strong card.nIt may be objected that I am urging traditionalists to buildntheir arguments upon what seems a lower good, freedom fromncoercion, rather than a higher one, social virtue. There is muchnto be said for this criticism. I, for one, am convinced that nonsociety can long endure which ceases to agree on ethical firstnprinciples. But to the extent that conservatives must firstnengage in a holding action before being able to prevail, itnwould, in the short run, be useful to expose their opponents asnhypocrites. Social liberals are, in fact, not fighting for the expansionnof freedom. And this would be the case even if onengranted their spurious distinction between property rights andnhuman ones, and conceded that human beings, save for TVnscriptwriters and newspaper commentators, have no claim tonfreedom in the economic sphere.nLiberals do not respect most people’s right to live by theirnown light, without forced social re-education. All their aid tonalternative lifestyles and aggrieved minorities has inevitably entailednthe abridgement of liberty for the nonliberal family andncertainly in the marketplace. Conservatives must not forgo thenopportunity to make this fact better known. In the process ofndoing so, they will strengthen their ties with the true friends ofnfreedom and consistent thinking—and indeed with all thosenwho are not what Russell Kirk has styled the sworn “enemies ofnthe permanent things.” Only by such rhetorical prudence andnstrategic resourcefulness can the well-intentioned patriots fromnTexas hope to sway their audience. Their struggle over educationalncurricula stems from their determination to rear theirnchildren independently of a bureaucratically imposed leftistnideology. But they will never transmit this truth unless they firstnlearn to convey their message effectively.nA. Lnd what they must ultimately communicate is a vision ofnthe social good, for on this may hinge the final outcome of thencurrent confrontation between right and left. Traditionalistsnand social conservatives should not spurn the value of libertynbecause their opponents have abused it. Instead they mustnuphold the integral relationship between freedom and thenneed for social constraint among a truly free people. Thisnteaching, which C.S. Lewis considered the moral essence of thenworld’s great religions, deserves particular attention in a selfgoverningnnation. In a nation such as ours it is the people whonmust discipline themselves and who must choose to be virtuous.nPolitical assemblies and bureaucrats in our republic cannotnlegislate morality. At most they can reflect and give directionnto an impulse or aspiration already present among thenpopulace.nTo the extent that liberal social engineers have had their waynwith the American people, the answer is not simply that “thenbad guys have seized power.” Closer to the truth is that thenAmerican people have been made to willxhs. imposition uponnthemselves of radical social values. The powerful position of then• TOWARD A WELTANSCHAUUNGnh.t VnMnLim-KAL CL’I.U’RI: 1nlor VA< IIK- i-iliiDis 111″ ‘//•(•n.!iiii>i liLivi- liihiiriil fiaiil innlvi>,i Vy^v. -.ind iiinriiliiy iimi ;inilcfiii-f nl .•.ihiml bii.ii’l.’- vvlu”npun Iv.i.M’ bi>i)l<>; lor .-iliidiiii-nwliiili ;iri- iiflcn^iM- ID ihcirnI 111 rill I.–. Till- a-Mili 1)1’ihiir iii-nctfili’U’- uiil liii’. luiii :i liink-nIRVllI .^(•.l^l• |I1JV in whi( ll wllill-nliiiin-d [Ji’nii.-i’.iiiiKiI M liiinlnlii’iiriK riMLicil f;iir inicllaiuiilnlil)(.Ti lor ihc ni;ii<)rii (ri)miiii-nliiiil IIUUIR-.S III n tew lihiik-nl);i[liil illilcMJi- /i.:il()is. :iiii-ni;illv. 111 privc-ni ihiiii Iroiiin^I’liiliiii; ilii>. |i|(i(likiiiiri. I hinXiiti’in Iniiiul ii iu-ic>.«.;irv IDnki.(.|i hnund iiiid);;if;f;idDIIVUICI-niiTiyiii I’ai [.>; -iluu du- pwriiii’.’nf;ii.)ii|i>- will- odfii l.iryi’ mid iii-niludid iilKlliiiini and v.vll-icadniiidi idual.i. lli:U IIIIM.)IDDInlinard^ wire- ai lu.dly abrrd.ciiiyndie atadtinii lihcriy ol pariiiisn•iinl >-iudi-ni.-i by iiiipDsinj; ilnirnDwn philD’;Dpli DI I’tbiial nla-nIIMSIII iipDM dKTii an(i iliai dii-niiiDniA ID IIIIDICI- this dnuniaiiininiliD.sjiJDn I .iiTK niM DI die lax(‘^npaiil by die piDU-Miii); I’aiini.s.nSlill, iriii- ID ihi- playwriyhr^’ i-npciiaiJDns. die- libiial audiciKi-napplaudtil or booed on iiic.nliiii now a iKw d(.tlopni(ni.n. uroiip or/,/’i7;/,'()arc[ii>: hiiin anpo>-h ana ol Lonj; Uland havi-nassumed iJu’ role ol iiuii^n.ininoppont-ni.s ol M hind-boardnpolity. \’lii-n die MIIDOI bnaiilnfloviTiiinj; l.-iland Trii- I li!;linSihool di-iidcd to cxi liidi- till-nrubbi^li |irodiKi-d by ••uili haik-;na.^ Vonnc.u’ul and rk-a(r IrDiiin(In.- library and ilu- liiidKiu ihc’^i.-nI ru^adir.”licinandi-d lliai ihiirniliildrt-n (and i-vcryhody IIM'<)nbi- pirniiliid ihi- iduialiona!nc(.•)ia>vof wailovviiii; in.MICII (ilihnal laxpayir ixpiiiH-. Tliouulinilifv iiMiallv lormid pari of liicnijaqiii- ilKtrinj^ .MIIDD! boariisnand panniny parc-ius. iht NiwnYork (.ivil Lilu-ri ii-.’i I’nionn•-oimliDW (ill ihf 4;allir lonrbainpion ihi’iiauHii.nu’r’iiafjcndiirinu ihi- ^ix y(.ar> ol liiit;aliDnniKii’i^arv ID win a hnorabicn.Supreme C^ouri ruliiif;. .Andnnow wliai do we fimi but dialndie ediiiir.’s ol \i//’»/ are nnwnru’-bina in ironi ilie winjr.s lon(.onuraLiilaie ihe pareni. xhnulil indiKirliiaii’nnrrlriT diaiT edmaie.nIlainjj >•<) ea.^erk idem il lednilieilKibes wiili ihe blaik-liji’.nin a nieloilraiila ol I heir ownnI real ion. Sjli’iH’s edimr^n.•.lioiildn’i be .-urjiri’.ed ilwe hi–alnilii<