In Search of Christian Democracy

Michael Gerson observes that "there are, in fact, two belief systems contending for the soul of the Republican Party," namely "libertarianism and Roman Catholic social thought -- a teaching that has influenced many non-Catholics, including me." I think this is sort of right, but it's an importantly qualified "sort of." It's clear that there's a strain of Republican Party rhetoric that's similar in spirit to the Catholic-inspired Christian Democratic parties of the European center-right. Gerson, both as a speechwriter and as a columnist, clearly falls into that tradition. So, too, for most of his presidency has George W. Bush. And now on the campaign trail Mike Huckabee has taken up that banner.

But what neither Bush nor Huckabee nor anyone else seems to have offered is a policy agenda that cashes the rhetorical checks they're spreading around. If the libertarian tradition in the GOP mostly consists of a free-market agenda that's friendly to the interests of rich people and big companies, the Bushian deviations from the free-market line have overwhelmingly been aimed at advancing lobbyist-friendly policies. Similarly, Mike Huckabee talks a good game about inequality, but his distinctive policy proposal is a massively regressive (and phenomenally stupid) National Retail Sales Tax. There's just no there there. In practice to find Republicans likely to support programs that help poor people, you need to look to the generically "moderate" (i.e., vulnerable) Republicans representing culturally liberal coastal areas — Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, etc. — and Christian Democratic talk remains just that: talk.

Photo by Flickr user Zoonabar used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Christian Democratic policies aren't Francoism. Gerson is just passing gas.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 31, 2007 1:57 PM

the notion that the republican party - which favors illegal wiretapping, torture, and pointless adventurist wars - has a "libertarian" belief system somewhere in there is about as deragned as most of gerson's thinking.

as matthew notes in passing, what passes for "libertarianism" in the gop is a religious belief in lowering taxes on upper-income households and wealthy estates and support for existing oligopolistic corporate entities, which is to say, it ain't "libertarianism" at all.

Posted by howard | October 31, 2007 1:59 PM

and Christian Democratic talk remains just that: talk.

Wait, so Republican ideologues going on about "compassionate conservatism" were lying?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 31, 2007 2:05 PM

Probably a thought for another blog post. but, why is the retail sales tax idea stupid?

If it were to exempt food, primary housing (and related) and health care, it could be very progressive.

I would venture to guess that most middle and low income families would pay nearly no taxes.

Posted by yep | October 31, 2007 2:16 PM

But what neither Bush nor Huckabee nor anyone else seems to have offered is a policy agenda that cashes the rhetorical checks they're spreading around

Exactly right. For all his talk of compassion, moral values and outreach, the only policies George Bush has truly held fast on are "tax cuts so help me God", deregulation of industry, and corporate welfare.

(And of course the forever war).

Posted by Jinchi | October 31, 2007 2:17 PM

Michael Gerson observes that "there are, in fact, two belief systems contending for the soul of the Republican Party," namely "libertarianism and Roman Catholic social thought -- a teaching that has influenced many non-Catholics, including me." I think this is sort of right, but it's an importantly qualified "sort of."
===============================================

Matthew, if you and Gerson can believe that a political party containing a significant number of Protestant Evangelicals has a belief system based on Roman Catholic social thought or libertarianism you're deluded.

Evangelicals fall in neither camp.

Posted by Campesino | October 31, 2007 2:20 PM

roman catholic social thought?!?

the catholic church is one of the institutions that works the hardest on social justice issues. i don't see the republican party doing any of that.

the catholic church supports a culture of life, not a culture of death + opposition to abortion.

gerson's line is a huge piece of bullshit to try to bring catholic votes to a party whose two belief systems are "help the rich" and "build a christian fundamentalist theocracy".

Posted by papist | October 31, 2007 2:21 PM

and Christian Democratic talk remains just that: talk.

Wait, so Republican ideologues going on about "compassionate conservatism" were lying?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 31, 2007 2:05 PM

================================================

Christian Democrats does not equal compassionate conservatism

Posted by Campesino | October 31, 2007 2:23 PM

Tell me again - is it Ron Paul or the Catholic Church that is behind the Iraq war?

Posted by Anonymous | October 31, 2007 2:48 PM

It's not just the Republican party that has these belief systems, it is all of western civilization.
It is a conflict between Athens and Jerusalem.

Posted by Pritesh | October 31, 2007 2:54 PM

This libertarian-Catholic melding, famously called "fusionism" by Frank Meyer, was the big shit among the conservative chattering classes from the '50s into the '80s, at which point it started to fade, having always been mostly ghettoed together by shared anticommunism anyway. Gerson's just having fun playing in the fields of his youth.

Posted by Senescent | October 31, 2007 3:03 PM

at which point it started to fade, having always been mostly ghettoed together by shared anticommunism anyway

Well, and because in the Reagan sunshine, conservative alliance-building started being less theoretical and more means-at-hand practical.

Posted by Senescent | October 31, 2007 3:07 PM

It is a conflict between Athens and Jerusalem. - Pritesh

But how outside of a few "Straussian" "Platonist" neo-conservatives (many of whom, ironically, for an Athens/Jerusalem battle, are Jewish ... so much for there talk about those of us who oppose their agenda being anti-Semites/self-hating Jews), how does even the "libertarian" wing of the GOP represent "Athens"? How at all would the "Catholic" wing represent "Athens"?

(and as mentioned above, how does either libertarianism or Christian Democracy describe the GOP in practice? of course, given that Gerson's craft is wordsmithing -- and it's on which side his bread is buttered -- it's no surprise he might, even without realizing it, mistake words for reality ... and that, c.f. the Gospel of John, is very much in the spirit of applying the philosophy of Athens to the religion of Jerusalem, so to speak ...)

OTOH, how does the "Christian Right" represent "Jerusalem" (or Athens, for that matter)? True, much of the "we better be moral or God will punish us" rhetoric matches that of the Torah, but what is the morality? As far as the Christian right is concerned, it's about teh hawt sex and about abortion (the latter isn't even explicitly banned in the written Torah), etc. OTOH, the Levitical and Deuteronomaic formulae are concerned with God punishing us for abandoning the economic justice and social welfare principles of Torah: the laws of shmitta and jubilee, the laws forbidding usury and gleening, etc. Where is the religious right on the Bankruptcy bill, for example?

So how is this, pace Pritesh, an example of the "Athens vs. Jerusalem" conflict that does, OTOH, indeed characterize large aspects of so-called Western Civ.?

Posted by DAS | October 31, 2007 3:08 PM

Whether Mr. Gerson recognizes it or not, there are still many American Catholics who vote Democratic despite the party's stance on sexual issues (i.e., abortion, gay marriage, contraception). This is not simply a debate within the Republican party. Many Catholics simply see the Church's and the New Testament's positions on social issues as far more important than the sexual issues, and see the GOP as fundamentally incompatible with those values. Compatibility with Christianity at its compassionate, accepting, forgiving, meek-shall-inherit best is what attracted, and still attracts, many Catholics to the Democratic party. The upshot of this for the GOP is this: if, as Gerson suggests, many Catholic and Catholic-influenced Republicans are starting to value Christian socioeconomic teachings over the sexual ones, they'd probably be better off just joining the party that already accepts those ideas: the Democratic party. If, on the other hand, they think a few verses in Leviticus are more important than all of Christian social thought, then, well, the GOP is waiting!

Posted by Nick Baumann | October 31, 2007 3:14 PM

"[T]o find Republicans likely to support programs that help poor people, you need to look to the generically "moderate" (i.e., vulnerable) Republicans representing culturally liberal coastal areas — Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, etc. — and Christian Democratic talk remains just that: talk."

Basically, there are two kinds of Republicans: people you can *make* "support programs that help poor people" with the threat/fear of electoral pain (the "moderate" and "vulnerable" folks), and people whom you *cannot* make support such programs.

For the second group, *that* *is* *WHY* *they* *are* *Republicans*. If they were to "support programs that help poor people," they would be Democrats.

On the other hand, the religious philosophizing *does* seem all too effective at persuading moderates/dumbasses that there are valid religious arguments for screwing the poor and warmongering, and generally feeling justified about supporting and enabling the policy impulses of selfish assholes.

(sarcasm) So it's not a *total* waste. (/sarcasm)

Posted by Chris | October 31, 2007 3:49 PM

hmmm, my experience as a suburban catholic led me to become a radical libertarian. The church I attended was very large and inpersonal. my larger family structure was fragmented throughout the country. My parents, the first economically mobile generation of their families, embraced libertarian individualism. As a kid, I was taught thomist natural law, which has a lot to do with libertariansm.

Posted by thehova | October 31, 2007 3:51 PM

Thomist natural law has a lot to do with libertarianism? We must be reading different St. Thomases.

Posted by matt d | October 31, 2007 4:43 PM

yeah, Matt D. I phrased that incorrectly. and it's too off topic for me to really explain in detail the connection between thomism and libertarianism. But in my personal experience, thomism led me directly to libertarianism.

Posted by thehova | October 31, 2007 4:56 PM

When Acquinas was writing about natural law, he was simply describing one level of law. C.S. Lewis called it "moral law" -- it's the essential morality that binds us all. Our collective conscience. Acquinas distinguishes it from civil or human law, which is the most basic level of law. Beyond moral law, there is divine law, which is the written Word of God. After that, there is eternal law, which comprises the laws that physically govern the universe and heaven.

So even St. Thomas Acquinas makes a distinction between civil law and natural law. Now, it would be a major stretch -- a falsehood, actually -- to describe Acquinas as an advocate for the separation of church and state. However, it is important to remember that the Constitution does not mention natural law, nor can any assumption of natural law be ascertained from the text of the Constitution. To argue that the Constitution is a reflection of natural law, something incumbent upon Gerson-types, is just as much of a stretch as arguing that the Constitution is a reflection of the whims of modern society.

What is clear is that there is subjective language in the Constitution. If our Constitution values democracy as Associate Justice Stephen Breyer argues (correctly, I think), then it makes more sense to apply modern societal attitudes and contexts to the more subjective language of the Constitution (like "cruel and unusual") than to apply natural law (or for that matter, originalism).

I believe that the separation of church and state is critical for the health of the state in a pluralistic society. More important to Christians like myself, however, is the health of the church. To incorporate traditional Catholic notions of natural law for its own sake into the policy of a state governing a pluralistic society would ultimately create a dangerous association with Christianity: mundanity. Faith, though, and religious practice would lose distinction and spotaneity. Our notions of Christianity would become directly associated with the state telling us "No." That's not what Christianity is about.

George W. Bush's Presidency and Christianity have about as much to do with one another as Barry Goldwater and socialism. No responsible leader, and certainly no serious Christian, would embrace torture.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 31, 2007 5:35 PM

The church I attended was very large and inpersonal. my larger family structure was fragmented throughout the country.

This would seem to me to be an argument explaining why libertarianism only results in dystopia.

Heck, it sounds almost like a Catholic sermond against libertarianism, "they'd have you abandon your communities in favor of large and impersonal institutions and they believe in fragmenting the family in the name of reflexive individualism!"

Posted by Tyro | October 31, 2007 5:53 PM

Sorry, that's ridiculous. Roman Catholic Social Justice teachings are absolutely incompatible with the Republican Party. No way.

Teachings on abortion and "moral" issues, maybe. But RC Social Justice teachings are philosophically based on assumptions about humans, and on values and priorities that are almost the polar opposite of the assumptions and values of fundamentalist Protestant Christians.

This guy's either ignorant or else a hack in the service of the GOP, trying to get the catholic vote.

Posted by UG | October 31, 2007 7:50 PM

Matthew Struhar, I enjoyed reading your comments.

I do disagree with your assessment that the Constitution contains no implicit reference to natural law. In fact, from reading the correspondence between Enlightenment figures, I was struck how deeply they debated the nature of man (especially Jefferson). They disagreed with Aquinas' conception of nature. But still, Aquainas provided a sort of naturalistic framework for the dialogue to take place in.

Tyro, I don't doubt that their are still close knit Catholic churches in urban areas where large families attend mass together. but they are declining in number.

In fact, I would guess that your typical Catholic church is much larger and more impersonal than a protestant church. it all stems from social mobility. it spreads families across the country.

Posted by thehova | October 31, 2007 7:56 PM

There's a very strong Catholic influence in the liberal states of New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and several others. Except on abortion and homosexuality, there's nothing Catholic at all about the Republican Party. It's not just the anti-Catholic bias of many of the religious right, but especially the free-market, anti-communitarian worship of competition and the prusuit of wealth which makes the Republicans non-Catholic. And during most of the Twentieth Century, voting patterns reflected that.

Posted by John Emerson | October 31, 2007 9:17 PM

I am a Democrat because I am a Catholic.

I do wish Opus Dei would stop converting their
fundy fellow travelers. We need more Dorothy Days and fewer Robert Novaks.

Posted by Irish | October 31, 2007 9:21 PM

Thanks thehova! Certainly natural law, although much more John Locke's notion than Thomas Acquinas', appears in the Constitution implicitly in the sense that there is a Bill of Rights, and the Founders believed that our rights did not come from the sovereign but were natural. This is important because, while our Constitution is democratic, a democracy ought not to be able to vote away an individual's right to free speech, for example.

Thanks for the disagreement as it causes me to amend my comments somehwat. But it remains true, in my view, that nothing in or about the text of the Constitution suggests that an interpretation of the Constitution ought to reflect natural law.

Of course, somebody could argue that the extent to which the Constitution values democracy is equally a matter of interpretation and that my insistence on interpreting the Constitution from a standpoint that values democracy is just as arbitrary as interpreting the Constitution from a view that values Thomist or Lockean natural law. That's another argument, though.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 31, 2007 9:44 PM

Good grief, could we stop with the fiction that big companies always, or enen mostly, desire free markets?

Posted by Will Allen | October 31, 2007 9:50 PM

I thought this whole matter was settled with the Glorious Revolution.

Posted by Linus | October 31, 2007 11:31 PM

Yeah, matt S., I'm with you. Natural law often creeps me out. and your right. The constitution can certainly be interpreted without using any conception of natural law.

Posted by thehova | November 1, 2007 8:44 AM

The particular version of national consumption tax that Huckabee has endorsed is the "Fair Tax," which includes a monthly rebate to every American of the tax paid on purchases up to the poverty line. So those defined as poor would pay no tax at all (and no income or payroll tax, either, as these are to be abolished). Above the poverty line, the tax rate is a flat 23% on purchases, and since millionaires make more purchases than middle-class folk, the fat cats would end up paying lots more total tax. I can't see that this is "massively regressive." Whether the plan is "phenomenally stupid" is harder for a non-economist to assess; best place to begin is probably the "Rebuttals" section of their web site (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer).

Posted by Jeff Peterson | November 1, 2007 10:20 AM

Ok I know I'm late to the party, but have any of you actually read Sollicitudo Rei Socialis? There's nothing "republican" about it. At all. In fact, some of Catholic Social Teaching's biggest and brightest thinkers veer off dangerously towards Marxism (labor theory of value, not authoritarian bullshit).

When I was at Notre Dame, my experience was that as my friends discovered CST through service-learning programs, they became more and more politically liberal. There were obviously plenty of conservatives at ND, but by and large, it would be a 60/40 Rep/Dem split of the freshmen, and by the time they were seniors, it'd be reversed. Nothing like some institutional repression to make somebody a liberal Democrat.

Posted by alli | November 1, 2007 10:24 AM