of citizens. Education, by its nature, includes civic education. That is why, as the Greek philosopher Plato put it, the fundamental task of any regime is the education of the young. A nation cannot survive if its young are not intellectually and morally prepared to defend it.

What should children be taught about America? They should be taught the truth about it. If we are a nation that was created by a political vision of equality and liberty, our story is the story of the struggle to realize that vision, those ideals. We have had our failures--some of them shameful--but never once have we lost sight of our moral ideals, which is why we have been able to transcend the stains on our record, foremost among them that of slavery. Who else among the world's nations could enter such a claim?

Our country is something to be proud of, something to celebrate. We should not shrink from saying so. A careful and close reading of our history demonstrates that we have provided more freedom to more people than any other nation in the history of mankind; that we have provided a greater degree of equality to more people than any other nation in the history of mankind; that we have created more prosperity and spread it more widely than any other nation in the history of mankind; that we have brought more peace and justice to the world than any other nation in the history of mankind; and that our open, tolerant, prosperous society is the marvel--and the envy--of the ages.

This is demonstrably true within our own borders. Outside those borders, we have been a beacon of freedom and opportunity to people throughout the world since the day of our creation. When people around the globe demonstrate in support of freedom and liberty, they do so with American icons and documents. I will never forget--we should never forget--how the brave Chinese students in Tiananmen Square faced off with tanks, armed with only a papier-mache Statue of Liberty and a copy of the Declaration of Independence. Pernicious ideas have pernicious consequences, but good and noble ideas can have good and noble consequences, too.

The noble ideas of America have led to noble consequences and noble actions on our part. For example, in the 20th century alone, as one British columnist pointed out, Americans "saved Europe from barbarism in two world wars ... [and] rebuilt the continent from ashes. They confronted and peacefully defeated Soviet Communism, the most murderous system ever devised by man.... America, primarily, ejected Iraq from Kuwait and ... stopped the slaughter in the Balkans while the Europeans dithered." This list could be extended tenfold and it would still be incomplete.

Put simply, America is the place people run to when, in hope or hopelessness, they are running from somewhere else. I have devised a simple test to illustrate this, the gates test, as I call it: If a nation were to have entirely free and unfettered, unchecked and unpatrolled borders, would people come in or go out? If the U.S. opened its borders, there would be streams of people trying to enter the country. Even with border patrols and immigration policies, there are people trying to get in. Many of those people--both today and in decades past--have risked life and limb to flee repressive regimes like Cuba, China, and the Soviet Union to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities unique to America.

That these freedoms and opportunities are unique to America is not merely a conservative position. Listen to what former Senator (D.-N.Y.) and Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan has to say on the matter: "Am I embarrassed to speak for a less than perfect democracy? Not one bit. Find me a better one. Do I suppose there are societies which are free of sin? No, I don't. Do I think ours is, on balance, incomparably the most hopeful set of human relations the world has? Yes, I do."

It is starting from this bedrock understanding that an education in patriotism should proceed, for "what is taught will not be forgotten, and what is forgotten cannot be defended," as the American Council of Trustees and Alumni has put it. The job of educators--not just teachers, but parents and politicians as well--in our time is to make sure that these truths are not forgotten, that children learn that their great nation is, as Pres. Abraham Lincoln said, the last best hope of Earth.

There is much that can be taught to our children about Sept. 11. On that bloody day, we saw the face and felt the hand of evil, but we saw something else--heroism, courage, and honor.

We saw the firemen who rushed into the burning infernos of the World Trade Center as so many men and women were rushing out. We heard the audiotapes of the struggle on Flight 93, where men and women who expected nothing more than a normal cross-country flight came together to overpower the terrorists and keep that plane from being used as a missile. Today, we see the ongoing bravery of the men and women in our armed forces, risking their lives around the world to protect America and all that she stands for. Children will learn from that.

To learn from it, however, they must be reminded of it. If our children are not reminded of the heroism of Sept. 11, they will not learn to be brave. If they do not learn about the great and noble things our country has done, they will not learn to be patriotic. If they do not learn to be brave and patriotic, our nation is in grave danger. Today's children are tomorrow's soldiers, citizens, and leaders. They will be called on to. defend our country--to defend their country--in the years to come. They must be prepared to do so.

In order to do so effectively, we must all be able to see through fogs of moral obfuscation and political correctness. The reluctance of college students to state that Western civilization is superior to Arabic civilization is not surprising. A poll of students by the National Association of Scholars found that three-quarters of American college students say their professors teach them that fight and wrong depend "on differences in individual values and cultural diversity."

You may recall that, shortly after Sept. 11, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy asserted that Western civilization was "superior" to that of Islam. As you might expect, the guardians of political correctness were up in arms: "Simply unacceptable" and "deeply dangerous rantings," complained the Washington Post; other newspapers and international leaders added that the comments were "absurd," "Neanderthal," "disgusting," and "outrageous." Put aside the question of whether or not Berlusconi's remarks were impolite. Let us focus on the simple question of whether they were true. Could it be that Western civilization is superior to Islamic civilization?

It is hard to look at the world today and argue otherwise. The Western world has led to a standard of living unprecedented in human history. It has guaranteed a system of rights and liberties for men and women that are all but unknown in the Islamic world. Scientific progress has benefited rich and poor, young and old. Throughout the Western world, there is a degree of human flourishing that is absent from the suffering that characterizes life for so many in the Middle East.

As Berlusconi said, Western civilization "has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights and ... respect for religious and political rights"; it is a "system that has as its values understandings of diversity and tolerance." While he was wrong to deny that such "respect for human rights and religion" existed anywhere in the Islamic world, it is all but inarguable that such respect is the rare exception, and certainly not the rule.

Islamic civilization does have a noble heritage of its own. During the Middle Ages, for instance, Islamic scientists and philosophers made contributions that remain valuable even to this day. Yet, for the past several centuries, as historian Bernard Lewis reminds us, Islamic civilization has remained stagnant, while the West has flourished.

I believe that one reason the West has flourished while Islamic civilization has remained stagnant is that the spirit of democracy and liberty in the West encourages questioning, debate, and progress. To learn about the value of capitalism, we read John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx. To learn about the value of the religious life, we read Thomas Aquinas and Voltaire. To learn about the ends of politics, we read Aristotle and Machiavelli. To learn about the value of warfare, we read Homer and Erasmus. To learn about the worth of sexual fidelity, we read Leo Tolstoy and James Joyce. Our intellectual tradition is not monolithic; it is, rather, an ongoing conversation.

Diversity and tolerance

As Berlusconi said, we value diversity--especially intellectual diversity--and tolerance in a way that no other civilization does. Western civilization demands inquiry and leads to progress at a rate and of a degree previously unknown to mankind. The tradition of liberalism and liberal education in the West has led to human liberation to think, dream, and live.

As political philosopher A.E. Murphy put it many decades ago, "We do not understand the ideals of other cultures better by misunderstanding our own or adequately enrich an intercultural synthesis by offering to it anything less than the best we have. That best is the theory and practices of intellectual, moral, and political freedom, in a form and at a level which neither medieval, Mexican, Manchu, nor Muscovite culture has so far equaled."

I will never forget the scenes that occurred in November, 2001, when the American and British forces liberated Kabul. Burqas were cast off; beards were shaved; and television sets were dug out of the ground. An entire city celebrated the end of strict Islamic rule. This event suggested that cultures and values are not so different after all. Anyone who saw the pictures of people suddenly free to speak, dress, learn, work, and worship as they saw fit would be hard-pressed to deny a universal human longing for freedom.

Simple honesty ought to compel us to state--and to do so proudly--that, while the longing is universal, one particular cultural tradition has most fully nourished it. That tradition is ours, and students ought to be made aware of it and its successes.

Since the beginning of time, political philosophers have recognized the importance of patriotism. One of Plato's first dialogues is the Crito, which is subtitled "The Duty of a Citizen." This is an account of a conversation between Socrates and his friend Crito, as the former awaits his execution by the city of Athens. Crito and other friends have devised a plan by which Socrates can escape the unjust sentence handed down. Yet, Socrates demurs. He explains to Crito that the city--even if it has done him harm--has a claim to his loyalty that surpasses even death. The state, Socrates reminds Crito, "brought [me] into the world, and nurtured and educated [me]." Escaping would be nothing more than "running away and turning your back upon the compacts and agreements which you made as a citizen." It would, in short, be a repudiation of his entire life. In his later and more-detailed studies of government--The Republic and The Laws--Plato spends a great deal of time discussing the moral and civic education of the young, training them to be good citizens. His pupil Aristotle, too, was concerned with these matters, as a cursory reading of Politics--and even the Nicomachean Ethics--will show.

In modern times, however, that notion of patriotism has been eviscerated. British philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, declared that government is simply a construct designed to ameliorate the state of nature--which in life, in his memorable phrase, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." By identifying the fear of death--especially violent, painful death--as man's most-powerful passion, Hobbes argued that the state had claim to our allegiance only as long as it preserved our life. Once it no longer could protect us, we no longer were obliged to obey its commands; the paramount right of nature of man is to "preserve his own life and limbs, with all the power he hath." There is no good greater than one's own life; no man can surrender his right to self-preservation. On this theory, then, we would understand it if our troops were to surrender and join forces with the enemy when outnumbered in combat. It would be, Hobbes writes, cowardly--but not unjust.

That is not the understanding of patriotism accepted by our Founding Fathers, though. They created a nation to which they were dedicated, even at the cost of their own lives. It was a concept of a country--and a claim to loyalty--larger than one's own security and prosperity. Indeed, the Founders themselves risked their lives for this nation and its principles long before it ever existed. Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence lost their homes, property, and fortunes. They were aware of the risk they were taking. As one signer put it, he and his fellow revolutionaries knew they were signing their own "death warrants." Nathan Hale famously remarked that his only regret was that he had but one life to give for his country--one that had yet to exist.

Still, in an age where so much has been scorned for so long, what does patriotism mean? Do we stand with American naval officer Stephen Decatur when he exclaimed, "Our country, may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong!"? Does patriotism mean that we love America simply because it is our country? In a word, no. The American understanding of patriotism has never been as simple as that.

American patriotism has always been rooted in love of the principles upon which the nation was founded: liberty, equality, justice, and democracy. We are, in that sense, unique--our patriotism is not parochial. That is to say, our love for America does not necessarily entail dislike of other countries. Indeed, insofar as those nations share our principles--think, for instance, of Great Britain or Israel--we consider them our friends and allies, not competitors.

Upon the death of Sen. Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln said that Clay "loved his country partly because it was his own country, but mostly because it was a free country ... he saw in [the advancement of his country] the advancement, prosperity, and glory of human liberty, human right, and human nature." American prosperity is not good only for America, it is good for the rest of the world, for the principles of America are good for the rest of the world. That is a lesson that we adults--as much as our children--need to learn, remember, and, when called upon, defend.

William J. Bennett is codirector of Empower America, a policy organization in Washington, D.C.; chairman of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism; chairman of K12, an internet-based elementary and secondary school; and author of Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism.