Catholics and the Political Spectrum

I ran across this little editorial on social media. The title of the article is "Catholics should identify neither as liberal nor conservative." I saw the article posted on a fairly conservative Catholic social media news group. That particular group, which I will not name here, has a fair share of self proclaimed liberal folks who chime in on the comments as well as the target conservative crowd who lean toward the "rad trad." I don't particularly care for the Facebook group in question, but it does have its utility. While I am something of a horse of a different color when it comes to American politics, I like to keep tabs on what various Catholic groups are talking and/or griping about. 

While the article is not especially well written (it is a short editorial after all), I tend to agree with the sentiment of the title at least. The author kind of rambles a bit about Charlie Kirk and then the hysteria over the Pope's new appointment as the new Archbishop of New York to succeed the retiring Cardinal Dolan.  

Now, I don't live in New York, neither the state nor the archdiocese. As I am at the end of the day just a good old country boy, I have no idea why anyone would. I also have no dog in the Archdiocese of New York bishop horse race. I also don't have a strong opinion on Charlie Kirk. His death was a travesty, don't get me wrong, but his body of work had a utility (I am all for open and robust debates of any sort in any place at any time), but he was essentially a professional provocateur. I even said at one point a few months before he was shot after watching some of his videos that he needed to be careful or some nut was going to take a pot shot at him at some point. I had envisioned something more along the lines of a flying sucker punch or a Salman Rushdie style knife-wielding goon attack than a JFK style sniper attack. Sadly, I was proven far to prescient on that for my comfort. 

I do generally agree with the sentiment this Kenneth Craycraft writes about. He kind of goes off the rails a bit near the end of the article, and does seem to engage in too many buzzwords and generalities for my taste. I would have been inclined, had I written the article, to make a more persuasive argument. I wish he would have fleshed out the fact that both major parties in America now are, in fact, liberal parties. 

We use monikers like "conservative" and "liberal" now as both identifiers and epithets without really critically analyzing what they mean. To quote a famous line and meme from a film, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." 

The fact of the matter is that both Republicans and Democrats in 21st century America for the most part are both descendants of FDR's New Deal. There are very few true Jeffersonian agrarian conservatives left in the American political scene, at least on the Federal level. There are a few here in there on local and state levels, but they are largely muted and keep to themselves. I mean, when was the last time you heard a so-called neo-Conservative argue for meaningful Federalism where States are the masters over the Federal government, and that the Federal government is truly just a Constitutional agent of the States? Modern Conservatives have largely been taken over by those who have absolutely no problem with the Federal government completely governing America from the center, as long as it's their boy with the keys to the Federal car. Once the Democrats take power, oh, but hear them howl over Federal controll, but it's Trump in the House of White-drop those bombs all over the world and take over Greenland by force, by golly jeepers. Caesar can do no wrong as long as he's our Caesar.  

The political Left is no better. In some ways, they are just farther to the Left than the Republicans are. Republicans are fine with living as New Deal Democrats and have been largely since the 1950s. They are just where Democrats were on issues 25 to 35 years ago. Democrats just wanted to take the New Deal and go even further down and create a Newer Deal and an even Newer Deal. I would argue Federal level Republicans are still the same in terms of platforms as the Radical Republicans of Lincoln's Day. Tariffs, interventionism, Imperial Presidency, and all that. Nothing new in any of this. Trump's just re-upped the Teddy Roosevelt bully pulpit for modern audiences. 

Regardless of whether or not you agree with my assessments, where does that leave Catholics? Sadly, Catholics are just as polarized as the rest of America. And despite the wringing of hands in the media, we are not more polarized now than we were in the past. We've always been polarized in this country. Henry Clay when he became Speaker of the House had to set rules that US Representatives could not bring their war dogs onto the floor of the House and House debate would not be suspended for members to go off and have gun duels. 

Sadly, Catholics are just as easily prone to making politics their god. In God We Trust, but in Party We Believe. The beauty of Catholic social teaching is that it envisions a totally unique 3rd Way that is neither Socialist Collectivist nor Laissez-Faire Capitalist. There must be a balance of subsidiarity and solidarity. Local control is best to deal with a problem, but also a preferential option for the poor and marginalized. It really is quite different than the solutions proffered by uniparty of Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs in Washington, DC. 

Despite the pigeonholing we want to cram ourselves into, we serve the Kingdom of God and not the Kingdom of Man.