Congratulations, Mr. President!
Although it largely went below the radar in the United States, the European Union passed another milestone with the selection of Herman Van Rompuy as its first president (well, technically he’s president of the European Council!). Van Rompuy is the Christian Democratic former prime minister of Belgium, a man who is committed to Catholicism and European integration. In this, he follows in the footsteps of the great Christian Democrats who came before him, people like Adenauer, Schuman, and de Gespari. As Austen Ivereigh notes, this is a man who once gave a talk on Caritas in Veritate, and made the following remarks:
“According to [Catholic] social doctrine, the political community is at the service of the civil society from which it is born. Civil society represents the sum total of the goods, cultural or relational, which are relatively independent of politics and the economy. The state should make sure that the legal framework allows the social actors (societies, associations, organisations, and so on) to carry out their activities in total freedom; it should be ready to intervene, only if needed and in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, in order that the interaction between freedom of association and the democratic way leads in the direction of the common good.”
Could you imagine an American political leader, of any party, giving such a speech? There is really no authentic Christian Democratic tradition in the United States, merely two variants of liberalism. What many forget is that the European Union was a fundamentally Catholic idea, twinning anti-nationalist instincts with notions of subsidiarity. We should support it.
Comments are closed.
“What many forget is that the European Union was a fundamentally Catholic idea…”
Ummmm, then why are the supporters of the EU so opposed to the idea of mentioning Christianity in the Constitution and why do they punish voters, where they have the choice, to vote on the Lisbon Treaty (thus violating the principle of subsidiarity)???
Perhaps, MM, you have fallen for the fatal potion and cringe that many in Western societies outside of Europe fall for: “it must be better because it is European”.
Great quote. Would that we heard such things more from our public servants.
A tenet of Christian Democracy is indeed the recognition of Europe’s Christian heritage. Indeed, Mr. Van Rompuy’s appointment was criticized by Turkey for his identification of the European experiment with the Christian heritage. Of course, there is a vibrant secular left tradition in Europe too that opposes such a link – so what? The fact is, while the US has a secular left, it has no Christian Democratic movement to tmeper it – it only has an ultra-national liberalism that happens to append to religious principles to it in the most artificial manner. Look at the garbage produced by the “American Principles Project”. Remember, Christian Democrats believe in the social market, right out of Catholic social teaching.
As for Lisbon, you will recall that when the Irish voters understood the stakes, they voted yes. And the Irish bishop were big supporters.
Europe isn’t particularly religious anymore in the sectarian sense but I’d argue that actual humanitarian actions speak much louder than the chest-thumping ostentatious, on-the-streetcorner-praying-loudly-for-all-to-see Christianity whose society isn’t really all that Christian. Sure, here Jesus is mentioned all the time, but usually used for purposes that’d prompt Jesus to string together rope again. Didn’t he say something like Call me Lord all you want but if you pull this kinda crap you’re on
your own?
It is true the United States has a secular Left but not much of a Christian Democratic movement. But we should also understand that Christian Democracy is secular Christianity. I am not saying that is bad. It is a secular political movement based on Catholic social principles but not a confessional or sectarian movement. It adapts and evolves in line with the discernment of its members, and is not bound to the teachings or position of any churchman.
The element of Christian Democracy most missing from the civic discussion in this country is the importance it give to intermediate institutions. As is written above:
The state should make sure that the legal framework allows the social actors (societies, associations, organisations, and so on) to carry out their activities
Of course, trade unions are the most commonly referenced example of the above, but faith based groups, PTAs, credit unions, professional organizations, the AARP, etc. also fit this description.
Kurt,
I would argue that intermediary institutions are where the EU is weakest. Too often, the Commission merely seeks to take powers from national governments for itself. It imposes regulation (not that I’m a market fundamentalist who thinks all regulation is bad) the compliance with which is particularly difficult for small businesses (or small Eastern European farmers, for example). The whole notion of the single market is flawed from a Distributist standpoint (an economic view that truly prizes intermediary institutions and economic activity on a human scale).
I think the EU bureaucracy is too secular to adopt the philosophical vision of the EU’s Christian Democratic founders (or current leaders like Van Rompuy) – it’s basically divided between Social Democrats and New Labour-like culturally liberal (and economically center-left) meritocrats.
I disagree with Zak. First off, what is wrong with the Commission seeking powers from national governments? I believe it is a good thing to clamp down on nationalism. Many Christian Democrats support the concept of the “Europe of the regions”, with high level coordination at the supranational level (the European Council, the European Commission, and the ECB) aligned with the devolution of power to the regions – subsidiarity that bypasses the nation state.
On the supranational dimension, I believe it is in accord with Catholic principles (I’m talking of the structure alone). Recall the pope’s message on the world political authority:
” To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority”
The benefit of the single market is that it knocks down false barriers – if you oppose this, do you also oppose the single market between 50 US states?
Kurt, I would argue that intermediary institutions are where the EU is weakest. Too often, the Commission merely seeks to take powers from national governments for itself.
I think there are significant example to the contrary. For example, the EU directive for “Works Councils” for the employees in large, multinational companies. Over 10 million European workers participate in the non-governmental Works Councils. They are not trade unions but have information and consultation rights with company management. Having once represented Electrolux’s — a Swedish firm — North American production employees, I had some exposure to its Works Council and was impressed at this means of employee representation.
You don’t get a Europe of the regions. You get a Europe of the subranational institutions.
I’d oppose the U.S. federal government’s authority overruling that of local, representative governments, which is what it sometimes does and what the E.U. is doing more and more often. I don’t think there should be trade barriers. But if Bavaria wants to have blue laws that restrict how stores can be open on Sunday, then they should be able to. It’s only a matter of time before there’s an EU directive on that. Why can’t you sell ale by the pint in England? Why do EU regulations have to control how Romanian farmers slaughter their pigs or how vodka bottles are labeled in Sweden? Why do Swedes, who don’t pay taxes in the UK, get to send there children to universities in the UK at the same tuition rates as Britons? You honestly think that this is subsidiarity?
Meanwhile, European courts rule that the Polish government owes a woman money because she couldn’t get an abortion, so her child lived and she has to support him. The supranational institutions serve themselves, as all bureaucracies (public and private) tend to do.
Kurt,
That is interesting, and something with which I was unfamiliar. It sounds a little like the supervisory boards at German companies. I’ll have to read about it further.
I still think overall in terms of regulation, the EU tends to arrogate power for itself, and when debates about regulation and economics take place, it tends to be between liberals (Anglo-Saxons) and social democrats, with little interest in an alternate approach. As much as MM hates national governments, they are representative and accountable to their electorate, which the EU is not.
For all the disagreement we have on some issues, here I agree completely. I am a Christian Democrat in spirit, since I can’t be one as an American.