For want of a party

[Awful_Things]

After the last election, I thought some about Catholics I know who voted for pro-choice candidates because of other issues, such as those related to social justice. Before the post continues on, let me make clear that this isn’t a thread started to debate whether one can justifiably vote for a pro-choice candidate based on other issues. Nor is it a thread to discuss the social justice issues or the economics involved. My prediction is that it will at some point fall into that discussion (hopefully not), but I ask that posters try to focus on the premise below.

I thought about the dichotomy that such voters often describe, which is whether to vote for a prolife candidate or a candidate who stands firm in other areas that are passionate to them, such as universal health care. It occured to me that in the spectrum of political options, there is a party missing.

To explain this more fully, I’m going to need to slip into a gross generalization, though I fully recognize there are number of nuances that are at work in real life. In general, though, I would like to break the range of political discussions into two areas, those dealing with morality (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc.) and those dealing with economic/social justice issues (e.g. minimum wage, universal health care, tax breaks, etc.). I am also going to commit the offence of dividing voters into two categories, conservative and liberal, using the modern understanding of what these words mean with regard to political leaning. Again, I understand that real life isn’t so cut and dry, nor are these terms.

However, the conclusion I came to was this:

For those who are conservative with regard to economic/social justice issues and conservative with regard to moral issues, there are parties that stereotypically represent this (e.g. the Republican Party and the Constitution Party).

For those who are conservative with regard to economic/social justice issues, but liberal with regard to moral issues, there are parties that stereotypically represent this (e.g. the Libertarian Party).

For those who are liberal with regard to economic/social justice issues and liberal with regard to moral issues, there are parties that stereotypically represent this (e.g. the Democrat Party and the Green Party).

However, for those who are liberal with regard to economic/social justice issues, but conservative with regard to moral issues, no party exists in which these voters can find a home.

Yes, I know there are exceptions to the stereotypes, both in the history of some of the named parties and in the politicians that form their public faces. I know there are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, but it also seems that these are exceptions to the rule and variations from the general party line, especially as it appears in candidates that run for the highest offices. So, for purposes of this thread, though, I’d like to ask that we put that aside for now and focus really on scenario #4.

Does the party exist for the candidate who strongly supports universal health care, a heavier tax burden on the upper class, and an artificial minimum wage, but rejects abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research? Does the party exist where a candidate for president who held these views could capture the nomination without feeling amazing pressure from the special interest groups typically associated with that party?

 

[CatholicLeft]

The party that you are searching for does exist but more prominitly in other countries then here in the U.S… It is the Christian Democratic party:

Christian democracy is a political ideology that seeks to apply Christian principles to public policy. It emerged in nineteenth-century Europe, largely under the influence of Catholic social teaching, and it continues to be influential in Europe and Latin America, though in a number of countries its Christian ethos has been diluted by secularisation.

In practice, Christian democracy is often considered conservative on cultural, social and moral issues and progressive on fiscal and economic issues. In Europe, where their opponents have traditionally been secularist socialists and social democrats, Christian democratic parties are moderately conservative, whereas in the very different cultural and political environment of Latin America they tend to lean to the left.

Examples of Christian democratic parties include the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Christian Democrat Party of Chile, Fine Gael in Ireland and the Christian Democratic People’s Party of Switzerland.

 

[Awful_Things]

The party that you are searching for does exist but more prominitly in other countries then here in the U.S… It is the Christian Democratic party:

Why do you suppose it hasn’t arrisen to more prominence here? Take the Libertarians, for instance. While just a third party, it is powerful enough to be a factor in elections, especially in elections below presidential. Is there some cultural explanation for its noticeable absence in mainstream politics?

 

[CatholicLeft]

I think times are changing and you will start hearing more about “lefty” parties. America has gone through a period of conservative right dominance for the last thirty years (since Reagan) Now that the economy has soured, people are looking for change. I think many Christians have become disenchanted with the far “right” and will soon be looking for a party that represents not only there moral beliefs but also one that is more progressive with economic/social justice issues. I think that the Libertarian platform and people like Ron Paul are already fading.and words like Liberal,socialism and universal health care are coming back in vogue.

 

[kristie_m]

I couldn’t agree more that we DO need such a party. I am a self proclaimed, bleeding heart conservative! I am pro-life, and anti-execution. I believe in traditional marriage, restorative justice, feeding the hungry, fixing our schools, looking after the elderly, saving the planet and being fiscally responsible. Where’s MY party?

 

[CatholicLeft]

I couldn’t agree more that we DO need such a party. I am a self proclaimed, bleeding heart conservative! I am pro-life, and anti-execution. I believe in traditional marriage, restorative justice, feeding the hungry, fixing our schools, looking after the elderly, saving the planet and being fiscally responsible. Where’s MY party?

You’re all over the place!! just kidding

I don’t think you can really call yourself a “bleeding heart conservative” if you are for those “lefty commie” things like being anti-execution and wanting to feed the hungry, fix our schools, look after the elderly, save the planet and be fiscally responsible.

I recommend that you also to look into the Christian Democratic party

 

[Awful_Things]

You’re all over the place!! just kidding

I don’t think you can really call yourself a “bleeding heart conservative” if you are for those “lefty commie” things like being anti-execution and wanting to feed the hungry, fix our schools, look after the elderly, save the planet and be fiscally responsible.

I recommend that you also to look into the Christian Democratic party

First off, remember that we are to keep these posts on the subject of the missing party, not a critique of existing parties and platforms. The reason I write this is because, aside from the anti-execution stance, which does contradict standard Republican platforms, I think it is incorrect and insulting to say that it is against conservative principals to stand for “restorative justice, feeding the hungry, fixing our schools, looking after the elderly, saving the planet and being fiscally responsible.”

Many of us conservatives believe that true conservative policieis reach for all of these ends. We happen to believe that they achieve them more effectively than many “progressiive” platforms, such as those I named in my earlier example, and I’d be happy to point to economic theory and past precedent to back that up.

I for one, am offended at the idea of an artificial minimum wage because I believe it harms the very people it is attempting to help. However, I tried to maintain a very neutral stance in my OP, which I think I accomplished, and I ask that we do the same, per my request, throughout the thread.

Doing a search on my screenname (or its earlier form of awfulthings9) will show plenty of threads where I defended the conservative platform in this area, but I just prefer not to do it in this thread.

Are there exceptions to this within the party? Sure. Are there money-grubbing members of conservative parties? Absolutely. Can the same not be said of any other party?

However, all that being said, I readily admit that there is the perception out there that conservatives do not care for the poor, for education, for the environment, etc. This, though, seems to be reason that a party such as what Catholic Left describes would be more well known, so I return to my previous question of asking why do the rest of you suppose such as party has not gained more ground in the US.

 

[CatholicLeft]

First off, remember that we are to keep these posts on the subject of the missing party, not a critique of existing parties and platforms. The reason I write this is because, aside from the anti-execution stance, which does contradict standard Republican platforms, I think it is incorrect and insulting to say that it is against conservative principals to stand for “restorative justice, feeding the hungry, fixing our schools, looking after the elderly, saving the planet and being fiscally responsible.”

Many of us conservatives believe that true conservative policieis reach for all of these ends. We happen to believe that they achieve them more effectively than many “progressiive” platforms, such as those I named in my earlier example, and I’d be happy to point to economic theory and past precedent to back that up.

I for one, am offended at the idea of an artificial minimum wage because I believe it harms the very people it is attempting to help. However, I tried to maintain a very neutral stance in my OP, which I think I accomplished, and I ask that we do the same, per my request, throughout the thread.

Doing a search on my screenname (or its earlier form of awfulthings9) will show plenty of threads where I defended the conservative platform in this area, but I just prefer not to do it in this thread.

Are there exceptions to this within the party? Sure. Are there money-grubbing members of conservative parties? Absolutely. Can the same not be said of any other party?

However, all that being said, I readily admit that there is the perception out there that conservatives do not care for the poor, for education, for the environment, etc. This, though, seems to be reason that a party such as what Catholic Left describes would be more well known, so I return to my previous question of asking why do the rest of you suppose such as party has not gained more ground in the US.

Ahhh…ok. You just took all the wind out of my sail.

Ok, you asked for a paticular party, I gave it to you. You asked why they are not prominant, I also answered you. I think this thread has died quickly.

I would still find it more interesting to hear your opinion on how cutting taxes (mostly for the wealthy and corporations), cutting government programs, not raising minium wage, deficit spending, deregulating corporations, opening free markets and allowing jobs to leave America and smaller government is a solution to restorative justice, feeding the hungry, fixing our schools, looking after the elderly, saving the planet and being fiscally responsible.

 

[Awful_Things]

Ahhh…ok. You just took all the wind out of my sail.

Ok, you asked for a paticular party, I gave it to you. You asked why they are not prominant, I also answered you. I think this thread has died quickly.

Yes, you did. And I appreciated that, which I think was obvious in my earliest posts. However, it was when you responded to kristie m and implied one cannot be a conservative and still care for the poor, education, etc. that you made a judgement call on particular parties.

I would still find it more interesting to hear your opinion on how cutting taxes (mostly for the wealthy and corporations), cutting government programs, not raising minium wage, deficit spending, deregulating corporations, opening free markets and allowing jobs to leave America and smaller government is a solution to restorative justice, feeding the hungry, fixing our schools, looking after the elderly, saving the planet and being fiscally responsible.

I’m happy to. However, this is quite the shotgun question. Let’s pick one and we’ll do them one at a time. How about we start with minimum wage? Let me finish getting the morning going and I’ll write on that one, and we can go from there.

Remember, though, my task will not be to prove definitively that either conservative or liberal ideas are superior in reaching the end of helping the poor, though you and I would both agree that each of us thinks one party has the better means to that end (while disagreeing on which party). Rather, I will make my case that conservative values, properly understood, are designed for the exact end you dispute they are contradicting.

More in couple hours.

 

[Awful_Things]

Okay, my morning has settled down some. Given time, I hope to respond to each of the items in Catholicleft’s list that appeared just before the wink/thumbs-up emoticon. I mentioned that I would start with minimum wage.

First, I’d like to ask Catholicleft if he (she?) would support legislation putting the minimum wage at $19.57 per hour. Or $56.29 per hour. Or even $72.13 per hour. All of us would agree that, when we see a single mother of three supporting her family, that it would be great for her to make $72.13 an hour in order to do so.

That said, when I comment on some of the policies you’ve asked about, I often think about farmers who shoot at coyotes in order to reduce the threat of these predators. However, many naturalists will argue that shooting coyotes actually increases the coyote because it triggers a biological instinct for remaining coyotes to reproduce more rapidly and, in the meantime, more rodents and other food appear in the area during the temporary decrease in predators, drawing more coyotes from other areas. Ironically, in an attempt to reduce the coyote population, farmers resort to a solution with a short term appearance of effectiveness, but a long-term consequence of increasing their problem. I would use that analogy to describe my view of many “progressive” solutions to problems with poverty, educations, health care, etc.

Take minimum wage. The knee-jerk reaction is that we have people who are making too little to support a family. Thus, it is an admirable thing to legislate that they cannot be paid at a salary below that necessary to live comfortably (once we define “comfortable”, of course).

However, others would argue that minimum wage is counter-productive for a number of reasons. If you need documentation for anything I put below, let me know. I’m too lazy to put footnotes with all of it now, but I have documentation for anything I put as fact.

First, the majority of minimum wage earners are not single moms below the poverty line, the traditional face that is used during campaigns to raise this wage. A majority are teenage or early twenties and are not the primary bread-winners for a family. Three-fifths of them are working their minimum wage job as a part-time suppliment, not the primary paycheck. The average minimum wage family actually has an average annual income of $50,000 and only one out of five live below the poverty level.

So, first off, we are legislating a wide-sweeping mandate that helps out a disproportionate number of families who are doing okay, rather than implementing a program that targets the ones truly in need.

Second, we have the issue that many studies argue that an increase in minimum wage actually results in a decrease in entry-level jobs, which means that fewer people who need a leg up are receiving that chance. Two-thirds of those who take an entry level job (such as holding up a sign to advertise cheap pizza for a local restaurant) are promoted to a higher-paying job within a year. McDonald’s is well-known for creating such lower-paying entry-level jobs that turn, very quickly, into management opportunities. Yet, if businesses are forced to pay an artificial minimum wage for these, then one could argue that fewer of these jobs would exist. In addition, an increase of costs on the part of the business can result in higher prices, which means that people who miss an opportunity at an entry level job suddenly have to pay more for groceries because of the legislation we’ve passed.

Unions are among the biggest supporters of minimum wage, which is odd since so few union workers make minimum wage. However, union wages are set based on the minimum wage, which means an increase will push wages up all through a cooporation, increasing costs. That cost will often be off-set by fewer entry-level jobs and higher prices.

In third-world countries, where poverty remains very high, it is ironic that the wage is artificially set much higher than is healthy, preventing many who need jobs to raise the standard of living from getting them.

Some argue against my propositions by pointing to past increases which did not realize a job “loss” and perhaps even saw an increase in jobs. However, this is committing the same fallacy as I would be committing if someone told me not to give my 3’3" child coffee because it stunts growth. I could then point her as an adult, now 5’2", and say, “See, I fed her coffee and she still grew.” Likewise, the question in economics is to ask how much job creation we would have seen had an artificial minimum wage not put restrictions on lower prices and job creation. There are studies which support the idea that this growth would have been tremendously greater than it was.

You may disagree with all that I’ve written and may feel that you have statistics to the contrary, but it is an unfair conclusion to assume that rejection of minimum wage is also a rejection of our Catholic duty to feed the poor and clothe the naked.

 

[jpm1977]

The party that you are searching for does exist but more prominitly in other countries then here in the U.S… It is the Christian Democratic party:

I totally agree with the OP on the missing party idea. I also think the “missing party” was the American Democratic party until 1968. Of course, many Southern Democrats back then were segregationists, so that wouldn’t fit, but I think the comparison is still apt.

After 1968, many religious people left the Democrats to go to the GOP. Some (under Nixon’s Southern Strategy) left because of fear-mongering on race, but most I think left because of issues like abortion.

The problem in my mind is that the GOP is and always has been under the control of big corporations. I think they used Christian votes to pass a pro-corporate agenda that is very much at odds with Catholic teaching on a wide variety of issues. Corporations know no God but the dollar.

I’d love to see a party that was in favor of conservative social ideals, but which also promoted what the Church sees as a true Christian economic ideal as well. By this, I mean strict controls on corporations and the pursuit of a distrbutivist economic policy, that promoted a living wage.

I think it was Pope Pius X who articulated this very well when he disputed that a man was only entitled to whatever wage he could negotiate with his employer. The Pope then said this was not true because it was an unequal bargain because the man has to work to feed himself and his family. If a dealership wants too much for a car, I can go somewhere else, but if macroeconomic forces drive down wages, you cannot find higher wages elsewhere. The Pope then said that every man ought to be entitled to enough of a wage to meet the needs of himself and his family. If he had this, the Pope reasoned, by economy and frugality, he could save enough to raise his living standards, start a business, etc.

Today, when an unskilled worker must compete with those willing to work for $2 a day or less, he has very little power to get a living wage. Not everyone is smart or skilled enough to learn a trade or skill that can afford them a better wage, and these people are God’s children too and should not be condemned to live in poverty because of the demands of a technological economy.

That would be my platform anyway. But I agree, this is a lot like the CDU/CSU party in Germany.

 

[Awful_Things]

I totally agree with the OP on the missing party idea. I also think the “missing party” was the American Democratic party until 1968. Of course, many Southern Democrats back then were segregationists, so that wouldn’t fit, but I think the comparison is still apt.

After 1968, many religious people left the Democrats to go to the GOP. Some (under Nixon’s Southern Strategy) left because of fear-mongering on race, but most I think left because of issues like abortion.

The problem in my mind is that the GOP is and always has been under the control of big corporations. I think they used Christian votes to pass a pro-corporate agenda that is very much at odds with Catholic teaching on a wide variety of issues. Corporations know no God but the dollar.

I’d love to see a party that was in favor of conservative social ideals, but which also promoted what the Church sees as a true Christian economic ideal as well. By this, I mean strict controls on corporations and the pursuit of a distrbutivist economic policy, that promoted a living wage.

I think it was Pope Pius X who articulated this very well when he disputed that a man was only entitled to whatever wage he could negotiate with his employer. The Pope then said this was not true because it was an unequal bargain because the man has to work to feed himself and his family. If a dealership wants too much for a car, I can go somewhere else, but if macroeconomic forces drive down wages, you cannot find higher wages elsewhere. The Pope then said that every man ought to be entitled to enough of a wage to meet the needs of himself and his family. If he had this, the Pope reasoned, by economy and frugality, he could save enough to raise his living standards, start a business, etc.

Today, when an unskilled worker must compete with those willing to work for $2 a day or less, he has very little power to get a living wage. Not everyone is smart or skilled enough to learn a trade or skill that can afford them a better wage, and these people are God’s children too and should not be condemned to live in poverty because of the demands of a technological economy.

That would be my platform anyway. But I agree, this is a lot like the CDU/CSU party in Germany.

I won’t debate any of this because, as I wrote earlier, I’m not interested in the thread turning into a debate on these issues. I respect this poster’s opinion, even where I disagree. One place I do not disagree is his assertion that the greed of CEO’s and a “pro-corporate” agenda was at work in the GOP. However, what I would propose is that one’s social justice view needs to admit the realistic existance of greed (which cannot be legislated away or eliminated with all the restrictions in the world) and device a system where the greed of some is used with a judo effect to benefit the many. Milt Friedman speaks to this end well in this clip.

I would also ask, just to satisfy my curiosity, how one determines a “living wage”?

As a follow up to that, suppose that a 45-year-old single father of three (one needs braces badly) and a 16-year-old who just got a used car for his birthday and needs gas money are both recently employed to stock shelves in a grocery store. Would the living wage be the same? Approximately what would it be in today’s economy?

 

[aspawloski4th]

Simple solution for those liberal on economics and consrvative on abortion and other related issues. Vote Republican because ultimately abortion is light years more important than other issues. Problem solved!

 

[Awful_Things]

Simple solution for those liberal on economics and consrvative on abortion and other related issues. Vote Republican because ultimately abortion is light years more important than other issues. Problem solved!

This is a choice in the current political offerings, but the thread isn’t about what to do in the current situation, but an exploration of why a suitable option has not arisen for those who are liberal on economic issues, but conservative on others. While I disagree with their economic views, I respect their sincere motives and lament that the lack of a reasonable choice forces them to compromise a large part of their views each election, generally speaking.

 

[CatholicLeft]

Simple solution for those liberal on economics and consrvative on abortion and other related issues. Vote Republican because ultimately abortion is light years more important than other issues. Problem solved!

You mean more important then this pesky poverty issue that we are discussing right now? You know, that issue that Jesus must of spoke about maybe a zillion times?

 

[aspawloski4th]

This is a choice in the current political offerings, but the thread isn’t about what to do in the current situation, but an exploration of why a suitable option has not arisen for those who are liberal on economic issues, but conservative on others. While I disagree with their economic views, I respect their sincere motives and lament that the lack of a reasonable choice forces them to compromise a large part of their views each election, generally speaking.

The reason a party of the like hasn’t formed is because most of those people have joined the Democratic party to join with other of like economic mind to defeat Republican economics and put their morals I mean stance on moral issues aside because they want liberal economics soooo bad. In my opinion when you have thrown your morals away for anything related to economics, you have thrown your soul away also… In the mean time lets just put our economics issues aside and do what it takes to get abortion illegal and worry about economics another day.

 

[Awful_Things]

The reason a party of the like hasn’t formed is because most of those people have joined the Democratic party to join with other of like economic mind to defeat Republican economics and put their morals I mean stance on moral issues aside because they want liberal economics soooo bad.

Fair enough. It isn’t my place to say one way or the other. The thread was to explore possible explanations. While yours points to a dark side of the human character, it can’t be rejected for that reason alone. Maybe others have thoughts.

 

[jpm1977]

I think the real reason a party like this hasn’t formed in America has to do with the difference between America’s and Europe’s response to Christianity in recent times.

Someone (Scott Hahn?) that “Europeans know what Christianity is and have rejected it. American’s believe anything they want and call it Christianity.”

I think what that means practically is that starting in the late 1800s, the political left in Europe was explicitly anti-clerical, anti-religious, and atheistic. So, the leftist parties there today that we would compare to the Democrats were explicitly not Christian, and often were against Christianity expressly, including Christian morality. However, the bulk of the people in Europe were much more receptive to socialist/liberal economic policies, so the split really became one of religion and moral issues, with a general consensus on economics.

In this way, you ended up with a atheistic or anti-religious parties on the Left (Labor in Britain, SDU in Germany, etc.) and only slightly less socialistic parties on the center-right that were distinguished by their support for Christian ideas and morals, at least in Catholic countries (i.e., the Christian Democrats in Germany, Italy, Belgium). In Britain and elsewhere in Protestant Europe, even the parties on the right were not particularly religious, but that’s another topic.

In America, on the other hand, with outlier parties such as the communists, socialists, etc. excepted, the two major parties were both “Christian” as far as morals went until 1968. So, the only difference was on economics. Thus, there was no need for a “Christian” liberal/socialist party, because it was effectively the Democrats. The abandonment of Christian morality in an official and express way by a large portion of the political spectrum happened much later in America than in Europe.

In 1968 this changed, but the two parties are so entrenched, it has prevented the development of a Christian left party in America, which explains the dilemma many Catholic progressives and evangelical progressives find themselves in today—a belief system without a political home. I should also add that the Democrats here would never admit they’re not amenable to Christians, as most socialists in Europe would. This is due to the quote from the beginning of my post.

That would be my best guess anyway.

 

[JPUSC]

I couldn’t agree more that we DO need such a party. I am a self proclaimed, bleeding heart conservative! I am pro-life, and anti-execution. I believe in traditional marriage, restorative justice, feeding the hungry, fixing our schools, looking after the elderly, saving the planet and being fiscally responsible. Where’s MY party?

You sound like Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[CatholicLeft]

The reason a party of the like hasn’t formed is because most of those people have joined the Democratic party to join with other of like economic mind to defeat Republican economics and put their morals I mean stance on moral issues aside because they want liberal economics soooo bad. In my opinion when you have thrown your morals away for anything related to economics, you have thrown your soul away also… In the mean time lets just put our economics issues aside and do what it takes to get abortion illegal and worry about economics another day.

Before I comment again, I would like to explain myself a little bit. I know my website name is CatholicLeft and to many on this board they assume that must mean I’m a pro-choice, Obama lovin’ Democrat. Nothing could be further from the truth. I like to think of myself as a “true"pro-lifer” One who believes in the sanctity of all life, not just the unborn. So I am neither a Democrat or a Republican, for both parties are parties that justify killing in one way or another. In the last election I voted for neither of the presidential candidates. With that being said, the definition of economics is the social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems. It very much deals with moral issues. Just like any other social science such psychology or sociology. I find most people I meet, christian or not, have a moral foundation. maybe just not the same as yours or mine. It seems to have more to do with priorities then anything else. People have different issues that they feel are more important then others. This is not a bad thing. This allows our church to tackle many different issues at once. One parishioner may take up the fight to end abortions, while another may have a calling to feed the hungry, while another may volunteer to teach our young. To say that an entire political party has no morals just cause their important issues are not the same as yours is a bit narrow minded.