Shortly after the most recent presidential election, the democrat vice presidential candidate, Tim Walz, was interviewed on Minnesota Public Radio. By his own admission, he was genuinely shocked that his ticket lost. He said, “I thought it was a real flex when the Wall Street Journal pointed out that I might have been the least wealthy person to ever run for vice president. … How in the world did we lose to a billionaire or a venture capitalist, when we were making the case of a country attorney and a high school teacher?” Walz was totally convinced that “his more humble economic status should have appealed to voters, and seemed puzzled that wasn’t the case.” You can read the story yourself at: https://www.foxnews.com/media/tim-walz-thought-his-lack-wealth-real-flex-against-trump-how-did-we-lose-billionaire
In analyzing why they lost, Walz firmly believes that the reason was that his party just did not communicate their middle-class message well enough. He is fully convinced that the problem had nothing to do with the policies they were putting forth, but was totally a matter that they did not communicate it well enough.
At this point, I want to make clear that in addressing this topic, I am not dealing whatsoever with Walz’s political views, or with any particular political policies. What we are looking at here relates strictly to how he came to his conclusions about the election based on his worldview perspective. That is, we are looking at worldview beliefs as opposed to political beliefs. What we want to notice is that the reason for his blind spot has to do purely with his worldview beliefs.
For many people, it is nearly impossible to believe that Walz does not recognize the reason why the public rejected democrat policy initiatives. That said, those who find it hard to believe may actually have the same problem as Walz – they may also have a blind spot in evaluating the situation. Let’s see if we can sort this out.
If one were to do a background study on Walz, they would find out very quickly that he is a hard-core socialist. He very much believes in the Marxist/collectivist point of view. Based on that philosophy, he literally doesn’t see the various problems associated with illegal immigration, crime, high inflation, and moral relativity. Seeing problems in those arenas requires an “individualist” mindset. Walz’s Marxism, on the other hand, looks at everything through a collectivist lens. It divides people into classes who are either oppressed or oppressor.
Based on this philosophy, the oppressed are the good guys and the oppressors are the bad guys – and making that determination is nearly always based on economic status and/or political power. Based on that set of beliefs, the entire purpose of life is to help the oppressed overcome the oppressors – and the leaders of the movement are the ones who get to decide who are oppressed and oppressor.
So, in Walz’s view, people who have money are the oppressors, and the middle-class and poor are the oppressed. As long as he holds this set of worldview beliefs, he is nearly incapable of evaluating the needs of the citizenry any other way. And because he can’t see any other possibility, he believes everyone else also sees things the way he does. With that as a starting point, it is completely understandable that he can’t comprehend why middle-class people would vote for a billionaire over someone like him who doesn’t have that much money.
And that is the way worldview beliefs work. It is the set of beliefs that people use to distinguish reality from fantasy. It may seem strange that people would believe things are real that you consider fantasy, but that is exactly what happens. You also do the same thing. You also consider that people who hold different worldview beliefs from you hold fantasy beliefs. Still, many people wonder how that could possibly be.
Think of it this way: In modern society, there is a massive culture war going on, and there are strong advocates for almost every position. For instance:
- There is a pro-Palestine faction that truly believes Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people as they conduct their war against Hamas. Along with that, they believe that all Jews everywhere are complicit. These people believe it to the extent that they are willing to riot in America and oppress Jews on college campuses to make their case. On the other side, there are those who see that point of view as nothing more than rabid antisemitism.
- There are churches, and entire Christian denominations, that believe homosexuality is perfectly moral, and that gay marriage is completely fine. They believe it to the extent that they welcome gay clergy, perform gay marriages, and actually reinterpret passages of Scripture in ways that make it seem to condone their point of view. Other churches and denominations see this point of view as completely anti-biblical and anti-Christian.
- Abortion is an issue that has been fought over in society for many years. Those who are pro-abortion see it as an issue related to a woman’s autonomy over her own life and body. Those who are anti-abortion see it as the murder of an innocent child.
We could go on and on with examples, but the point is that in each case, the beliefs mentioned totally and completely exclude the beliefs of those on the other side. These are not merely different political or moral positions, they are notions based on entirely different worldview beliefs – beliefs that exclude those on the other side. What one side sees as moral and right, the other sees as immoral and wrong.
To get at a set of worldview beliefs, there are two things that are critical to understand – authority source and core essential beliefs. Every person’s worldview beliefs are based on these two things.
The authority source defines a belief system’s bottom line beliefs. The core essential beliefs are derived by answering three questions based on the authority source. For any given worldview system, reality is defined by these. The three questions are:
1. What is the nature of ultimate reality.
2. What is a human being?
3. What is the ultimate a person can get out of this life (and how can they get it)?
First let’s look at authority source.
The authority source for one side is based on naturalistic worldview concepts. Naturalism is the belief that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. With that, there can be no objective moral authority source. In order for objective morality to exist, there has to be someone external to the natural universe to deliver the moral laws. Since that is not possible in Naturalism, the only possibility for determining morality is the personal subjective opinions of the people who are able to accumulate enough power to impose their will. There is no other possibility.
The authority source on the other side is based on Christian Theism. This belief does acknowledge the existence of a transcendent person (God) capable of revealing objectively real moral values. In this case, the teachings in the Bible represent that revelation.
The culture war exists because the people who hold a naturalistic worldview and those who believe in Christian Theism have entirely different moral standards based on their different authority sources. As each attempts to operate in society based on their moral beliefs, they end up clashing.
So, what about the three questions that define reality. How does that play out in real life?
Here is how Naturalism answers the three questions:
1. What is the nature of ultimate reality – The natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists.
2. What is a human being? – Human beings are natural animals that have evolved the most complex brains of any other creature.
3. What is the ultimate a person can get out of this life (and how can they get it)? On a macro level, the ultimate goal is survival. On a personal level, the most one can achieve is personal satisfaction in life. Based on this belief, it is permissible to do anything one can imagine to accomplish their goals.
Christian Theism answers the three questions like this:
1. What is the nature of ultimate reality – There is both a material and spiritual reality. God, from His place in eternity, created the natural universe, and it operates by natural laws.
2. What is a human being? – Human beings are persons created in the image of God, but fallen.
3. What is the ultimate a person can get out of this life (and how can they get it)? – The ultimate a person can get from this life is to know God in a personal relationship that extends into eternity. It is accomplished by receiving Christ into one’s life.
Based on the two different understanding’s of reality, it is quite obvious how this can result in culture war conflicts in society. Christians believe there is an objectively real way reality is structured that includes a moral component. It is up to human beings to discern what that is and live by it. Naturalists do not accept that, and believe they must make up their own moral beliefs based on their personal preferences.
These two different points of view cannot help but conflict with each other in society as each group follows their beliefs and seeks to create order based on them. The very beliefs about how reality is structured are literally in conflict, and there is no way to reconcile them. In order for agreement to come, someone must change their mind.
For the most part, everyone realizes this. For that reason, not only are people working to shape society based on their belief about reality, but are also working to convince those on the other side to switch sides.
In spite of the fact that different people have different understandings of reality, the fact is, there is an actual true structure. God either exists or He does not, and whichever view is right represents reality. Christians have met God and established a personal relationship with Him. This is the ultimate way to know the truth about reality. But until everyone is able to know Him, there will continue to be conflict in society.
© 2025 Freddy Davis