This election is not about politics, nor about good vs evil

Clashing worldviews

Some thoughts on this Sunday afternoon.

This election is not about politics.

It is not about Republicans vs Democrats.
It is not about right vs left.
It is not about conservative vs liberal.
It is not about capitalism vs communism/Marxism.
It is not even about good vs evil, for those who want to go fully the other way.

It is a clash, long in the making, between two competing world views. Most people are blissfully unaware of the underlying worldviews under which they operate and think. To each, it is painfully ‘obvious’ what is and isn’t true, what is and isn’t good. Most fundamental tenets are assumed and accepted, without even realizing that they hold such tenets, let alone that such tenets would be fundamental.

The clashing worldviews are the two that each give one of the possible answers to the question: ‘Is there more than mere matter?’ Looking at our universe, at the world around us, of which we are part, can we say that there is something more, or is the material substance out of which it is built, the atoms, or the quarks, leptons and muons, all there is? Can we explain the world we experience using ONLY the natural laws that govern this physical world, and the chemical, electrical and magnetic interactions between our constituent building blocks? Or is there something else, outside that physical world, that is also at play?

The answers given to this fundamental question have fundamental impact on our lives, thinking and actions. For most, this impact is simply there, subconsciously, as most never think about the world around them on this level of thought. Such answers are by definition binary: yes, or no. There is no other possibility. Yet there IS a special and separate answer, as given by full agnostics, who basically withhold their answer to this first, fundamental question about there being more than mere matter with “We don’t know/cannot know”. They form a separate category, outside both groups I will be describing here.

Without going into a full philosophical treatise about reality, and a matching study on metaphysics, allow me this very quick summary, aimed at answering my starting point.

In a world where matter is all there is, there is no intrinsic good and evil. Good and evil are constructs, and can change, depending on the circumstances. Value is relative, as well. All that follows by necessity, as there is no mechanism to assign any absolute value that transcends the physical order. The physical world and order, and its laws, are supreme, and the basis of everything.

The French and Russian October Revolutions are both based on such a view (I’ll write more on this later). Their outcomes are drenched in blood. The individual has no inherent value, only the common good does. The survival of the nation, of the group, of the species, of the world. Today, one such extreme thought in this line is the idea that it would be good if humanity became extinct, ‘for the good of earth and the environment’.

In a world where there is more than matter, where there is a higher reality, everything changes. This is NOT a call to religion, per se, either, and definitely not a hidden evangelization attempt for Christianity (those questions come later, we are simply exploring the philosophical and metaphysical consequences of 2 radically different starting points, from a rational and logical point of view). People in this category can be Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, ‘pagans’, satanists, name it. Even a subcategory of agnostics fall in this grouping: those who believe there is more to the physical world than mere matter, but who hold that we cannot know what, exactly.

Within this thinking, religion is not even required: simply believing we have souls, but that there are not ‘gods’ or higher beings, would meet the requirements. Such a position is possible but rare, with Buddhism as the most famous example. Most who hold to the existence of a human soul accept some form of higher being(s), almost always seen as creator.

But this soul is unique, and valuable, there is good and evil, in most cases as absolutes. Even in Buddhism there is good and evil, where ‘good’ is what benefits oneself and others, and ‘evil’ is that which harms oneself and others.

With this, we start to see the outlines that are now at stake.

Harris’ campaign is comprised of the radical wing of the Democrat party, and not much more: LGBTQ+, transgender ideology, social engineering, top-down regulations for everything. Individual rights are only vehicles to impose sweeping rules for everyone. They chose equality as the main virtue, but that virtue comes at the price of liberty.

Trump’s campaign, on the other hand, is rather interesting. It is comprised of Conservatives (the ‘core’, where it started), but also Kennedy Democrats (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Nicole Shanahan, Tulsi Gabbard), Libertarians (Ron Paul, Thomas Massie), Muslims (Dearborn, MI), Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, even with increased support among union members, and with stronger than ever polling among Latinos, African Americans, women, etc.

Their goal is a return to the founding principles of the United States, where everyone was acknowledged to have been “created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. This is a very firm basis for rights, curbing of government and protection against overreach. It places liberty first, which comes at the price of equality.

I cannot help but think about this passage in Scripture, on this Sunday morning before the Elections:

Deuteronomy 11:26-28
“See, today I am setting before you a blessing and a curse— a blessing if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I am giving you today, but a curse if you disobey the commandments of the LORD your God and turn aside from the path I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known.”

Do we choose a worldview that sees humans as steered by blind and impersonal forces, without inherent dignity, to be steered and ruled from the top down (“We know what is best for you!”; RIP Peanut the Squirrel), with the insane push for transgender ideology that defies common sense and even science?

Or do we choose a worldview where humans have inherent value and rights, which are unalienable? Where concerns from the collective and the individual are balanced?

Seen from this perspective, a vote for Trump is not a political nor an ideological vote, but a vote to reset the direction we have seen the country march towards. The diversity within Trump’s team is an indicator that no one will get all they want, politically. Yet, and much more importantly, it also indicates that we will get a return to sanity, in true unity, and on a much more fundamental level.

When I indicated that I am hesitant to cast this election as one between ‘good’ and ‘evil’, I am focusing strictly on the philosophical question before us. The choice between matter+more or ‘only matter’ is not inherently good vs. evil. Good and evil come into play once you start to build onto that foundation (showing which foundation is better). People on both sides have made that claim that this election is between ‘good and evil’, and people on both sides are convinced, really convinced, that this is true. From within each worldview, their positions are (at least mostly) logical and coherent, and thus acceptable. Each thinks their viewpoint is so painfully obvious: “WHY CAN’T THEY SEE HOW EVIL THEIR POSITIONS ARE!?!” We’ve all seen or read such conversations, and it is easy to dismiss it as ‘the other side is so delusional’.

Look at the abortion debate, as an example. I’ve seen Catholic students, eager and ‘full of truth’ (“don’t you see that those are baby’s, with inherent dignity, as they are made in the image and likeness of God?”), thinking that they could not lose that debate, since they ‘obviously’ had truth on their side. But they got trounced. They did not do their due diligence, which is trying to understand the position of the other side, and their reasons for it. The pro-choice side would argue that a fetus is not a human, not a person, as they have no awareness, and cannot live on their own. For them, ‘dignity’ based on ‘God’ is a completely foreing concept, if they argue from a materialistic point of view. (Now, it is possible to argue against abortion whitin such materialistic view, a lesson I hope those students learned.) What is ‘obvious’ within one point of view, is absolutely unthinkingable within another point of view.

Most people, on either side, have never thought through what the actual foundations of their worldview are. They are not ‘good’ or ‘evil’ for defending their view, however good or bad you might think their position is. Instead of brandishing about terms such as ‘this is a battle of good vs. evil’, or ranting about how ‘obvious’ things are, we need to stop and look deeper. Hold a conversation about the foundations of our society, of our politics, of our worldview.

I will be posting several articles that will explore this in more depth. Just wanted to share this thought.