如果传统文化的准则不能得到广泛的恢复（美国中上层阶级中依然大部分遵从这些文化准则），那么情况将对我们所有人而言会变得更加糟糕！那些已经抛弃了传统文化准则的普通美国人，如果重新接受这些准则是否会大大减少社会的病态？有充分的理由相信，在那些目前还遵循这些准则的人群中，无论受教育程度和富裕程度如何，凶杀率都很低，阿片类成瘾很少，贫困率也很低。
那些现在按照亚文化生活的人，即便按照传统的文化准则生活，大部分人可能还是不会成为富人或者拥有精英工作，但他们的生活状况将比现在好得多，学校和社区会更安全，更愉快。
更多的学生为建设性的工作和民主参与做好准备。
但恢复传统阶级文化准则的主导地位，需要有文化的仲裁者-学者，媒体和好莱坞-放弃多元文化的诉苦抱怨和对被被压迫者的刻意修饰。
他们不应该抨击传统的资本主义文化准则，而是想1950年一样，去拥抱这种文化准则。
原文Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries.The causes of these phenomena are multiple and complex, but implicated in these and other maladies is the breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture.That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.These basic cultural precepts reigned from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. They could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities, especially when backed up by almost universal endorsement. Adherence was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.Did everyone abide by those precepts? Of course not. There are always rebels — and hypocrites, those who publicly endorse the norms but transgress them. But as the saying goes, hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. Even the deviants rarely disavowed or openly disparaged the prevailing expectations.Was everything perfect during the period of bourgeois cultural hegemony? Of course not. There was racial discrimination, limited sex roles, and pockets of anti-Semitism. However, steady improvements for women and minorities were underway even when bourgeois norms reigned. Banishing discrimination and expanding opportunity does not require the demise of bourgeois culture. Quite the opposite: The loss of bourgeois habits seriously impeded the progress of disadvantaged groups. That trend also accelerated the destructive consequences of the growing welfare state, which, by taking over financial support of families, reduced the need for two parents. A strong pro-marriage norm might have blunted this effect. Instead, the number of single parents grew astronomically, producing children more prone to academic failure, addiction, idleness, crime, and poverty.This cultural script began to break down in the late 1960s. A combination of factors — prosperity, the Pill, the expansion of higher education, and the doubts surrounding the Vietnam War — encouraged an antiauthoritarian, adolescent, wish-fulfillment ideal — sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll — that was unworthy of, and unworkable for, a mature, prosperous adult society. This era saw the beginnings of an identity politics that inverted the color-blind aspirations of civil rights leaders like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. into an obsession with race, ethnicity, gender, and now sexual preference.And those adults with influence over the culture, for a variety of reasons, abandoned their role as advocates for respectability, civility, and adult values. As a consequence, the counterculture made great headway, particularly among the chattering classes — academics, writers, artists, actors, and journalists — who relished liberation from conventional constraints and turned condemning America and reviewing its crimes into a class marker of virtue and sophistication.All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy. The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-“acting white” rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants. These cultural orientations are not only incompatible with what an advanced free-market economy and a viable democracy require, they are also destructive of a sense of solidarity and reciprocity among Americans. If the bourgeois cultural script — which the upper-middle class still largely observes but now hesitates to preach — cannot be widely reinstated, things are likely to get worse for us all.Would the re-embrace of bourgeois norms by the ordinary Americans who have abandoned them significantly reduce society’s pathologies? There is every reason to believe so. Among those who currently follow the old precepts, regardless of their level of education or affluence, the homicide rate is tiny, opioid addiction is rare, and poverty rates are low. Those who live by the simple rules that most people used to accept may not end up rich or hold elite jobs, but their lives will go far better than they do now. All schools and neighborhoods would be much safer and more pleasant. More students from all walks of life would be educated for constructive employment and democratic participation.But restoring the hegemony of the bourgeois culture will require the arbiters of culture — the academics, media, and Hollywood — to relinquish multicultural grievance polemics and the preening pretense of defending the downtrodden. Instead of bashing the bourgeois culture, they should return to the 1950s posture of celebrating it.Amy Wax is the Robert Mundheim professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Larry Alexander is the Warren distinguished professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. 后续这篇文章2017年8月9号在PA最大的日报上发表之后，在美国引起了轩然大波。
8月9日，《费城问询者报》发表文章。
8月10日，《每日费城报》采访Wax教授：宾大法学院教授说，并不是所有的文化都是生来平等的。
“‘Not all cultures are created equal’ says Penn Law professor in op-ed”8月13日，《每日费城报》发表文章 “Campus is abuzz over Penn Law professor Amy Wax’s controversial op-ed, which called for return of ‘bourgeois’ cultural values” 进一步攻击Wax8月14日，《每日费城报》邀请宾大法学院的院长发表文章《On Charlottesville, free speech and diversity》 院长开始站队，发表驳斥文8月20日，5名宾大法学院的教职工，在《每日费城报》发表署名文章《Notions of ‘bourgeois’ cultural superiority are based on bad history》，资本主义的传统准则优越性是基于错误的历史8月30日，33名宾大法学院的教职工在《每日费城报》发表 致宾大法学社区的公开信，要求Wax教授滚蛋。
9月1号，Wax教授在《每日费城报》上发表 《对《致宾大法学社区公开信》的回应》，我有言论自由，我才不走。
9月3号，学术网站Heterodox Academy的Jonathan Klick教授的专栏中写道我不关心Wax教授到底政治正确不正确，但是我在乎他的经验不正确。
9月21号，宾大法学教授发表专栏文章：（我的一张大字报）Jonah Gelbach对Wax和Jon Haidt”的回应。
就是这位充满战斗精神的老奶奶，几乎是兵来将挡水来土掩，舌战群熊。
这个事情远没有完！在后面的断断续续的交锋中，前天Wax在华尔街日报上又扔了一枚炸弹《What Can’t Be Debated on Campus》。
现在静观美国左翼社区的反击。
美国的教育系统，新闻系统，法律系统已经左道一定程度了。
这种撕破脸皮大讨论，对于社会的健康发展长远来看还是有益的。
也许我们正在经历一场美国式的实践是检验真理唯一标准的大讨论。
金鸡引吭辞旧岁，神犬啸天迎新春。
今天是戊戌年正月初一，农历新年的第一天，我们向全省8000万人民、向所有关心江苏改革发展的海内外朋友拜年，向大家致以节日的美好祝福！一元复始，万象更新。
2018年是全面贯彻中共十九大精神的开局之年，是决胜全面建成小康社会、实施“十三五”规划承上启下的关键之年，也是改革开放40周年。
新的一年，承载着美好希望，昭示着美好前景。
同时，也不可避免会面临风险挑战，遭遇坎坷困难。
此刻，从春天里再出发，砥砺奋进的江苏又开启了新的征程，我们前进的脚步坚定铿锵。
新的一年，“奋斗”是我们不变的主题词。
“幸福都是奋斗出来的”“新时代是奋斗者的时代”“奋斗本身就是一种幸福。
只有奋斗的人生才称得上幸福的人生”……习近平总书记在2018年春节团拜会上的讲话中，重申了“奋斗”这一时代主题词。