I have decided to take some time away from my Democratic Party membership- this includes resigning as Vice President of Florida Democrats for Life. I have been a Democrat in spirit from the age of 13, when I took the initiative to volunteer many hours for the 1976 Jimmy Carter presidential campaign.This decision is not a flippant one. I will not trade one major party for another, I am going in an Independent direction and would like to found an American-version, Common Good Party, when time permits.
As an orthodox Catholic I take my chief political inspiration these days from the Church’s Social Doctrine- I like what the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church says about political and party allegiences- from paragraph #573:
573. A particular area for discernment on the part of the lay faithful concerns the choice of political instruments, that is, membership in a party or in other types of political participation. A choice must be made that is consistent with values, taking into account actual circumstances. In every case, whatever choice is made must be rooted in charity and tend towards the attainment of the common good[1200]. It is difficult for the concerns of the Christian faith to be adequately met in one sole political entity; to claim that one party or political coalition responds completely to the demands of faith or of Christian life would give rise to dangerous errors. Christians cannot find one party that fully corresponds to the ethical demands arising from faith and from membership in the Church. Their adherence to a political alliance will never be ideological but always critical; in this way the party and its political platform will be prompted to be ever more conscientious in attaining the true common good, including the spiritual end of the human person[1201].
I was not always Catholic, not always pro-life, but I had a special interest in politics as a young teen that I did not get from my parents or an especially motivated teacher- it came from within. I responded to something that Jimmy Carter appealed to- I always had a heart for the underdog- be it in sports or in cowboy-indian play fighting as a child- I liked the indians and I am still a Detroit Lions supporter! What I didn’t like was what I thought the Republican Party represented both as a child, and even now as an adult- I don’t see the Republican Party as a “pro-life party”, I don’t trust that the establishment power base of the Republican Party is really interested in making Abortion illegal, or cares if the average family is able to earn a family wage. I have no fondness for Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr. or George W. Bush- so I am not leaving the Democratic Party to switch from one powerful and corrupt major party and enter another one.
My more recent goals as a pro-life Democrat have been to try to locate a base of Democratic Party members and activists, who identify more with the old FDR coalition of minorities, labor union/Catholic Worker populists, traditional Catholics and social gospel Protestants. I wanted to try to gain some measure of clout inside the Party in order to compete with the New Economy Clintons’, pro-sexual revolution social liberals, who have come to dominate the Democratic Party scene.
I ran for Florida State House in 2006, did fairly well at the ballot box, but couldn’t find enough activist support to even get comfortably onto the ballot for 2008 even though I was in a good political position having established some name recognition and having the incumbent out due to term limits. The social liberals and radical secularists who dominate the local Democratic party circles didn’t like my openly Catholic approach to policy proposals. Being pro-life, and pro-funding for private schools really put me outside in the cold with area Dem activists. I expected that, but I thought I could make up the difference by bringing in new activists from the minority communities who supported the Democratic Party on economic grounds, but were traditionally religious and family-oriented in their social issue beliefs. My goal was to develop in these communities a new force to be reckoned with in the local and then national Democratic Party fold. I tried but failed to get any significant interest or support in this mission- and after several years of either running for office, or writing letters in the local press- to no real avail- I have decided to kick the dirt off my sandals and move to higher ground in search of deeper solutions.
I find that most people who are political are divided pretty sharply into hardcore liberal or conservative encampments. They are either in the camps out of “love” because they truly believe that their ideology will “save” the world- or they are roughly aligned with the ideology or party but are career-oriented/pragmatists as opposed to purists/idealists. I suppose that I am one of the purist/idealist types, but I don’t find my soul’s fit comfortably inside the liberal/conservative Democrat/Republican confines. I figured I would just go with the party of my childhood infatuation and try to remake it in the image of what I intuit is the blueprint laid out by Catholic social doctrine. There is a God, but no Party of God politically-speaking.
I met some really good folks in the Democrats for Life organization, from the top-down, I really feel a closer union with them than with any other group of political activists. The problem for me is that I can’t shed the Democratic Party membership and expect to stay in a leadership/membership role in an organization calling itself Democrats for Life. So, I have to say goodbye, and yet I will stay supportive of the mission of my Dems for Life brethren. In a different geographical location there may be more hope for gathering in a budding pro-life Democrat community. It just isn’t happening in my area of Florida, and all of Florida seems to be having troubles attracting pro-life recruits.
My number 1 concern is my Catholic Faith, my Christian discipleship. I am a Catholic religion teacher, and I don’t want my students or anyone I meet to be able to stereotype my ideas based upon my stated membership in a major political party. Like it or not, most people seem to make almost immediate assessments on all kinds of levels- based on whether you say you are a Democrat or a Republican. I want to force people to engage in a more profound way. If I say I am in process of trying to found a “Common Good” political party, I think it is a conversation starter rather than the stopper that saying “I’m a Democrat” has been.
I want to have the label “Catholic” and “Christian Disciple” used to describe me, I don’t want to be dismissed as a “liberal”, “conservative”, Democrat or Republican. I am more interested in the issues- starting with the right to life for unborn children, and justice/mercy for all humanity and all of God’s Creation- I don’t have an ideological home, I have a Church, the Church Jesus Christ founded to steer all humans home to heaven. That’s enough for me- I’m looking for a higher road than the one currently travelled by the major players in our political spectrum. Again, please check out the Compendium quotation above- we all need to be more critical of the parties and political ideologies even if we largely ascribe ourselves to one or the other of them.
Welcome to the world of independent idealism. Good to have you on board. It’s still (maybe especially) possible to be a good citizen being off the party rolls. I encourage the strategy.
I know exactly how you feel. I live in Washington DC, where it’s all politics, all the time. For a few years now I’ve answered the question “Are you a Republican (Democrat)?” with “I’m a Catholic.”
I simply must repeat what I said when you mentioned this to me privately — this is a great loss for pro-life Democrats, but God as you seem to have discerned may need your gifts and talents elsewhere for the sake of His Kingdom and, temporally speaking, for the common good.
I need not ask to know whether I still have your support and you need not ask if you have mine. Have faith, there are sincere pro-life Catholics in the trenches my friend. You have simply chosen a new battlefield; there is only one Enemy.
Congratulations to you, and welcome aboard, Tim! But one question: am I completely imagining this, or didn’t you announce/decide this a couple of months ago? I thought I remembered reading a post you had written to that effect, but without all of the outlines for an independent party based on Catholic moral teaching and the Natural Law.
What’s wrong with the US Constitution Party?
It’s platform is the closest to Chrcuh teaching:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
I understand, however, that it doesn’t fit the false gospel of the common good, social justice and peace at any price.
It seems like the writer just wants a socialist party that can call itself pro-life and be Christian in name instead of advocating for a return to the truly Christian Constitutional Republic we once were.
Why not read and study what this country was founded at insteda of trying to invent some socialist utopia. The common good didn’t work for the Church in the time of Ananias and Sapphira. It won’t work now. And I (along with many, many other Constitutionalists) shall never, ever support it.
Paul, it is quite arrogant to assert that people whose views are different than yours and do not think that the U.S. Constitution Party is the closest reflection of Catholic social teaching in the U.S. are merely socialists who want a “socialist party.”
I think it is an unfair judgment of our Catholicism and our commitment to the teachings of the Church, which requires on some issues much prudential judgment that naturally creates a discussion — and not clear-cut policy positions or views we must embrace.
Moreover the idea that the United States was ever “truly” an explicitly “Christian” constitutional republic is quite arguable. I find it hard to believe that an authentically Christian society had legal slavery rooted in irrational hate of ethnicity; other points could be made, but I think you are romanticizing history and my argument need not be taken as saying the current situation of America is better or superior but simply that the U.S. was never a “truly Christian constitutional republic” in the sense that you seem to suggest.
Lastly the idea that people who fail to subscribe to what you have suggested have neglected to “read and study what this country” was founded on “instead of trying to invent some socialist utopia” is nonsense.
I was not even aware that any sort of disagreement (at least it seems that way in the way you frame your argument, there appear to be only two options) with the position you offer logically implies subscription to socialism. Moreover, it is nonsensical for you to appeal to Catholic social teaching — from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI — and say that the “common good” does not work.
It would be more credible to argue that what the political left, by and large, presents as the common good is (in your view) a pseudo-common good and the actual common good is something much different — and you could detail it with what you think would work better. But to say the common good “did not work” and will not “work now” while appealing to Catholic social teaching where that very concept is integral to the whole body of the Church’s social doctrine is unbelievably dubious. Honestly, I am not saying this to be harsh; it simply is the case.
I suppose it is a way to look at things but it is a perspective that I would never, ever support. The political left often gets attacked for claiming to have the correct political translation of Christian values in action and I, to a considerably large degree, can concur that in the current political situation criticism is very warranted. But the political right in the GOP and in my view in conservative third parties, at present, in my view, cannot lay claim to Christian values in their entirety. Many questions are again prudential and need not be dogmaticized — perhaps it is time that we Catholics, particularly those of who choose a specific political avenue or entity, whether it be a party or some other organization, stop trying to box the Church’s teaching into acceptable political language and contrived concepts that derive primarily from secular schools of thought. It is telling when what we call “Catholic social teaching” begins to look conveniently like our party’s platform. Indeed, the Gospel easily transcends all these things.
Eric- thanks for your eloquent defense and support- Kevin in Texas- I have been hinting at such a move but I retained my position as vp of florida dems for life until this week- my good friend at the organization- a Catholic- had asked me to take some more time before I made a formal decision- out of respect for this great friend, I decided to wait, pray and see if the Spirit would reveal more- at this point, I really feel that being a non-partisan will be advantageous as a Catholic teacher and in trying to open channels of dialogue working on specific issues rather than risk being written off as a Democratic Party operative or Republican mole inside the Dem party. This decision just feels like a spiritual breath of fresh air- something rare in the political trenches:)
Tim,
Blessings… I too left the party of my youth, however, I came from the opposite side and have landed at Independent as well.
Eric,
Wonderful defense.
Peace
Tim,
Interesting post. It reads to me like you are not rejecting the Democratic party so much as you are rejecting politics per se. I think this is OK; not every Catholic is meant to act in the political sphere. But I do not think such a position can be normative. It is part of the lay vocation to transform our politics from within, and to the extent that you did this as a pro-life Democrat it was a good thing.
I think generally speaking it is good for Catholics to consider themselves unwedded to any political party. Catholics are wedded to the truth and must understand themselves as Catholics first and then Republicans or Democrats. A Catholic can be a Republican or a Democrat, but they must be a Catholic first.
Although I’m not thrilled that there is yet another good person giving up on American politics, I am happy to hear that someone is leaving the Democratic party, which in my opinion is virtually unsalvagable. The Democratic party is in principle the party of death.
Eric,
“I find it hard to believe that an authentically Christian society had legal slavery rooted in irrational hate of ethnicity;”
Slavery had nothing to do with “hate” as we think of it today. It was certainly based in an erroneous view of race, but it was no more hateful in 1788 than it was in 300 B.C. or so when Aristotle was justifying slavery. It was seen as a part of the natural order.
A lot of the founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, struggled with the issue. So, avoid blanket condemnations in the other direction. The northern states abolished slavery right from the beginning. The southern states had “rational” economic reasons for wanting to keep it – but “rational” does not = morally right.
The democrat and republican parties are not the same.
If more people voted for McCain, we’d have a chance overturning Roe v Wade with the nomimation of more good supreme court justices like Roberts and Alito, but no, we get Sotomaer and Kagan.
Thanks alot 54% Catholics who voted for Obama or Indepedants! Like you really care about the unborn…rightttt.
A Catholic with a well formed conscience can not in any way vote for the party of death.
Zach- I don’t think you are reading me correctly- I’m not giving up on American politics- I am just backing out of the Democratic party since I could not find any traction for pro-life Dems in my geographic area- I tried through offering a viable candidacy and having a presence in the local media and making contact attempts- but it didn’t happen. I decided it was best for me to purify my own end of things and come clean as an Independent who will work with partisans on the various issues of importance- but will be a non-partisan about it. In a way I am following the lead of Archbishop Chaput who was once one who identified more closely with the philosophy of governance represented by the Democratic Party, but because of the emergence of social liberalism and hardcore secularism in the heart of Democratic Party activism- he has chosen the Independent political path- and since I am a Catholic teacher myself, I think it is prudent to stake out non-partisan territory myself- not to avoid the political fight over the important issues of our times, but to be taken more seriously and to be seen as more consistent than those who seem to allow their Party loyalties to determine their political consciences. We’ll see if this decision makes sense over the longer haul- I am a Catholic first- that is my core message in all this.
I pray a lot and the Holy Spirit reveals a lot to me.
When he talks to me, he starts with “Shaw, love humility, live the Gospels, obey the Ten Commandments, and adhere to the teachings of Holy Mother Church handed down from The Apostles and today from the Pope.”
He revealed to me “Shaw, you can’t be both a democrat and be pro-life.” And, “You won’t be getting into Heaven if you vote democratic.”
Early in 2008, this Pope gave four non-negotiables. Despicable dems are 180 degrees, and violently (47,000,000 exterminated unborn), opposed to each and every one.
I agree with Jasper and I’m ashamed of being a (cradle) Catholic these days, when 54% of them voted for Barack Obama, a pro-abortion and pro-infanticide politician. As a matter of fact, the Democratic Party has become the party where the Culture of Death has taken hold, and I’m glad I abandoned them over 10 years ago.
Jasper is correct in that with the GOP, at least we got two solid, pro life, conservative Supreme Court Justices, but with Obama, we’re getting rabidly pro-abortion ones. Way to go, my brothers and sisters in the Church. Next time, please use the God-give reason you were born with and LEARN the candidates’ record on abortion!
Paul – Pope Benedict doesn’t agree with you
Pope calls for ethics in world economy
“Benedict said the search for common good must inform globalization and be the goal of progress and development, which would otherwise merely serve to produce material goods.”
http://tinyurl.com/29d528y
Non-partisan? Transpartisan?
I think there’s room for a Christian-Democratic political and social presence in the United States, and it can grow if it plays by the populist playbook, particularly the experience of the Non-Partisan League.
Perhaps you can take the whole matter up with Oscar De Rojas? I have a hunch he has an interesting perspective on this whole thing.
Putting one’s faith in a political party will inevitably lead a sincere Catholic to a sense of disillusionment with politics in general. However, as a means to an end, parties may be used as an imprecise apparatus and like an imprecise apparatus they more often than not accomplish the task with less success than we would like.
I have yet to see a practical way out of the 2 party system we have in the US that does not, as a by-product, result in one party dominance, after the other party fractures it’s base.
Dear Mr. Shipe,
I was very touched by, and sympathized with, your declaration. I would like you to know that a group of citizens are forming a new centrist political party: The Christian Democratic Union of the United States (CDUSA). We are in the process of redesigning our webpage, but please use my address for any additional communication or request for information. We invite you to please advise us and be in touch with us.
Our basic political philosophy is quite straight-forward: we are “center-left” (i.e., agree with many Democratic party positions) on most economic and political issues, while we are “center-right (i.e., agree with many Republican party positions)on most social and cultural issues. We are, essentially, the OPPOSITE of what libertarians and Tea-Party groups stand for. Indeed, we reject the labels of “liberal” or “conservative”, because these can have different meanings, depending on what standpoint you look from.
We do hope to hear from you and your friends, and, in the meantime, remain, sincerely yours,
Oscar de Rojas
Executive Director
Christian Democratic Union of the United States
“We are, essentially, the OPPOSITE of what libertarians and Tea-Party groups stand for.”
That’s unfortunate. Are you sure you know what they stand for?
we are “center-left” (i.e., agree with many Democratic party positions) on most economic and political issues, while we are “center-right (i.e., agree with many Republican party positions)on most social and cultural issues.
That sounds agreeable as stated. The difficulty is that ‘center-left’ on economic matters (at this time and in this country) means the continuous multiplication of patron-client relations between politicians and lobbies, in which the politician is a broker who supplies constituency groups with the fruits of the state’s extractive capacity in return for the fruits of the constituencies’ fundraising, labor, and brand-loyalty. You could call it crony capitalism, but the beneficiaries are not merely favored business sectors but also the social work industry and the public sector unions and provincial and municipal politicians. Call it crony capitalism, crony philanthropy, crony syndicalism, and patronage.
That’s unfortunate. Are you sure you know what they stand for?
Joe, it is somewhat disconcerting that ‘TEA’ is an acronym for ‘Taxed Enough Already’. The focus should be on the ways in which the public sector might be circumscribed. Once you have come to an understanding of the appropriate boundary of the public sector, the tax rate is implicit. Complaints about taxation per se enhance the stupidity of the political culture. One can address complaints about tax rates by reducing them, but without a willingness to circumscribe the public sector, you just get deficits. The federal government’s statement of income was in far more parlous shape when Mr. Obama took office than was the case when Mr. Reagan took office, so we no longer have the margin for an extended game of let’s pretend.
Thank you for the interesting comments.
What I mean by center-left in the economic area is that we do believe in a necessary and appropriate level of government regulation of the “free market” to avoid situations of abuse such, as for example, the financial disaster that we still have not gotten out of. And, yes, we are for more progressive taxation — meaning taxing the really reach -not the middle class, certainly not the poor- to further the common good.
The fact that there is so much cronyism, lobbying, corruption etc. in the political system is somehting that we clearly have to tackle with, but hopefully, with a more just society, these things might also become more repugnant and begin to change.
Art,
Give the people a break.
“The focus should be on the ways in which the public sector might be circumscribed.”
There is plenty of focus on that. If you don’t know it, you haven’t interacted with the people in the movement.
“Complaints about taxation per se enhance the stupidity of the political culture.”
No they don’t. Statements like this just reveal the extent to which you aren’t affected by taxes. You realize that over half of the tea party is made up of one of the most unjustly-taxed brackets of income earners in America, right? We’re talking people who make somewhere between 50 and 100 thousand or so a year. They pay through the nose.
“One can address complaints about tax rates by reducing them, but without a willingness to circumscribe the public sector, you just get deficits.”
Why would you assume this willingness isn’t there? It is.
“The federal government’s statement of income was in far more parlous shape when Mr. Obama took office than was the case when Mr. Reagan took office, so we no longer have the margin for an extended game of let’s pretend.”
Again, if you don’t think the tea party acknowledges and address this, you’re really quite out of the loop. Fiscal responsibility, dealing with the debt, stopping the spending and related issues are probably more important to it than the tax rates, I would say.
And, yes, we are for more progressive taxation — meaning taxing the really reach -not the middle class, certainly not the poor- to further the common good.
Um, if, by ‘the rich’, you mean a class of rentiers or latent rentiers (along with senior corporation executives), I think you will find on inspection that you are speaking of around 2.5% of the population who corral about 15% of the nation’s personal income.
If, by the poor, you mean individuals whose wage and private pension income (w/ salaries or proprietor’s income or annuities in some few cases) is below the cost of a basket of staple commodities as calculated by federal statistical agencies, that would be perhaps 20-25% of the population who corral about 4% or so of personal income.
The ‘middle class’ (salaried employees and small proprietors) corral north of 45% of personal income and the more prosperous wage earners corral the balance of roughly 35%. You are not going to tax any of these people? Do you plan to finance the state with lotteries?
My comments were not derived from my personal fiscal situation (which does include considerable tax liability, though that is none of your business).
Federal and state income tax codes are so rococo that it is simply impossible (with any degree of thoroughness) to say from descriptive statistics which strata are being ‘unjustly taxed’ and which are not.
I did not name the ‘Tea Party’. I am not sure to whom the moniker is attributable. It does make me anxious, however.
I am pleased if you can find a generous slice from among the miscellany of people who are protesting who are thinking seriously about the ways in which the public sector can and should be circumscribed. Any movement has quite a mix as regards its degree of sophistication and seriousness.
I was a witness to the political discourse engaged in by Mr. Reagan and his acolytes during the period running from about 1978 to 1989. It is not a happy precedent and is one I hope the Republic can avoid. In general, it has not been my observation that an understanding of the relative size of the public sector and the distribution of expenditures between various categories thereof is (in schematic outline) well understood even among the quarter or so of the population who follow public affairs. If there are many counter-examples in the Tea Party, that is all to the good.
Tim –
I’ve also thought about a party based on Catholic Social Teaching principles that could go by the name “The Common Good Party” – which has the great benefit of being shortened simply to the Good Party, with a membership of Good People.
I’m not nearly as politically astute or experienced as you (or Oscar) though, and very much look forward to your thoughts on how practically to develop such a political force.
If you want/need any help from the Pacific Northwest, do let me know, and I’ll do what I can!