Look at the two political diagrams that I have attached to this post. Each one of them tells a story that is much more complex than the one that you commonly get to hear in this country. Because the story is not heard, too many Christians end up being deluded by the constant pounding of the political myth that is being told in the USA today. What is the political myth? The political myth is that there are only two choices, either conservative or liberal. In that myth, a centrist is simply an undecided or weak-willed person.
But, look at the diagram on the left. Does that look a little more complex than you expected? Well, actually, that is a rather more accurate view of the complexities of political thought in the USA, than the standard either/or viewpoint. Look at that diagram closely and notice the top and bottom categories, the ones named “Libertarian” and “Statist.”
Please note that it is possible for a person to be either right wing and a statist or right wing and a libertarian. It is also possible to be left wing and a statist or left wing and a libertarian. Another way to put it, it is possible to be a libertarian with left-wing leanings or a libertarian with right-wing leanings. Or it is possible to be a statist with right-wing leaning or a statist with left-wing leanings. In passing, a statist with a right-wing philosophy is a fascist while a statist with a left-wing philosophy is a communist. In passing, if you have been taken in by Glenn Beck’s claiming that Nazis are simply left-wing liberals, you have been taken in by a bald-faced lie, as you will find no serious political philosopher that will support that conception.
The “pure” right-winger or “pure” left-winger or “pure” libertarian or “pure” statist is a rare beast. Most people are a mixture of a couple of the philosophies. A centrist is the person who comes closest to mixing the four quarters of political belief. Now look at the diagram on the right. That is another way to diagram several political philosophies onto the diagram on the left side that I just finished talking about. Look carefully at that diagram on the right. Look at where Democrat and Republican are placed in relation to things such as Capitalist and Socialist. But ever more carefully, look at where Totalitarian and Socialist and Fascist are placed. Can you see the dangers in each political position? [In passing, notice that an uncontrolled Libertarian can easily fall into Anarchism.]
Too many Christians are taking a simplistic view of politics, a view that threatens to damage our Christian witness. If we insist on simplistic understandings of what is happening politically in this country, we will draw wrong conclusions and decide on wrongful courses of action. Now, remember yesterday’s comic that showed a devil on a Democratic donkey and another devil on a Republican donkey, each one pointing to the other and saying, “I am the lesser of two evils.” The Religious Right, born out of the Moral Majority, has made the terrible mistake of an overly-simplistic analysis of politics and has labeled one of the parties as essentially the party of God while labeling the other as the party of the devil while ignoring some of the anti-life policies of the supposedly godly party. The Tea Party is essentially dropping into exactly the same mistake by labeling one party as statist and supporting the other party as though it were libertarian while ignoring some of the rather statist approaches proposed by that party. In this I agree with the comic from yesterday. It is much more likely that both parties have plenty of evil in them than that either of them has much good in them. But, yes, in my voting I have often picked the lesser of two evils.
So, what is a Christian to do? Evaluate wisely. Support those policies in either party that are in accord with a pro-life stance. I have previously commented how the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops supports a variety of laws from both parties because of their pro-life value. Because of the extreme anti-government stance of the Tea Party, I need to remind all that a proposed law may have some statist overtones and still be worthy of support because it fulfills the demands of a pro-life stance. This is why the USCCB explicitly supports universal healthcare. After the pro-life stance, a Christian may go in any of several directions depending on the circumstances of the times. And here is an important point, Christians need to allow other Christians to draw different conclusions on many matters political. That freedom to draw different political conclusions has been sadly lacking in much of Christian political discourse. And, we, of all people should be most willing to give that freedom of conscience to others.
I agree that we need to give each other some space in coming to different conclusions politically, but somethings are completely out, such as demonizing those who disagree with us. Our real enemies are indeed demonic, and therefore, they are not “flesh and blood” as are our political opponents. Also, in the absent of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we may not question the good-will or sincerity of those with whom we disagree. We also may not discount claims of victimization (speaking of “whining,” for example) coming from below in terms of socioeconomic status (as opposed to coming from above) in the absent of overwhelming evidence to suggest that such claims are false. In short, as Christians, we are called to treat people as we ourselves wish to be treated unless to do would further enable their continuing to oppress others economically, politically, socially, or whatever. After all, the Christian ideal, which we have yet to reach, is found in Acts 2:44-45 and II Cor. 8:13-14.
Also, you allued to RCC “social teaching”. I find it to be an extremely useful exposition of the Apostolic Tradiiton as a whole on the subject, one area that Rome manifestly got RIGHT. One of the bottom line takeaways here is that we, as Christians, are called to exercise a “preferential option for the poor” and to call upon our government to do likewise, if for no other reason than to fulfill its responsibility to maintain the common good.
Some of the things which had previously been called the “preferential option for the poor,” have now been put under the pro-life heading on the USCCB website. Theologically, I think those issues fit better under the heading of pro-life. GRIN.
The Religious Right, born out of the Moral Majority, has made the terrible mistake of an overly-simplistic analysis of politics and has labeled one of the parties as essentially the party of God while labeling the other as the party of the devil…
The guy over at Onward, Forward, Toward (formerly Totem to Temple) has coined a couple clever terms for this attitude:
1) God’s Only Party.
2) DEMONcrats.
As I was saying…
I always wonder what “poor” some folks are talking about. The kid in the hood with a flat screen TV and a lot of bling or the orphan in war torn parts of Africa…..Some of the folks who cry poor here are richer that some of the rich in other countries…..just a thought…..
That is why the Catholic bishops stopped using the wording about the preferential option. It became too hard to define who exactly was the poor. If you go to the website of the USCCB, you will see that they have now switched to a more results-oriented approach. For instance, they talk about access to affordable healthcare. If you notice that wording avoids any definition of poor, middle-class, or rich. It points to a measurable goal rather than to a definition of who is in which class.
The same would be true of any of several other areas. For instance, a country which cares for its children should ensure an adequate education for all of them regardless of economic situation, class, race, etc. Do you see how this type of wording avoids the pitfalls of trying to define who is and is not poor? But, it does let one point to an inner city school and say that it is insufficient to say that this school must survive only on the local property taxes with no outside help, since the economic base for that often-gerrymandered school district is so low that an adequate education is not possible.
If even a country’s poor have “flat screen TVs and lots of bling” and problems with obesity, that actually says something positive: This country is so prosperous even our poor have problems with too many possesstions and overeating. When you compare this to Third World poor, that says something.
Thanks again for a great post, Father!
It has been my personal principle to never cast a vote for any political candidate that is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, etc, no matter how strongly I may agree with the rest of their platform.
What I find to be very sad are those Christians who compromise their moral principles for their particular ideology. We saw it happen in the last presidential election. Many good Roman Catholics simply disobeyed their hierarchy and voted for an admitted pro-abortion candidate. I fear for those who can justify making such compromises.
We often must differentiate between what a candidate says and what a candidate is likely to do. (cf. Matthew 21:28-32) Have the Republicans outlawed abortion? No. A big reason for that is that many in the party really don’t want to, some openly, such as Rudy Gulliani, and others furtively. The elder George Bush, for example, was a major patron of Planned Parenthood prior to running for Vice President with Reagan. Mitt Romney was “pro-choice” while Governor of Massachusetts. However, it makes a great election issue, so it gets trotted out at election time (often along with, ironically, “gun rights”). Obama and the Dems, OTOH, who are not going to outlaw abortion, support policies which will objectively have the effect of lowering the numbers of abortions actually performed.
Why is that? Because most women who have abortions feel they have no other choice, and often, Republican policies exacerbate that. For example, here in South Carolina, if a mother and her child or children are on welfare, if she becomes pregnant again, she immediately loses her welfare. This obviously will encourage such women to have abortions. Further, while Obama included a “pro-choice” plank in his platform, even promising to get passed and to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act”, he has not done so and has stated this is not a priority for him, as many of us predicted would happen, given that he and the Dems were consciously courting anti-abortion votes. A good indication of the accuracy of this is the fact that abortion lobby, NARAL et. al. is quite unhappy with Obama and the Dems in congress because of the latter’s lack of support for the former’s agenda.
The basic problem here is that there is a huge contradiction between what Republicanism in general stands for and what it means to be pro-life in general and against abortion in particular. In general, Republicans stand for less government spending, especially when it comes to social issues. In general, they believe that the “free market” will pretty much solve all economic problems. However, as illustrated above, this sort of orientation will do nothing but actually increase the numbers of abortions which are actually performed. On the other hand, there is a basic contradiction between the Dem’s “pro-choice” stance and where they are coming from in general. Thus, the motto of that “dangerous anti-abortion group” (according to NARAL and company), Feminists for Life: “Women deserve better than abortion”. Further, outlawing abortion will not end it. What will radically lower the numbers of abortions, however, are policies which give women and families the support they need in the face of unexpected pregnancies.
As for the “homosexual agenda,” well, Obama carried California because of the African-American vote there. Most of these black voters also voted against gay marriage. I don’t know about you, but IMHO, if gays and lesbians want to serve in the military, more power to them. “Be as shrewd as serpents and as harmless as doves.”
—“Have the Republicans outlawed abortion? No. A big reason for that is that many in the party really don’t want to, some openly, such as Rudy Gulliani, and others furtively. The elder George Bush, for example, was a major patron of Planned Parenthood prior to running for Vice President with Reagan. Mitt Romney was “pro-choice” while Governor of Massachusetts. However, it makes a great election issue, so it gets trotted out at election time…”
The Republicans know that if they finally could manage to do something about abortion they would lose that vital wedge that they have against the Democrats. They would lose that enormous pro-life bloc of voters who currently have nowhere else to go but the Republican party. And so they are going to continue talking about it while doing nothing.
Fr. Ernesto,
I would say that even these two charts are way over-simplified. Many people have unique ideas on specific political issues, and there is really no way to “label” everybody.
Interestingly enough, your remarks reminded me of some comments made in the Foundations and Empire series written by Isaac Asimov many years ago. In speaking of sociology, the comment was made by one of the characters that the behavior of no one person can be predicted, but the character said that the behavior of a group can be predictable. It is true that in this science fiction series, the theory of sociology had “developed” to a much higher point than now. However, the statement above is more true than false even now.
As Americans we like to believe in our unpredictability. In particular baby boomers love to believe that. Yet our parents made fun of us for how we all rebelled by wearing the same things, growing our hair the same length, and listening to the same music. We may not be fully predictable in the aggregate, but we are not as unpredictable as our cultural mythology would like us to believe.
Yet our parents made fun of us for how we all rebelled by wearing the same things, growing our hair the same length, and listening to the same music.
I think this is explainable by over-reaction. The 1950s were a very conformist and predictable mainstream culture for various reasons (primarily traceable to postwar prosperity after 20+ years of Great Depression and global war — “It’s Miller Time!”), with rigid expectations of appearance and behavior. Overcompensating for the insecurity of the past two decades to the point of rigidity.
When their children rebelled to show their independence and establish a separate identity, they rebelled HARD, going as one-eighty in the opposite direction as possible. They ended up with a total conformity in their nonconformity as they all crowded into the complete opposite end of the chart.
(I think one of Chesterton’s Father Brown Mysteries hinges on the idea that going too opposite in a disguise — changing too many things into the direct opposite of your true appearance — can also blow your cover; NOBODY is THAT different from the original.)