CARA suggests polls on creation of a third party: Christian Democrats

God Discussion ^ | October 26, 2011 | Dakota O'Leary

[Alex Murphy]

The 1964 blog is a research blog for the Center for Applied Research on the Apostolate, a Catholic organization out of Georgetown University.   They are suggesting the creation of a third political party to be called "Christian Democrats:"

CARA has been in the news recently regarding results from a survey about American Catholics’ awareness and use of the U.S. Bishops’ Faithful Citizenship document (these CARA Catholic Poll questions were commissioned by Fordham's Center on Religion and Culture). Regrettably, these results indicate that few Catholics were aware of or used Faithful Citizenship in 2008. It’s a shame because it is an extraordinary comprehensive statement of the Church’s teachings and positions on social and political issues. Recently re-released with a new introduction this document will again vie for Catholics’ attention in 2012. Although it is by no means meant to be a voting guide or checklist I do think it provides for an interesting hypothetical test for Catholic voters (…if you have not read it yet, what are you waiting for?).

What if Faithful Citizenship was not a document from the U.S. Bishops? What if instead it was a new political party platform? Would you vote for a “third party” that stood for what Faithful Citizenship stands for rather than cast your vote for the Democrats or Republicans? Looking at survey data I don’t think many American Catholics would. Catholics tend to put their party preference ahead of their faith. They often choose to emphasize the issues their party is consistent with Church teachings on and minimize or ignore those that it is not.

In many European and Latin American countries with a Catholic presence, religious parties have had success running on a Church-inspired platform (e.g., from Rerum Novarum or Quadragesimo Anno)—sometimes in coalition with other similar-minded Protestant groups. These parties have often called themselves “Christian Democrats” (no affiliation with the Democratic Party in the U.S.)

Why doesn’t the U.S. have a Christian Democrat Party? I think it would be challenging for any party with a religious reference in its name and inspiration to be successful given the culture of separation of church and state in the U.S. It is also the case that a significant Catholic presence in the population required waves of immigration that occurred well after the formation of the U.S. party system. The biggest limiting factor may be our electoral system—the method used to translate votes into seats. We do this the “old school” way of one seat per district going to the majority/plurality vote winner which often leads to the creation of two large parties (with internal sub-divisions coming to coalition before elections). It is winner take all and very, very British. The U.K. currently gets effectively 2.5 parties out of it (Tories, Labour, and Liberal Dems).

The author of this post goes on to say that the Founding Fathers did not intend to create a system where parties would form and cause factionalism.  The CATO Institute disagrees:

People persist today in arguing that the Founders were anti-party. Yet Madison concluded, "Parties … seem to have a permanent foundation in the variance of political opinions in free states." Madison saw politics as essentially partisan: "No free country has ever been without parties, which are a natural offspring of freedom." Indeed, he observed, "The Constitution itself … must be an unfailing source of party distinctions."

It is tempting to concur with Madison and conclude that partisanship to this day is rooted in the Constitution.

Some insist today that the Founders did not expect political parties to form, that parties only arose later in American history. But in a 1792 essay titled "A Candid State of Parties," Madison concluded that parties of distinction are "natural to most political societies," and will likely endure. Even to this day, perhaps?

Admittedly, "A Candid State of Parties" is a partisan tract, just as were The Federalist Papers. Madison the Founder was a statesman, a politician, a political theorist, and a partisan. And that is not a criticism. Madison clearly understood that "in every political society, parties are unavoidable." In fact, he concluded parties "must always be expected in a government as free as ours."

Madison recognized that American politics and partisanship are rooted in the Constitution. Mere partisanship is possible precisely because of limited constitutional government, or as I like to say, the Constitution governs parties more than the parties govern the Constitution. Our constitutional concrete is sufficient to withstand partisan warfare today just as it did in the 1790s.

The author of Nineteen Sixty Four goes on to say that with the Republican party, Catholics are damned if they do, and damned if they don't:

I don’t think we will ever see significant changes to the U.S. electoral systems. But it is a useful thought experiment. This idea came to me after reading one of Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s blogs earlier this year which placed the U.S. Bishops in the uncomfortable left-right, two-party system context:

“One side usually blesses us when we preach the virtue of fiscal responsibility, the civil rights of the unborn, the danger of government-tampering with the definition of marriage, and the principle of subsidiarity …

Yet this same side then often cringes when we defend workers, speak on behalf of the rights of the undocumented immigrant, and remind government of the moral imperative to protect the poor.

The other side enjoys quoting us when we extol universal health care, question the death penalty, demand that every budget and program be assessed on whether it will help or hurt those in need, encourage international aid, and promote the principle of solidarity …

… and then these same folks bristle when we defend the rights of parents in education, those of the baby in the womb and grandma on her death bed, insist that America is at her best when people of faith have a respected voice in the public square, defend traditional marriage, and remind government that it has no right to intrude in Church affairs, but does have the obligation to protect the rights of conscience.

So, we bishops get both blessed and blasted, a friend or foe of bloggers, pundits, and politicians, depending on what the issue is.”

As Archbishop Dolan describes (and as Faithful Citizenship reads), the U.S. Bishops and the Church are stuck between the two parties.

The writer goes on to say that some would argue that the Christian Democrat party would go either to the left or to the right in its platform, which is somewhere between Republican and Democrat:

If this is true, it seems that the Christian Democrat party would be a gateway to theocracy.  Not so, says our writer:

"I am certainly not making any case for theocracy. However, as in other democracies, a party created and led by lay people could emerge and compete for votes inspired by the teachings of the Church and its relevant positions on issues important to the country. "

It remains to be seen what would actually happen if there were a Christian Democrat party, or anything remotely considered a Christian party, no matter which side of the aisle their platform would fall.   It is good to remember the words of Thomas Paine:

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

[Alex Murphy]

What if Faithful Citizenship was not a document from the U.S. Bishops? What if instead it was a new political party platform? Would you vote for a “third party” that stood for what Faithful Citizenship stands for rather than cast your vote for the Democrats or Republicans? Looking at survey data I don’t think many American Catholics would. Catholics tend to put their party preference ahead of their faith. They often choose to emphasize the issues their party is consistent with Church teachings on and minimize or ignore those that it is not....

....This idea came to me after reading one of Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s blogs earlier this year which placed the U.S. Bishops in the uncomfortable left-right, two-party system context:

“One side usually blesses us when we preach the virtue of fiscal responsibility, the civil rights of the unborn, the danger of government-tampering with the definition of marriage, and the principle of subsidiarity … Yet this same side then often cringes when we defend workers, speak on behalf of the rights of the undocumented immigrant, and remind government of the moral imperative to protect the poor.

The other side enjoys quoting us when we extol universal health care, question the death penalty, demand that every budget and program be assessed on whether it will help or hurt those in need, encourage international aid, and promote the principle of solidarity … and then these same folks bristle when we defend the rights of parents in education, those of the baby in the womb and grandma on her death bed, insist that America is at her best when people of faith have a respected voice in the public square, defend traditional marriage, and remind government that it has no right to intrude in Church affairs, but does have the obligation to protect the rights of conscience.

So, we bishops get both blessed and blasted, a friend or foe of bloggers, pundits, and politicians, depending on what the issue is.”

[circlecity]

Christian Democrats? You could fit that convention in a broom closet.

[Maverick68]

oxymoron

[absolootezer0]

it would attract christian fundementalists, the ones that keep trying to turn the republican party into the party that only cares about traditional marriage and lives of unborn babies. add in a bit about prayer in schools, leaving God on our currency and in national anthem, the ten commandments on courts, etc.
there’s quite a group of them that don’t give a rip about fiscal conservatism- they’d be fine with keeping all the gov’t handouts going, as long as they force their morals one everyone else.

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

Christian conservtives are way more diverse than many ppl think.

It would be a terrible mistake to run with stereotypees here.

[bigoil]

I prefer TEA Party Independent.

[circlecity]

Please identify one single Christian social conservative who would “be fine with keeping all the got’t handouts going” if their social concerns were meant. One single example.

[kidd]

Sounds like my parents.

I’ll clue you all in:
The pro-Labor part of this set of beliefs trumps everything else. Dad was a Reagan democrat, but otherwise they have voted solid democrat everytime, regardless of abortion/gay marriage

[absolootezer0]

let me introduce you to my family.
or my ex wife’s family.
or a number of my friends on my facebook.

yup. they want social security, medicare, and universal healthcare, free college, etc. food stamps are fine. home heating credits, cash assistance (unless it’s used to purchase “sinful” items like alcohol, cigarettes or lotto tickets, then it’s terrible) housing- those are all ok too.

a couple people that i used to go to church with went even farther, advocating that the government should give the church money to fund what basically amounts to welfare.

[circlecity]

Those aren’t Christians, they are socialists.

[Professional]

A Christian Democrat is like a meat eating Vegetarian.

[absolootezer0]

why can’t you be both? some of these people would be quite content to live in a theocratic, socialist society, but that doesn’t make them any less christian.
misguided, but not unchristian.

[circlecity]

"but that doesn’t make them any less christian. misguided, but not unchristian."

Wrong. The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. So anyone who expects someone else to support them is not, by definition, a Biblical Christian. "By their fruit you shall know them"

[absolootezer0]

they’d come up with excuses to get around that.
probably stuff like helping your fellow man passages, or rich don’t get into heaven, or about how this person or that person gave up everything to follow Jesus, how disciples walked away from their jobs..

haven’t you seen the “justifications” that have been passed around that Jesus was a hippie/ liberal/ socialist, etc.?

btw, the solution is not to tell them how unchristian they are, but to educate them.

[chris_bdba]

Sorry but you can’t be both at the same time pick one or the other....

[Zionist Conspirator]

I have long maintained that the formation of such a party--conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues--would be perfect way to destroy the Marxist Democrat party which is hard left on all issues. People should not have to violate their religious beliefs to vote in their economic self-interest, and people should be able to vote their economic self-interest without voting for perverts.

Once upon a time almost all Americans were conservative on social issues, whatever their economic beliefs. I'm for anything that will get us back there.

[dominic flandry]

“Faithful Citizenship in 2008 . . . is an extraordinary comprehensive statement of the Church’s teachings and positions on social and political issues.”

Faithful Citizenship in 2008 was a piece of crap. If the new one is like the old one, then the new one is a piece of crap too.

[Campion]

As the article says, they aren't using "Democrat" in reference to the U.S. Democratic party.

Several right-of-center European parties call themselves "Christian Democrats", the German version being perhaps the best known.

The (U.S.) Democrats are insane Marxists. If the Republicans keep nominating RINOs like McCain and Romney, they're just insane Marxists on the slow train. If Romney is the nominee, this lifelong Republican will start looking elsewhere.