Seeking the
Redeeming Value
Redeeming Value
of Modern Liberalism
I read a particularly bad book last
week. To be honest, I actually read part
of a very bad book; then I literally tore it in two (it was a thin paperback)
and threw it in the trash. It was the
story of why some presumably famous media personality whom I had never heard
of, is a Democrat.
Anyone who reads this blog or knows me,
knows that, for all my conservatism, I am concerned with being a faithful
Catholic, not a faithful Republican, and I am interested in hearing from people
on the other side of the political aisle.
Though I am at no risk of becoming a DNC member, I know and respect people that are Democrats. And though I have no
inordinate attachment to the Republican Party, I have developed a solid disdain
for the Democrat Party. So I often wonder,
“What am I missing here?”
Last year I spent some time watching
MSNBC in the hopes of finding the redeeming quality of modern liberalism. However, that only reinforced popular
stereotypes. I recognized that the world
view and “morality,” not to mention the crassness, that was presented, was
repugnant to me. Of course, I don’t
suspect that MSNBC is a fair portrayal of the majority of Democrats. So the search continued.
Last week’s book, I’m sad to say, only
served to confirm the picture I’m developing.
The argument essentially went like this: Republicans want to get rid of
all public services; they only care about tax cuts, for the purpose of serving
the rich; and would do away with all government if they could, leaving everyone
to fend for themselves in a state of general anarchy.
On top of that, the religious
positions on issues like life and marriage are disingenuous, only adopted to
exercise control over the common man. It
was this last slander, along with the repeated foul language and sexual
innuendo, that led to the book lying in two equal pieces in my trash can.
The author essentially claimed that
the Republican Party is the party of “the 1%,” while Democrats are for “the
99%.” I’ve always found this argument
absurd. Elections are about
numbers. It doesn’t take a PhD to figure
out that 99-1 does not make for a competitive election.
Why would anyone pander to the richest
1%? What would be gained on election
day? Wait, it’s the money, right? This would give the Republicans a financial
edge to be able to buy elections. Nice
theory, perhaps, but reality kills it.
First of all, Republicans don’t typically have the financial edge, not
to mention they are fighting the mainstream media, who see themselves as an
essential wing of the Democrat Party.
Second, records consistently show that the Republican Party gets far
more donations of moderate size, under $1,000.
The largest donations regularly go disproportionately to the Democrats.
The argument about religious issues
doesn’t even deserve comment, except to say that the Democrats’ universal
support for the wrong side on these most essential issues is the reason no
Christian, with a truly well-formed conscience regarding politics, can support
the Democrat Party.
What about the claim about the size of
government, though? The author’s accusations
against Republicans in his book were meant to be outrageous, but also to point
to what he considered a reality – that the limited government position of
Republicans harms people, especially the poor.
This is the most common argument in favor of the Democrats from liberal
Christians.
First, it should be noted that many
people complain that we currently have two parties in the United States: the
party of big government and the party of bigger government. But what about the claim that a limited government
approach is mean-spirited or lacks compassion?
I believe quite strongly in limited
government and I am also deeply concerned about the poor and vulnerable. So this is an issue I want to consider
seriously. Are my positions inconsistent?
For all my studies, I am not an expert
on either government or moral theology, but I do not think I am being
inconsistent. We live in an age of
extreme secularism, and the more power the state has, the more it imposes its
will.
As a Catholic, I believe in the principle
of subsidiarity, as well as the place of the Church in building society, and
the family as the primary building block of any culture.
We have seen big governments rob
people of religious liberty, direct family life according to their own wills,
and destroy economic freedom. This is
happening in Asia, Africa, Europe, Canada, and now the United States. Big government has always tried to supplant
God in the lives of its citizens, from ancient Rome, through the scourge of
Communism, to modern socialist “democracies.”
The United States was founded on the
principle of a limited, unobtrusive government.
I think it is very important that the government not overstep its bounds. Of course, I think that the functions that
are proper to the role of government should be exercised according to Catholic
social principles, such as the dignity of the human person and the preferential
option for the poor.
What, really, is the difference
between Republicans and Democrats? With
a country more polarized than ever, and our differences stemming mainly from
world views rather than prudential policy matters, we could give many answers. I think at a foundational level it comes down
to the answer to this question: What is the fundamental institution on which a
society is built?
Set aside for a moment the
Church. It is true that the intimate
relationship between Church and state during Christendom led to arguably the
highest cultural moments of our history.
But, though the Founders would have said religion is essential to a
well-ordered society, I don’t think the Church as an institution was what our
nation was founded on, nor is it likely ever to be.
Back to the question, then. What is the fundamental institution on which
a society is built? If you are a Republican,
you probably answered, the family. If
you are a Democrat, you probably answered, the government. This characterizes the parties and not every
individual member of each party, but if you disagree, you are probably in the
wrong party. That is the key
difference. Unfortunately, the
Republican Party is far less devoted to the family than the Democrat Party is
to the government.
As Catholics, the answer is
clear. This is the main reason most
practicing Catholics are now Republicans.
This characterization of the parties has not always been true, but the
divide is widening every election. The
issues that we so passionately oppose the Democratic Party on – life, marriage,
government usurpation of religious liberty, parental rights and individual
freedoms – are symptoms that stem from this difference in world view.
Every healthy society is founded on a
strong family. Societies founded on
large governments become dominated by interest groups that run society into the
ground morally and economically (sound familiar?) until dictatorship emerges.
So where are we? Without a fundamental change in our culture,
we have two likely futures. If we’re
lucky, we’ll become Spain. If we’re unlucky,
we’ll become Pakistan. Of course, Spain
may also become Pakistan. Is there
time? In natural terms, I would say,
no. This November may have proven that
we have reached critical mass, and that the wrecking ball will only swing
faster. Of course, as a Christian, I
don’t see things through a purely natural lens.
Supernaturally, there is always hope, even for natural institutions like
nations. With God all things are
possible. So we Catholics had better
fight as hard on a spiritual level as on a political level.
And
if nothing else, we need to make our homes and families places of refuge. Little islands of sanity in an insane
world. And may the Lord give us guidance
as we traverse these treacherous times and seek to be a light in the darkness.
