90 Degrees from Left and Right

CARA has been in the news recently regarding results from a survey about American Catholics’ awareness and use of the U.S. Bishops’ Faithful Citizenship document (these CARA Catholic Poll questions were commissioned by Fordham's Center on Religion and Culture). Regrettably, these results indicate that few Catholics were aware of or used Faithful Citizenship in 2008. It’s a shame because it is an extraordinary comprehensive statement of the Church’s teachings and positions on social and political issues. Recently re-released with a new introduction this document will again vie for Catholics’ attention in 2012. Although it is by no means meant to be a voting guide or checklist I do think it provides for an interesting hypothetical test for Catholic voters (...if you have not read it yet, what are you waiting for?).

What if Faithful Citizenship was not a document from the U.S. Bishops? What if instead it was a new political party platform? Would you vote for a “third party” that stood for what Faithful Citizenship stands for rather than cast your vote for the Democrats or Republicans? Looking at survey data I don’t think many American Catholics would. Catholics tend to put their party preference ahead of their faith. They often choose to emphasize the issues their party is consistent with Church teachings on and minimize or ignore those that it is not.

In many European and Latin American countries with a Catholic presence, religious parties have had success running on a Church-inspired platform (e.g., from Rerum Novarum or Quadragesimo Anno)—sometimes in coalition with other similar-minded Protestant groups. These parties have often called themselves “Christian Democrats” (no affiliation with the Democratic Party in the U.S.)

Why doesn’t the U.S. have a Christian Democrat Party? I think it would be challenging for any party with a religious reference in its name and inspiration to be successful given the culture of separation of church and state in the U.S. It is also the case that a significant Catholic presence in the population required waves of immigration that occurred well after the formation of the U.S. party system. The biggest limiting factor may be our electoral system—the method used to translate votes into seats. We do this the “old school” way of one seat per district going to the majority/plurality vote winner which often leads to the creation of two large parties (with internal sub-divisions coming to coalition before elections). It is winner take all and very, very British. The U.K. currently gets effectively 2.5 parties out of it (Tories, Labour, and Liberal Dems).

Losers get little in America. This is not the case in most other democracies (including predominantly Catholic countries like Belgium, Brazil, Costa Rica, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and others) where the primary alternative to the first past the post (FPTP) electoral system used in the U.S. and U.K. is proportional representation (PR). In a PR system there are multi-member districts and parties win seats in close proportion to their vote percentages. So if a party wins 20% of the vote they may get about 20% of the seats in the legislature. Such systems typically have at least four and often more political parties. If the United States were to shift to PR elections we would no longer have the Democrats and Republicans of today. More than likely these parties would split up into a social conservative party, a libertarian party, a labor party, and a variety of other single issue, regional, and social group parties. We might have a more visible green party led by Al Gore and the Tea Party movement might become a “real” party (note that America’s founders did not intend to create a system where parties would form and feared the problems caused by factionalism).

The electoral system used for U.S. presidential elections also helps reinforce the two-party system. There is of course only one office and it is awarded to the majority/plurality winner of 51 population-weighted state/DC elections (i.e., Electoral College system). For presidential elections in many other countries a two-round system is used. In these, a national vote with many candidates from many different parties is held first—kind of like one big national simultaneous primary. The top two vote getting candidates then go on to campaign more and face a second and final vote perhaps weeks later which then goes to the majority candidate. As with PR, this broadens the field and gives more room for multiple parties to develop and thrive (it also ensures a majority selection, unlike the Electoral College where a candidate winning a plurality or even a minority of popular votes can be elected).

In the United States we have room for only two parties in the legislature because losing in single-member districts is so costly. You may win 49.9% of the vote but have nothing to show for it. The costs and challenges for a third or fourth party to seriously enter and compete in American elections are extremely formidable. The electoral systems used in the U.S. make it difficult for a Christian Democrat type of party to emerge—even when one in four voters are Catholic (78% of voters in 2010 were either Catholic or Protestant).

I don’t think we will ever see significant changes to the U.S. electoral systems. But it is a useful thought experiment. This idea came to me after reading one of Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s blogs earlier this year which placed the U.S. Bishops in the uncomfortable left-right, two-party system context:

“One side usually blesses us when we preach the virtue of fiscal responsibility, the civil rights of the unborn, the danger of government-tampering with the definition of marriage, and the principle of subsidiarity …

Yet this same side then often cringes when we defend workers, speak on behalf of the rights of the undocumented immigrant, and remind government of the moral imperative to protect the poor.

The other side enjoys quoting us when we extol universal health care, question the death penalty, demand that every budget and program be assessed on whether it will help or hurt those in need, encourage international aid, and promote the principle of solidarity …

… and then these same folks bristle when we defend the rights of parents in education, those of the baby in the womb and grandma on her death bed, insist that America is at her best when people of faith have a respected voice in the public square, defend traditional marriage, and remind government that it has no right to intrude in Church affairs, but does have the obligation to protect the rights of conscience.

So, we bishops get both blessed and blasted, a friend or foe of bloggers, pundits, and politicians, depending on what the issue is.”

As Archbishop Dolan describes (and as Faithful Citizenship reads), the U.S. Bishops and the Church are stuck between the two parties.

Some of the Church’s stances can be found in the Democrat’s platform and others in the Republican’s platform as shown in the conceptual figure below. But really instead of being “stuck” in the middle, the Faithful Citizenship position (which might be most consistent with a Christian Democrat approach) is more conceptually about 90 degrees from either the Democrats or Republicans.

Surely some would argue that the Christian Democrat block would or should distort to the right or the left (e.g., some issues have more “gravity” than others) and in practice in Europe and Latin America, Christian Democrats have been in positions that would most often be considered center-right or center-left. Political theory assumes that if such a movement emerged in the U.S. it would position itself according to the issue preferences in the political system that would maximize its votes while maintaining as much of its core principles as possible.

Regardless, it is clearly not easy to be a Catholic Republican or a Catholic Democrat. Perhaps it is even more difficult to be Catholic and Libertarian which seems nearly 180 degrees away. The platform of the Libertarian Party has little if anything in common with a document like Faithful Citizenship (although it does share some positions in common with the Democrats and with the Republicans). Yet Libertarians have more of a history as a noticeable third party in the United States. According to an August 2011 survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, 16% of U.S. adults say they think of themselves as a Libertarian and in an October 2010 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, 5% of registered voters said they would consider voting for a Libertarian candidate for Congress. Greens have their own little corner in the American party system but are arguably more single-issue focused and less likely to ever draw broad appeal. Oddly, a Christian Democrat Party has no institutional place but there certainly seems to be a potential spot for it to bloom. Perhaps it could be the .5 of an American 2.5 parties similar to what is generated in the U.K. If anything the prospect of such a party provides a useful measure of how important partisanship is relative to one’s Catholic faith.

Note, I am in no way implying that the U.S. Bishops or clergy should or would have any involvement in the development and life of such a party (tax laws limit such activities) and I am certainly not making any case for theocracy. However, as in other democracies, a party created and led by lay people could emerge and compete for votes inspired by the teachings of the Church and its relevant positions on issues important to the country. I am also aware the Christian Democrat parties in Europe and Latin America have had their corruption and scandals. No party is perfect and of course both the Democrats and Republicans have had their fair share of similar problems. Finally, note (as mentioned elsewhere) I am a man without a party or a vote by choice. As a political scientist (and prior to that as a news reporter) I have chosen to be entirely detached from the political system and aspire to be as objective as I can. I am not registered to vote, I don't have tea parties or occupy things, and I do not affiliate as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Communist, Socialist, Anarchist, Fascist, Monarchist, etc. Nor am I a Christian Democrat (i.e., it's just not possible... yet!).

Pro-Life America: Is this a Spaghetti Western?

During a recent Republican Party presidential candidate debate, Texas governor Rick Perry said, “In the state of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you’re involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is you will be executed.” At the time of this comment, 234 inmates had received this “ultimate justice” in the state under his leadership.

For Catholics, the Catechism provides the following direction: “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means. … Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state had for effectively preventing crime … the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent’” (2267).

Never are the words “ultimate justice” (or justice in any form) used in connection with executing someone in current Catholic teachings. This is only something done when necessary in extraordinary situations (unlikely to exist at in the United States—including Texas). Why? It’s simple: “Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred” (Catechism, 2319).

But how many Catholics would side with Gov. Perry against the teachings of their Church? Surveys indicate most of them. Although Catholic approval of the death penalty has dropped from its peak height of 82% in 1985, still two-thirds of Catholics (65%) supported the policy in 2010.

But what of Catholicism and the pro-life movement? It is true that recent polls have indicated that a growing majority of Catholics consider themselves to be pro-life, however, many don’t seem to include the death penalty as an issue under this umbrella—even when it clearly is in the teachings of the Church (see Catechism, 2258-2330).

In 2010, about two-thirds of Catholics (65%) expressed opinions that were consistent with the Church’s opposition to abortion “on demand.” In addition to opposition to abortion for “any reason,” majorities of Catholics also oppose abortion in cases where the reason given is: not wanting any more children, low income or inability to afford more children, or the absence of marriage.

But Catholic attitudes regarding other reasons for abortion come with a few asterisks. Majorities—seven in ten or more—do think abortion should be possible when a woman’s health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, when pregnancy is the result of rape, or when there is a strong chance of “serious defect in the baby.”

There are even more wrinkles. Add euthanasia into the mix and you begin to question whether there really are any U.S. Catholics consistent with the Church on life issues. Nearly seven in ten U.S. Catholics (68%) supported physician assisted suicide for patients with terminal illnesses in 2010. The Church of course teaches that euthanasia is “morally unacceptable” (Catechism, 2277).

How many Catholics are consistent on all three life issues? The structure of survey questions make it difficult to come to a precise estimate. However, as an example, just more than one in ten U.S. adult Catholics oppose: 1) abortion if there is a strong chance of a birth defect for the child, 2) capital punishment for convicted murders, and 3) euthanasia for terminally ill patients who request this. Most express at least one attitude that is in conflict with Church teachings.

These results emerge when the questions are asked independently. The percentage rises a bit when all three are presented in the same question. Less than one in five adult Catholics (19%) in a recent CARA survey “strongly agreed” that “All human life, from conception to natural death, is sacred. For this reason, the taking of life—whether through abortion, the death penalty, or assisted suicide—is wrong.”

The largest conflicted group among Catholic adults includes those who oppose abortion on demand yet support the death penalty (about four in ten U.S. adult Catholics during the last decade and specifically in 2010; only about one in ten support abortion on demand and oppose the death penalty). Here there is a split identity—in one instance mostly consistent with Rome and in another more in line with American culture and history. You might call it a “Spaghetti Western-style” pro-life identity—a uniquely American re-invention of Church teachings with a bit of the old west thrown in. In America, many appear to put matters of guilt and innocence above the overall sanctity of life and believe that they can be faithful and support the execution of a “bad guy.” These sentiments may be an important part of the explanation for how the U.S. is one of the few democratic capitalist nations with a Christian majority population that still allows for and uses the death penalty for civilians (e.g., the others are Botswana and Uganda).

Above photo courtesy of nicksarebi at Flickr Creative Commons.

Could Parishes Fill the Social Welfare Gap?

 

During a recent Republican Party presidential candidate debate the following exchange took place as described in an ABC News story by Amy Bingham [You can also watch in the following YouTube video]:

CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer’s hypothetical question about whether an uninsured 30-year-old working man in coma should be treated prompted one of the most boisterous moments of audience participation in the CNN/Tea Party Express.

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself,” [Ron] Paul responded, adding, “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody…”

The audience erupted into cheers, cutting off the Congressman’s sentence.

After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted “Yeah!”

Paul, a doctor trained in obstetrics and gynecology, said when he got out of medical school in the 1960s “the churches took care of them.”

What could churches do today? What could Catholic parishes do more specifically? In the ongoing debates about the federal budget it is not unusual to see someone propose significant reductions or even an end to federal social welfare programs and that the country should instead rely on American churches and charities to fill the gap and help the needy and seniors.

For example, an article at American Vision (a self-described Christian non-profit organization that seeks to “restore America to its Biblical foundation—from Genesis to Revelation”) argues that, “Family, Church, and private charity can replace the Welfare State. ... [O]nly a small percentage of people truly do need wealth transfers in old age in order just to live a modest lifestyle, or especially just to survive. But once we reach that point, we are talking about an entirely different social circumstance: small cases can easily be met by private charity from families, businesses, and churches (as Paul commanded the churches to do by the way).”

In the Catholic blogosphere, similar arguments often include a reference to the principle of subsidiarity in an effort to engage the social teachings of the faith. The Catechism does note that, “The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.’ ... The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention” (1883, 1885).

However, this principle is limited to situations in which the local unit or community is able to address the problem(s) it is faced with (e.g., poverty, hunger, senior care). Could Catholic parishes be a significant part of a more local solution in replacing many of the functions of federal programs that provide assistance and health care to the poor and seniors? Is this a bit fairytale or a possible reality?

Data from a national survey of parishes for the Emerging Models of Pastoral Leadership project indicate that Catholic parishes in the United States have significant resources. For example, the average parish reports annual revenue of more than $695,000. Much of this, more than $477,000 per year on average, comes through weekly offertory collections from parishioners. However, the average parish has expenses of more than $626,000. This leaves little left over to deal with additional needs of the parish community that are not already being met in existing social assistance ministries and programs. Also, 30% of U.S. parishes indicate that their expenses exceed their revenue. Of those parishes reporting a deficit, the average size for the shortfall is 15.8% of revenue. Many of the parishes running deficits are in communities with some of the most dire economic conditions and therefore would have the most limited resources to respond to additional needs.

At the root of the issue is Catholic giving. If Catholic parishes are expected to take on significant new social assistance obligations (e.g., helping replace Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps) they would need significantly more in donations from parishioners than the current $9.57 given per registered household, per week (as estimated in the Emerging Models survey). Also, a strict adherence to the principle of subsidiarity would need some “elasticity” to allow for parishes within dioceses to cooperate so some of the parish collections from the wealthiest communities trickle over to parishes in communities facing higher levels of poverty and/or larger senior populations. 

In 2010, the federal government spent $68.3 billion on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (i.e., “food stamps”) providing children and low-income people access to food. More than 18.6 million households received this benefit at some point in the year.

In this same year, there were more than 77 million self-identified Catholics in the United States. CARA surveys estimate that about 68% of these Catholics attend Mass at least once a year and 56% are registered with a parish. Taking the larger of these two numbers, if we assume that 68% of Catholic households give an average of $9.57 every week to their parish (e.g., in pews, by mail, or electronically) this would result in a total weekly offertory nationally of more than $194 million from more than 20.3 million households. Assume this happens every week and you'd have a total of $10.1 billion for the year. That is an impressive total. But we know a full 68 percent of Catholic households are not giving this amount to their parish offertory every week and what is given is used to cover parish expenses which totaled an estimated $11.1 billion last year nationally (…the gap in offertory and costs is most often covered by other parish income from investments, other fundraising, and subsidies).

But then again, many argue that a cut in spending and taxes would lead to a sudden increase in charitable giving (I don't know of any empirical evidence or historical examples that would lead one to estimate that this would be likely). Let's assume the extraordinary. What if Catholics increased their giving by a factor of five and the average household offertory contribution was $48 per week. Parishes would then have annual revenue of $50.6 billion leaving $39.5 billion “left over” after covering expenses to spend elsewhere. If all of this were used to address hunger in lieu of federal money, it could provide 58% of the 2010 budget for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program. That is impressive and parishes may be able to do more with this funding than a large national bureaucracy can. But that is just food stamps. There is nothing left over for parishes to assist in filling other gaps if Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid also disappeared (all of which have budget numbers that make food stamps look like small change). More so this scenario still depends on the average Catholic being willing and able to give their parish nearly $50 per week! It all seems rather utopian when one looks at the real data.

Catholic parishes and many other Catholic charities, hospitals, and ministries already do extraordinary work in helping the needy in the United States and abroad. I have no doubt they would find a way to do even more if government social welfare programs were cut. With more contributions from Catholics they would be even better able to do so. But could parishes fully replace even a single significant social welfare obligation of the federal government? No. Not even if Catholics start giving five times more in offertory collections.

Some would likely respond that “social welfare programs have failed” because “there are still poor people” so we need to try something different (e.g., “let the churches take care of them”). My response to this always begins by noting that the policy and practice of the U.S. government (more specifically the Federal Reserve) is to maintain, at a minimum, 3% to 4% unemployment (i.e., NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment as lower levels of unemployment are thought to create inflationary pressures). When such a policy exists you will always have millions unemployed and they will be poor (the OECD estimates that NAIRU is actually about 5% to 6% in the U.S.). Second, when health insurance is so closely tied to employment and people get seriously ill and can no longer work… they lose the things they need most (an income and their insurance). Poverty will exist as long as you have people unable to afford essential medical care. Third, there comes a point when we reach an age where it is challenging to earn an income for ourselves. To the degree that we do not take adequate care of our oldest citizens—providing at least a basic standard of living and healthcare while acknowledging they may be unable to contribute to this at their age, there will always be poverty in America.

Catholic institutions have done, are doing, and will continue to do an enormous amount with what they have to combat poverty. But it is a quaint myth that the churches, or Catholic parishes more specifically, could somehow do all that is needed in 21st Century America to provide assistance to the poor and elderly if government programs were significantly cut or disappeared.