Political Homelessness is Better than a Wrong Political Home
Note: As with all political commentaries, this post reflects the viewpoint of the author, who chooses to use a pen name. We encourage and publish a wide diversity of views.
by Ms. Boomer-ang
People with a consistent life philosophy should be wary about efforts to recruit us into conservative movements. Rejection by liberals is not a sufficient reason for embracing conservatism. If leaving what one does not love means leaving all existing political homes, it is okay to have no political home. One can either accept that homeless status or urge the building of a new political home where one does belong.
Many conservatives campaign on pro-life slogans, but once elected focus on attacking public services, discriminating against non-conformists, promoting environmental degradation, cruel law and order policies, and military aggression. Conservatives’ non-negotiable policies include such things consistent life movements should either be open-tent about or outright reject. Of course, correspondingly, many liberals campaign on environmental protection and immigrant-welcoming slogans, but once elected focus on promoting abortion, death-hastening, and incentives to submit to them.
What spurred this essay were Carol Crossed’s review of Defending the Unborn on this blog (April 2016), and a fall 2016 article in a local pro-life newsletter urging readers to vote for “pro-life candidate Donald Trump.”
In the 2016 election, from a pro-life viewpoint, Hillary Clinton was a known “evil.” But the pro-life newsletter presented Trump as a known “good.” Actually, from a pro-life viewpoint, he was and is an unknown. To vote for an unknown over a known evil is understandable. But the newsletter portrayed him as a known good-guy, as if to shame everyone who did not vote for him, and that is inaccurate. Not voting for either candidate was a valid action in that election. (I took that action.)
A later edition of that same newsletter praised Republicans for not only accepting pro-lifers but also trying to lower property taxes. Reducing property taxes can threaten some public services, and the pro-life movement should be open-tent about that issue.
It is simplistic to call Trump pro-life. For most of his life, he was proudly pro-abortion. Maybe he felt he had to stop antagonizing pro-life people, in order to run for president as a Republican. But he still gloried in the sexual exploitation of women, which is one source of unwanted pregnancies. (In fact, were not some of the reasons Hugh Hefner and his male-condoners promoted abortion to allow a man to exploit a woman sexually with fewer unwanted consequences and to reduce a woman’s society-accepted justifications for rejecting sexual advances?) Candidate Trump also mocked handicapped people.
And with President Trump, what do we get? Eliminating child deduction from income taxes! Proclaiming that what John McCain said during his last year doesn’t count, “because he’s dying.” (As if one should hope he would die speedily.) Putting people with alleged histories of having fun sexually exploiting women into high positions. (Though if a Democrat had nominated someone like Brett Kavanagh, at least before the #MeToo movement, would people who objected to him be mocked as “religious right”?) Separating refugee children from their parents and confining them in bad conditions. Calling for parades showing off our big weapons. (Around the time of the 1976 Bicentennial, a newspaper letter noted approvingly that our parades, unlike those in other countries, did not show off big military weapons. This was American exceptionalism; this was one reason why America was great.)
Carol Crossed’s review provides us with examples of conservatives and Republicans promoting abortion and, before Roe, liberals and Democrats opposing it. One example was “a liberal Democrat whose statement for unborn protection was coupled with opposition to the Viet Nam War and the death penalty.”
Post-Roe, I personally have had acquaintances whose support of abortion and euthanasia is part of their military hawkishness and support of the death penalty. Now the media acknowledges the existence of pro-abortion conservatives and Republicans, but almost never mentions pro-life people who are “liberal” on just about every other issue. An exception was the Village Voice—both in its willingness to print Nat Hentoff columns and its printing this century of a letter from someone else who said her (I think it was a her) opposition to abortion and opposition to the death penalty were part of the same philosophy.
Several conservative policies and goals pressure people to believe they have “no choice” but to submit to abortion and death-hastening. These include welfare family caps, the repeal of tax exemptions for children, pushing private schools (which increase the cost of raising children), and allowing health insurance premiums to rise drastically while cutting coverage (along with promoting discount plans that do not cover life-accepting treatments for the severely ill and disabled).
Monica with baby Maura
Wanting to belong to something is very real. Parties too small to win elections can still have influence and provide political homes for their adherents. For consistent-lifers uncomfortable with both the Democratic and Republican parties, a post on this blog (December, 2017, by Monica Sohler) recommended the American Solidarity Party. This Party’s platform has many admirable points, and for consistent lifers who are religious Christians it could be the right thing. But I’m looking for something whose tent is open to non-Christians, pagans, atheists, and agnostics (and as something more than conversion-material), as well as devout Christians. Something which holds that certain principles are right, whether or not God ordered them.
===========================
For posts on similar topics, see:
The History of Framing the Arguments
Pro-Life Voting Strategy: A Problem without an Answer
For posts on conservatives in the consistent life ethic, see:
Why Conservatives Should Oppose the Death Penalty
Making the Case for Peace to Conservatives
Nukes and the Pro-Life Christian: A Conservative Takes a Second Look at the Morality of Nuclear Weapons
The ASP is open to all with a consistent life ethic. We are rightfully called a Christian Democratic party, which is a political philosophy that is throughout Europe and Latin America. Take Mexico’s PAN, for instance. We are a secular party, as we, almost to a person, recognize there is a role for the Church and a disparate role for the state.
The ASP does include non-Christians, as not only Christians support a #WholeLife ethic. Membership is predominantly people of Faith but we are a party that welcomes all who support our basic platform.
It is true that most supporters of the American Solidarity Party have a Christian worldview. This is a natural demographic for a party that value the lives and dignity of all people, from conception through natural death.
However, the party itself isn’t itself religious in nature. The party has members of all the major religions including those of no faith (atheists) and is equally welcoming to any who support the whole-life values regardless of any particular religious adherence.
The platform of the American Solidarity Party is consistent with Christian values but there is nothing exclusively Christian in our platform. We welcome anyone who shares the values of that platform, including “non-Christians, pagans, atheists, and agnostics” and we do not proselytize our members.
I was not trying to discourage anyone from embracing the American Solidarity Party, and I apologize if my post seemed to do so. For many people, it is the right thing.
What made me feel it might not be for everybody are sentences in its website that it is “Christian”-based. Thank-you for enlightening me that it “has members of all the religions, including those of no faith.”
I once went to a right-to-life rally, where I didn’t know anyone there, and it ended up that people seemed to treat it as a church picnic. A priest walked by thanking certain individuals for coming by name. A woman talked about a nursing home patient who was converting to Catholicism.
It was a very friendly group, good for each other, but they didn’t understand why I came if I weren’t at least considering converting to Catholicism. I felt out of place.
Christianity is one of the many religions in which one can find both “love thy neighbor” and “death to infidels” messages. Hopefully, from it one will pluck the “love thy neighbor” messages, mix them with “love thy neighbor” messages from other religions, and discard the hostile messages.
One website sentence mentioned the ASP follows “Christian Democrat” principals. What information I could find quickly about the Christian Democrat Parties of continental Europe suggested they originated in the 1800’s in support of various principals. In the information I found no mention that including “Christian” in its name was to discourage non-Christians, but that information was superficial, and I read it hastily. Of course, currently many movers and shakers today are more ecumenical than their equivalents were in the 1900’s. After World War II, there might have been a big change. Still the word “Christian” in an organization’s name can discourage some people. That the ASP doesn’t have any religious indication in its name makes me feel more comfortable with it.
Does the ASP have any affiliation with European parties that call themselves “Christian Democrat”? Is there some international affiliation of “Christian Democrat” parties, which the ASP tries to conform to?
Any way, there are a few some specific points in the ASP program that I have questions about or could take issue with (public support of private schools, and “proportional representation.”) But these would require essays in themselves.
On the other hand, I agree with the ASP’s position that people should be allowed to display religious symbols, as long as there is no force. I hope this includes allowing Muslim women to wear headscarfs in public, at school, on the beach, etc.
My city has many Muslims and nominal Muslims, immigrants and their children. In the high school, one picture of class officers showed most of them as girls wearing headscarfs. At the same time, I know a Muslim high school girl who does not wear a headscarf. And the Muslim girls with headscarfs, and the Muslim girls with no headscarfs, and the non-Muslims all go to class together. That’s a situation that should be.
But in general, I admire a lot about the ASP and wish it well.
Ms. Booomer-ang,
It’s interesting that you should mention the Christian Democratic parties of Europe. The American Solidarity Party actually grew out of a movement to establish a Christian Democratic party in the United States modeled after those in Europe. Before changing to its present name, the American Solidarity Party was known as the “Christian Democratic Party USA.”
As you have noted, the word “Christian” in the organization’s name (as well as “Democratic”) evoke some negative feelings from people, and the understanding of the term “Christian Democrat” is very different in the United States as compared to Europe. Naturally, we try to educate people to understand what it means to us; that we are not merely the “Christian” wing of the Democratic Party, nor a group seeking to impose Christianity through the democratic process. I can’t speak about it first-hand, but I’m guessing the name change was motivated largely by a desire to avoid such misunderstandings.
Despite this, the American Solidarity Party continues to affirm its connection to European-style Christian Democracy and to many of the same political thinkers and social movements that formed its foundation. It just so happens that many of them originated from a Christian world-view, but many of the same values exist among people who aren’t Christian. Much like the present-day Christian Democratic parties that continue to wield considerable influence in Europe, (Angela Merkel’s CDU being one example), we are very much proponents of religious freedom for people of *all* faiths (or none at all).
Like any political party, we are not monolithic, and there are some things on which party members disagree. That’s to be expected, especially since we attract people from both major parties, but there are quite a few things most of us have in common. A big one is having a consistent life (or whole life) ethic. Another big one is that sense of political homelessness among the two major parties, just as you described above. A great many of us also believe we can no longer work within the framework of our existing two-party system to achieve the application of a consistent life ethic.
It remains a challenge for the ASP to find the right balance between defining strong stances (which differentiate us from the two major parties and motivate our members) and remaining broad enough to build a strong coalition of people whose views on certain “secondary” issues may remain in lockstep with either of the two major parties. I think we’re on the right track, though, and I’m hopeful that many others who find themselves politically homeless for want of consistent life in America will make their home with the ASP.
You say the ASP “continues to affirm its connection to European-style Christian democracy,”but you also said “a big” thing “most of us have in common” is “a consistent life ethic.”
But a Wikipedia list of prominent Christian Democrats include a prime minister of the Netherlands, and have not all recent Dutch prime ministers been enthusiastic proponents of abortion and euthanasia?
Is the ASP, despite its Christian Democrat roots, independent enough of the current Christian Democrat world to go its own way and hold firmer to consistent life principals?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsaB3ynIZH4
Trump does not mock the handicapped.
Jerry C. Stanaway