#morethanredandblue: Part 2

Here is Part 2 of my Theology on Tap talk, More Than Red and Blue.

You can read the explanation and Part 1 of the talk in my previous post.

* * *

So building on the foundation of these seven themes, let’s move to election issues and party politics in our country. We can then use the calls of these themes to refilter social issues and consider our response that way.

Historically, Catholics are a swing vote. We have split almost 50/50 in each of the last four elections, and we have actually sided in majority with the winner in every election since 1956. So, even if our states are fairly predictably “red” or “blue,” the larger popular vote is important for political trends, campaign strategies, and mandate arguments – our vote matters in many different ways.

Let’s start with a simple foundational issue and show one major fundamental reason why Catholics can’t really fall into line with either party totally: government spending, taxes, and welfare and charity. So, which side is right? Which fits Catholic social teaching? Think of rights and responsibilities – how can we protect access to the things needed to live, prosper, and develop? How can we best be responsible to our brothers and sisters? Think of solidarity – how can we best be mindful of all other people as our brothers and sisters? Think about the Preferential Option – how can we explicitly consider the poor and marginalized in our personal, communal, and social decisions?

Well, let’s consider the basic stance of each party. First, the Democrats… As liberals, Democrats typically favor robust taxes that create significant revenue for the government, which can then support public services and programs that help and support people. Let’s paint this picture using a scene from one of my all-time favorite shows, The West Wing: Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman is working on the administration’s response to a budget surplus – a true sign of the show’s being a fictional program! Josh’s secretary Donna wants to receive her share of the surplus back as a cash refund. Josh tells her he would rather combine her portion, which would be about $700, with everyone else’s cut to pay down some of the national debt and endow social security. However, Donna wants to buy a new DVD player, which she says will support the economy. Josh tells her she may buy a foreign item, which wouldn’t help the US. So Donna finally demands to know why she can’t have her money back. Josh says she can’t have it “because we’re Democrats." Check out the link on Twitter.

Clips from The West Wing on gov't spending and revenue - "because we're Democrats" https://t.co/hl9v5Ou4Uz #morethanredandblue

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) July 21, 2016

When it comes to living out the calls of Christ in social teaching, this approach by Democrats can be effective or can struggle. Taxes can help guarantee that a certain amount of money will come in to the government, which can then utilize it to ensure and sustain a certain amount of social programs. When it comes to people’s rights and our call to opt for the poor and marginalized, these programs in welfare, unemployment, food assistance, housing programs, and more can lay a foundational framework for aiding those in need. These realities ensure a steady flow of support. On the other hand, the government can at times be vulnerable to weaknesses such as bureaucratic complications, political leverages, and systemic inefficiency – look no further than the Illinois budget crisis for some evidence of these issues. All of this can lead one to doubt whether legally compelling tax money to go to government programs is the best way to live out these social calls.

So let’s consider the Republicans then… As conservatives, Republicans typically favor tax cuts that strive to cap the size of government and its revenue and thus limit it to only minimal, essential tasks. This keeps more money in the hands of citizens to spend, save, invest, donate, etc. as they choose. To see this principle in action, let’s flip to a few weeks ago: Speaker Paul Ryan, who is Catholic, said of a newly rolled-out poverty-fighting plan,

“No amount of government intervention can replace the great drivers of American life: our families, friends, neighbors, churches, and charities… And Americans do not need more one-size-fits-all, top-down government programs that limit their ability to get ahead. Instead, they need opportunities to help them escape poverty and earn success.” …

I’m tweeting a link to an article with Ryan’s comments.

Words from GOP @SpeakerRyan on his party's plan to fight poverty, a microcosm of Rep. philosophy https://t.co/NWSbekP1tG #morethanredandblue

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) July 21, 2016

When it comes to living out the calls of Christ, this strategy, too, can be effective or struggle. Lower taxes can keep more money in the hands of private citizens, who can then select the destinations for the money, whether investment, spending, or charity. Then the free market creates competition, ideally funneling funding to the most effective programs which then put it toward social justice. When it comes to people’s rights and our call to opt for the poor and marginalized, this allows people’s free will to respond to the realities of those in need in the ways their conscience feels is best rather than putting most of that money into the hands of government. This supports the social principle of subsidiarity that aims to keep social action at the most local level possible. On the other hand, if the economy struggles or people don’t take the initiative to invest, spend, and donate, then support for those in need could dwindle while there is also less of a foundational baseline of public programs from the government to hold it up. These problems can make one feel that more money should be allocated to compulsory programs that guarantee that more need is met.

So, foundationally, both approaches have strengths and weaknesses that have the potential to effectively respond to the social realities we face. Neither one is perfect, and both can be enactments of the calls of social teaching. This is why we as Catholics are often split in terms of ideology and partisan affiliation, because there are pros and cons to the character of each stance. So let’s try to look at some key issues in terms of the Catholic Social Teaching elements at play and provide a refreshed starting point to our stances.

Coming up next in Part 3: Examining Physician-Assisted Suicide.