I give everything you write a “fair read,” because we’re 99% in agreement philosophically, and only in disagreement on a couple particular issues.

One of my biggest claims for years has been that, historically, we need the formation of a third party to solve our country’s problems. If you look at the antebellum Democrats and Whigs, they were pretty much the same as the Democrats and Republicans today. The Whigs were an uneasy coalition of Evangelicals and Northern Capitalists. The coalition broke up, and the Evangelicals formed the GOP.

Bob Casey’s my ideal governor; Ron Paul’s my ideal president. *That* is where I believe the American state-federal system is perfectly suited to Catholic social teaching, but the dichotomous nature of our party system won’t allow most Catholics to accept it.

I’ve always said that if I were successful in politics, I would run as a big-time socialist at the local level: push for mass transit, city recycling programs, decency laws, health care, etc., but breaking down the educational bureaucracy and putting more power in parents’ hands. Then a more modified social program at the state level. Then run for federal office as a strict constructionist libertarian.

I imagined myself campaigning for Senate or president saying, “look at what I accomplished as Mayor and Governor! See what localities can do on their own? We don’t need the federal government involved!”

Then I found a candidate who said that very thing–Mike Huckabee–and the GOP and Talk Radio labelled him a “socialist” and “too moralistic.”

Actually, I think not. Under the able hand of Sargent Shriver (and please pray for him; he is quite ill) this was exactly the focus of the War on Poverty. It was under Nixon that the community action element came under attack. The Republicans were much more open to leaving alone the amount of tax dollars spent on the War on Poverty, it was the community action component that had their wrath, mostly because it actually DID empower people in their communities.

For more background on this, read about the late Msgr. Geno Baroni.

Thanks for giving my piece a fair read.

There is a reason, at the end, that I call for a third party, a Catholic party.

Keep in mind that I do not believe that the goal of a third party must necessarily be to compete against, and defeat, either major party at the national or even state level.

The goal could be to a) capture local authority, b) sponsor local initiatives, c) pressure/discipline the major parties. Perhaps you and others are satisfied with the current crop of third parties; me, not so much.

I guess speaking as a conservative, though, I don’t necessarily feel like I’m recognizing some of the failings you point out as my own. So for instance, while it’s true that you often see conservatives arguing that certain issues should be left to the states, you often don’t see them pushing for the states to do much either. Your characterization of conservatives wanting government at all levels to “leave us alone” is more along the right lines, I’d say. States rights is more of an incremental step along that path.

Does it not sound heretical in modern America to hear the State spoken of as a victim of the corrosive influence of individualism? More important, however, is the observation that “there remain virtually only individuals and the State.” Clearly, this is not a good thing.

I’m not sure if it sounds heretical, but it certainly is something I’d agree with. Modern individualist invests the state with responsibilities it cannot possibly fulfill.

Now I guess the thing is, it seems to me that much of what the state needs to do is “leave us alone” so that we can regrow our subsidiary institutions. I take your point on “encouraging” their growth, but I would tend to think that one of the main things that the government might need to do in order to encourage the growth of subsidiary institutions is not provide for the needs which subsidiary institutions would otherwise cover.

This also leaves us to ask how serious we are about wanting community rather than individualism. Human behavior would seem to indicate that many of us (possibly for sinful or anti-social reasons, but by desire nonetheless) do not want to rely on community rather than the state. Relying on community means getting along with others and knowing that if we offend them or are too different from them, they may not be there for us when we need them.

Certainly, the Holy Fathers say we need to balance subsidiarity with common good–but they also leave up to us how we see them best balanced.

The key that you are missing is that subsidiarity emphasizes the *family*. Every formulation of subsidiarity I’ve read, in the Catechism, the Code of Canon Law, Mater et Magistra, etc., emphasizes that the family is the fundamental unit of society, and that government exists to protect the family.

That would be the proper formulation of all Catholic social teaching, showing *how* subsidiarity, solidarity and Natural Law should be balanced: in a fashion that best ennobles the family.

The Church does not prescribe a particular political system as such. However, it is obvious that Bl. Pius IX, at least, favored the “states’ rights” conception of America, as he supported the Confederacy.

What is *missing* in most of the 20th Century encyclicals, particularly post-Vatican II, is recognition of Original Sin. We’re told “God made everyone and everything good.” We’re toold to presume goodwill, which really goes against the most basic teaching of Christianity. Indeed, it goes against the various encyclicals condemning freemasonry on the grounds that freemasonry presumes goodwill of non-Catholics.

And, yes, Republicans are just as bad. That’s why most pro-life homeschooling Catohlics I know vote third party.

As for the pseudo-conservatives in America, it’s a little ironic that they (ab)use the notion of subsidiarity to push free markets, while at the same time (i) having no problem with the enormous military of the nation state; (ii) doing their best to crush the power of unions, which are the ideal subdidiary mediating institutions in the current economic structure.

The War on Poverty, for example, too often ignored existing efforts at community improvement as it established local branches of government bureaucracies. As a result, genuine community participation dwindled, as did grass-roots commitment to social improvement. I think it’s legitimate to ask today whether government-funded “community organizers” are actually seeking to reawaken that commitment rather than to enlist troops for more projects that may be remote from the needs and the best interests of the communities where they take place.

As for the third party business, perhaps the first step is building the guilds. Most of us spend most of our waking hours at work. Well, are there other Catholics there or in the same professional field with which to build community?

Yes it is true that a national party would not be possible for perhaps even a generation.

2. DEATH TO THIRD PARTIES. Okay, that might be extreme.

The two major parites are open and democratic. Both easily allow any political movement to exercize its proper influence within them. It simply requires such a movement’s followers to involve themselves.

Remember, democracy is not a spectator sport.