I recently discovered Dawn Treader, another excellent blog with a Reformed bent. Jeff recently wrote an interesting post that sums up what I think many Evangelicals are thinking about tomorrow’s election: it’s a contest of worldviews more than a contest of issues. I had some interaction with Jeff in the comments to his post, and he acknowledged at least one problem with this thesis: worldview itself is an issue, so in that respect the election is about “issues.”
That’s only one problem I see with the “it’s about worldviews, stupid” thesis, however. More significant, I think, is the way this “worldview” argument tends to reduce the candidates’ supposed worldviews into narrow charicatures. Kerry’s “worldview,” for example, is supposedly more “relativist-leaning” because of his views on abortion and same-sex marriage, whereas Bush’s view is more “absolute-truth-leaning” because his views on those issues are more absolutist. But this confuses a candidate’s views about the proper scope of government with the candidate’s views on the “truthfulness” of a given moral position.
Let me use a less incendiary example. Suppose there were a major political debate about whether the federal government should require everyone to drive electric cars. There is a moral issue here: is it morally acceptable to pollute the air others breathe with exhaust from gas powered cars? There also, however, is a legitimate question about federal governmental power: should the federal government legislate in this area? Should it be a matter to be decided by state legislatures? Or should it be a matter each person should decide for him or herself?
In my hypothetical example, both candidates might believe as a matter of absolute truth that it would be better for society if everyone drove electric cars. However, they might have vastly different views about what, if anyting, the government should do to enforce that moral truth. In other words, the difference between them would primarily be a policy difference, not primarily a worldview difference.
Of course, the regulation of abortion and same sex marriage carry different policy implications than the regulation of automobile emissions. But they nevertheless are policy implications. If you argue that life is sacred and therefore worth protecting from the moment of conception — as I would argue — you’re saying that as a matter of public policy the protection of innocent life should almost always trump otherwise legitimate privacy and autonomy interests. If we focus only on worldview — or even primarily on worldview — we aren’t fulfilling our duty as Christian citizens to analyze the policy alternatives thoroughly. It’s really just a form of intellectual laziness.
As to the real “worldview” differences between Bush and Kerry, I doubt they’re as significant as some would suggest. In a sense, Bush and Kerry are just different sides of the same coin: they both are privileged middle-aged white males, they both went to fancy prep-schools, they both went to Yale, they both are fabulously wealthy, and on and on. Neither of them live in the more mundane world inhabited by most American Christians. Maybe W. is genuinely more “evangelical” in his faith than Kerry, but that in itself isn’t a reason to choose him as leader of the free world.
5 replies on “The U.S. Election and Worldviews”
David,
Glad to see you wrestling with this issue. Let me join you in condemning intellectual laziness on the part of Christians.
The only part of your post that troubled me is the suggestion that worldview should not take a primary place in our thinking. From worldviews flow ideas, from ideas flow policies.
A person who views truth as relative will make decisions pragmatically instead of principally. A person who views life in a utilitarian way will form ethical policies that devalue human life and favor the strong over the weak and defenseless. A person who fails to see the root of our problems in society as moral issues, will think that government is where our hope lies. That is utopianism (remember the “hope is on the way” mantra from the DNC). Worldviews are bigger than prep schools and being wealthy middle-aged males.
I am not trying to dumb down the electoral process and cater to the intellectually lazy Christians. I am trying to wake them up to what fuels the ideas behind the issues. Looking at issues in terms of worldviews brings amazing clarity to an otherwise confusing landscape of ideas and policies.
I look forward to more interactions with you.
Blessings!
Thanks, Jeff, for the thoughtful comment. I should clarify that I wasn’t suggesting Jeff is intellectually lazy or that he was intending to encourage intellectual laziness.
I guess what I’m struggling with here is the idea that a policy maker’s (or candidates) “worldview” is so easy to define. The concept of “worldviews” gives us some neat analytical categories, but the real world seems to me to be much more complex.
In fact, the notion of “worldviews” is subject to criticism on its own terms. The idea that a person’s decisions can be traced to some distinct “worldview” reflects presuppositions about the psychology of decision-making and the makeup of individuals within a society. In other words, “worldview” analysis stems from a “worldview” in which individuals don’t seem to be much more than the product of a hermetic, pre-defined category such as “relativist” or “absolutist.” I’m not sure this presupposition accounts for the many different forces that come to bear on a policy maker — particularly one as visible as a U.S. President — who is faced with a difficult decision.
David,
I get your meaning. Good points. We humans do like to pigeonhole people into our little boxes and then make sweeping judgments aganist them. You are right to discourage such a practice.
In the case of Kerry and Bush, their actions (and to a lesser degree their words) give us a lot of helpful clues.
Kerry swings much further toward pragmatic, utilitarian, and utopian thinking than Bush. It comes out loud and clear in his voting record. It came out loud and clear in his answers in the debate.
He epitomizes the fact-value dichotomy that is so prevalent in our culture (i.e. Schaeffer’s two-story realm of truth). Kerry is the ultimate lower story guy … it was especially obvious in his comments about Bush being a luddite in regards to technology (the horse and buggy comments and so forth). In other words, ethics are those subjective, squishy, wishy washy things that we should relegate to the realm of opinion and personal preference: while science reflects progress and knowledge and solutions. Therefore, let’s make policy based on hard fact versus opinion. This view is bogus, of course. But many swallow it hook, line and sinker.
This is the kind of worldview thinking I am talking about versus about trying to find the right label for each candidate and then vote accordingly.
I did a poor job of articulating that in my post … but I was trying to keep it simple.
Interesting post. You got me thinking here. Just how far are we going to legislate “morality, life,” etc. Isn’t air pollution on the same plane as abortion–human life is at stake?
How about second-hand smike? Eating fat foods?
Thanks for getting me thinking in this vein…:)
I meant second-hand smoke..LOL.