Within the sphere of politics our debate usually gravitates towards disagreements over specific policy issues, without recognizing the philosophical commitments that lead to policy conclusions. It is for this reason I feel it is necessary to address worldviews in this blog. A worldview is a set of philosophical commitments concerning three disciplines in particular; metaphysics (the nature of reality), epistemology (the study of knowing, i.e how we know what we know) and ethics (praxis/how we should act). Everybody has a worldview whether they realize it or not. Therefore political philosophy is not immune to worldviews. In other words, conservatives and liberals alike distill their policy objectives from their worldview. In our contemporary setting we see conservatives and liberals drifting further and further away from each other on stated policy objectives. Conservatives and liberals alike are befuddled as to why the political scene has become so polarized. The reason for this polarization is in large part due to the differences between the worldviews of conservatives and liberals. For this reason I will try to explain the contemporary liberal worldview and point out how their worldview is influencing their political philosophy.

    When speaking in terms of worldviews it is helpful to begin with metaphysics. Unfortunately this requires generalizations. To further explain, not all liberals would affirm the statements I will make about the liberal worldview, however I wish to explain the most consistent liberal worldview, and how this affects their political philosophy. If for example, a liberal says, “While I agree with the ethics of liberalism, but not the metaphysics,” they are really just admitting that they do not hold a coherent worldview. It is outside of the scope of this paper to defend liberal incoherence, rather I wish to expound, what I feel, is the most prevalent and coherent form of the liberal worldview. So without further ado I will get started. Coherent liberalism believes that evolution is a metaphysical reality. In short, they do not believe in God. They are naturalists. The most significant aspect of this, in terms of their political philosophy, is what this affirmation implies about the human condition. Recently there has been some debate over the concepts of good and evil. These concepts have been described, by liberals as “antiquated notions”, meaning that they are outdated. The reason the concept of good and evil is out of date, as they would have it, is because they are inherently religious concepts that can only be had in accordance with the acceptance of the fact that there is a God, who in some way has defined what is good and evil. To further explain, what a higher power or God represents is a higher moral order. Or more clearly stated, to act in conformity with whatever higher power that is accepted, is by definition good. Deviating from said higher power would then be evil. So when a philosophy discards God as a reality, they also discard a higher moral order. All that is left is not what is good or evil, but rather what is natural. Therefore human beings no longer have the ability to make moral decisions (because there is no such thing); rather they are only able to make decisions that are brought upon them by natural impulses. This is most visible in their policy of the wholesale acceptance of homosexuality. So then, if a man is born who has a ‘natural’ inclination to sleep with another man, he should do so because he has no risk of violating a higher moral order (because there is none), and not acting on natural inclinations is just a suppression of said natural inclinations. In sum, contemporary liberalism strips man of the ability to make moral choices.

    The concept of replacing what is good and evil with what is natural also has other ramifications, in that it removes human culpability for deviant actions. Humans no longer make moral choices between good and evil, rather they react naturally to a given set of circumstances. Therefore an affluent white male who does well in school, goes to college, gets a good job and has a comfortable life is able to do all of these things because of a natural reaction to a positive set of circumstances. Likewise any deviant action is the cause of a negative set of circumstances that confronts an individual. This is the mechanism by which America is blamed for all of the world’s problems. This concept is illustrated perfectly in the new movie Blood Diamond. In the movie there is a lot of suffering that happens in Africa because of the diamond trade. The villain of the movie is the corporation who is buying the diamonds from Africa. The movie does not offer judgment on the government that is unable to keep the peace and ensure the safety of its citizens, nor does it offer judgment about the rebel armies who are going around killing and enslaving people to get the diamonds, or government officials in other countries turning a blind eye to the illegal smuggling and exportation of the diamonds. Rather it is the corporation who created a situation in which the natural human response to that situation was to kill, enslave and maim. On a tangent, this is why the corporation has become an enemy of liberalism; because it is an institution that inherently creates situations in the world that result in suffering. So the natural liberal response is not to try and curb the abuses of individual corporations, but rather to abolish the multi-national corporation as an institution. This is evidenced throughout liberalism in the assertion that America/corporations/the church (insert any institution that is an enemy of the liberal) create terrorists, gang members, poverty, oppression, unwanted pregnancies and sickness. Another effect of this is to remove any reason for retributive justice and replace it with rehabilitation. In sum, humans are no longer culpable for moral actions, but rather react naturally, and then it becomes society’s job to provide situations that humans will react to, in a manner that will reduce suffering.

    Now onto the liberal ethic, although it seems that once you have disregarded notions of good and evil, then there is really no reason, or possibility of having an ethic, but this is not the case. However the liberal ethic is aimed at meeting something drastically different than what is traditionally understood as ethics. Traditionally, society understands ethics, as trying to conform itself to a higher principle of morality. Conversely liberal ethics stem from the existential awareness that a situation of suffering is less desirable than a comfortable situation. Therefore the goal of the liberal ethic is not to conform itself to a higher principle of morality but rather to reduce, if not eradicate suffering from the earth. This has many implications for their policy objectives. The first is that any action that does not result in the suffering of others is deemed as a liberty of an individual. Take for example drug use. On the surface drug use does not adversely affect other members of a society, therefore it is permissible. On the topic of abortion, no suffering to the unborn child is apparent and therefore is deemed permissible (I should note that questions over the humanity/ensoulment or state of said soul are understood as superfluous, predicated on their naturalistic conception of metaphysical reality) . Furthermore any adverse affect, to the woman’s psyche or body, is justified in that they no longer have to deal with the prolonged suffering of raising a child. The individual then can make the choice of levels of suffering, and given such a choice an individual will choose to minimize suffering. Here we also find the rationale behind their support of euthanasia. We also must consider this in relation to their societal ethics. If a human is moderately comfortable it serves two purposes 1) the human is not in a state of suffering and 2) a human not in a state of suffering is less likely to react in a way that would cause suffering to others. Therefore there is no reason that one human should be in an elevated state of comfort and others should be in a state of suffering. Rather if we reduce both individuals to the lowest common denominator of comfort, than the goal of liberalism is achieved. Here we find the rationale behind socialized healthcare and welfare. We can then get a glimpse into their idea of a utopia. If a level of comfort is reached globally and the situations that cause the human to react in a way that increases suffering are eradicated than we no longer have to worry about humans causing suffering unto them, and a utopia has been created. Obviously then, this is achieved through massive governmental programs of wealth redistribution, but it also entails the abolition of institutions such as the Church and the corporation and ideological commitments that once held compel an individual to act in a way that increases suffering, which includes but is not limited to religious convictions and patriotism/nationalism.

    By glimpsing into the liberal worldview, it is clear that we are no longer dealing with differences over policy, but rather, they are proposing an entirely new and foreign concept to understanding the world and the human condition. We have to realize that our government is founded on a more accurate understanding of the human condition. Recently, historians have questioned whether or not our founding fathers were true Christians, but what is clear is that the creation of America was under girded by the assumption that man is able to acting morally, and man will do evil given a choice. That is why they created institutions such as checks and balances, the judicial branch and the U.S armed forces to protect its citizens from both internal and external threats. Now I do not want to point out all the circumstances in which our founding fathers recognized evil for what it was, so suffice it to say that the government they created, that has run properly for 200 years, can only be done so when recognition of evil is in place, and steps are taken to mitigate that evil.

    Now then, the question is raised to me all the time, given my circumstances (Seminary student) - Can a Christian be a liberal? Simply put, not coherently. In essence the affirmation that there is a God excludes one from fully embracing the liberal worldview. To be sure, there are ethics, liberals’ advocate that are appealing to Christians. Such as social welfare policies, healthcare policies and there is even a new Christian contingent in the environmental debate that sides with liberals. Furthermore the pacifistic ideals of liberals appeal to certain denominations within the Christian tradition. That being said, it is important for Christians to realize that just because some ethics, conceivably match up with the Christian ethic (I should say that in most cases they don’t, but are perceived to because Christians are often immature in both their faith and politics), that they are not distilled from the same place (metaphysical commitments), nor are they intended to achieve the same goals. As I stated earlier a goal of liberalism is to abolish both the Church and zealous religious commitments and that should be understood when Christians decide to side with liberals on social issues. When one supports liberal causes they must do so with the understanding that they are not just supporting one specific policy issue but lending credence, and helping to establish the goals of the entire liberal movement. So for example, a Christian may help elect a liberal and enjoy their policies toward the so-called poor, but they probably don’t like the scaling back of religious liberties or the expansion of abortion ‘rights.’ Furthermore if as I posit, liberals wish to marginalize, or eradicate any influence religion has on society, then Christians are actively participating in marginalizing their impact on society by supporting liberals and/or their causes.

    Abraham Lincoln said that “we must have faith that right equals might.” It is with this credo that we must engage and try to change the liberal worldview that is leading so many people, so far from an accurate depiction of reality. And as Lincoln says we must have faith that holding ourselves and society to a higher moral order (right), will cause us to triumph in the end.