Video Meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor

Are Catholics Really Politically Homeless?

From John Allen's column:

Here's a thought exercise: In the abstract, what would the political fortunes be in America of a candidate who actually embodied the full range of Catholic social concerns? What would happen if a serious candidate came along who's pro-life, pro-family, anti-war, pro-immigrant, anti-death penalty, pro-sustainable development, and a multi-lateralist in foreign policy concerned with religious freedom and a robust role for believers in public life? My hunch is that such a candidate could be attractive to a broad cross-section of moderates and independents. The machinery of both major parties, however, appears almost designed to prevent such a person from ever being nominated.

It's very helpful that Allen fleshes out what he considers Catholic issues although the devil would appear to be in the details:

Pro-life, pro-family: The Republican party still seems operative here. From a resistance to gay marriage to tax breaks for families to the pro-life judges Bush apppointed, I'm not sure how much more you could reasonably expect though McCain's support of embryonic stem cell research is obviously a significant blemish.

anti-war: Allen quotes a young theologian: "I can't help thinking that both parties are addicted to preemptive strikes," he told me, "whether it's in the womb or on the battlefield." The Iraq War wasn't a preemptive strike since it was a product of Saddam Hussein's flouting of the Gulf War ceasefire, but the general talk and tenor of the Republican side is discomfiting. And while torture, a preemptive strike of sorts, isn't going on now, waterboarding has gone on in the past. But it's something the current nominee has repudiated.

pro-immigrant: Sigh. Does this mean pro-open border? Does it mean not erecting a fence along the southern border? The Republican party is of course pro-immigrant. Does Allen mean pro-illegal immigrant? I suppose what he might mean is greatly increased immigration quotas. If so, I wish he'd said it.

anti-death penalty: True enough. I'm not sure this issue deserves to be in the same group as the other issues listed given the magnitude of the other issues and given that the death penalty is not an intrinsic evil. There were 42 executions in the U.S. in 2007.

pro-sustainable development: the defintion is development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This is a big umbrella involving a lot of issues economic and environmental and I think it's a structural problem, perhaps inherent in a democracy, since our representatives will think short-term in order to keep their job. In an instant gratification culture this is going to be a tough sell. There's very little natural consistency for either balanced budgets or alternative energy unless gas is $5 a gallon.

multi-lateralist in foreign policy concerned with religious freedom: The clause "concerned with religious freedom" is a big one, and it does seem that the current incarnations of the Democrat & Republican parties are not acting with other countries in a concerted effort to combat religious persecution.

a robust role for believers in public life: Republican party still arguably fits. George W. Bush by all accounts is a fervent Christian who also had a robust role in that he led the country.

So, in my opinion (worth what you paid) of Allen's four issues that are neither utopian nor relatively minor nor a non-sequitor, the Republicans are good on two of them (pro-life and role for believers) and perhaps not so good on two (religious freedom and anti-war, although with the latter I'm basing that mostly on rhetoric).

But of course this begs the question: how could those who are to be "in the world but not of it" even expect a political party to perfectly match up to their beliefs and aspirations?