Opinion: Visualize Christian Subsidiarity

“Visualize World Peace.” It’s a noble sentiment, but Original Sin often gets in the way of our imaginings.

Rather, let’s imagine political parties that seek healthy bipartisanship serving the common good. But the troubles in the Middle East, culminating in the War in Iran, have shattered the traditional political divide of the United States, and events promise to redefine the political/religious spectrum.

Since the Civil War, the political differences between Republicans and Democrats have often converged. After promising to keep America out of the Great War, Democrat Woodrow Wilson declared war in 1917. The war unified the nation. Catholics, as encouraged by Cardinal Gibbons, eagerly complied. After Pearl Harbor, the previously isolationist America unified and waged a war of destruction the likes of which it had never known. During the 1960 Presidential campaign, Kennedy outflanked Nixon in the “missile gap” national security issue.

Yet, differences remained. The Republican Party was viewed as the party of business. The Democratic Party was seen as the party of working families.

Calvin Coolidge famously declared, “After all, the chief business of the American people is business.” Roosevelt’s New Deal spending programs won the hearts of working families. Reagan campaigned against big government social spending and lost. The $1 trillion national debt he inherited grew to $3 trillion. But he won the Cold War with his massive military buildup and his “Star Wars” bluff.

Israel became the “most reliable” American ally in the Middle East during the Cold War. But fissures in the relationship were always present. In 1948, after the Zionist victory, Truman chose to support Israel as a bulwark against the Soviet-backed Arab regimes. Shortly before his assassination, Kennedy heatedly objected to the Israeli development of the atomic bomb. (Both countries refuse to acknowledge Israel’s membership in the nuclear club to this day.)

Although Lyndon Johnson gave Israel carte blanche support (as he and McNamara covered up the blatant Israeli attack on the USS Liberty spy ship in 1967), Nixon and Carter were more realistic. Nixon allowed Egypt to save face in its loss to Israel in 1973. Carter engineered the Camp David Accords in 1978.

Yet Islamic fundamentalist terrorism continued, justifying, in the Western view, the ongoing Israeli military response. The war-making of the IDF and the machinations of the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, were rarely described as “acts of terror.” In contrast, every Arab response was described as “terrorist”. (It didn’t help the Arab cause when Palestinians blew up Tel Aviv discotheques, Hezbollah tortured CIA officer William Buckley, and ISIS decapitated Christians.)

During the Cold War, we often described Israel as America’s most reliable ally. But in recent decades, the evidence has diminished. Today, Americans (many independents and young people) are increasingly aware that American “forever wars” are not only linked to the “military industrial complex” as Eisenhour warned, but also to Israeli interference in American politics.

Almost every American President, Senator, and Congressman has received Israeli funding through AIPAC and other funding mechanisms. As a result, Israel receives massive U.S. economic and military aid, and the U.S. has waged wars in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and, now, Iran in “wars against terrorism.” But is the U.S. a target because it disproportionately supports Israel?

The American stalemate with Iran has shattered the illusion of absolute American military and economic dominance. And the IDF atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon in response to Arab attacks (responding to Israeli settlement expansion and apartheid injustices) have undermined Israel’s stature as the “victim state” even in the West.

The Republican Party has emerged as the party of Israel, with many prominent Republicans (Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Mike Johnson, Mike Huckabee) supporting Israel on religious Protestant “dispensationalist” and “Greater Israel” grounds: Christians must do everything possible to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple and usher in the Second Coming. Catholic conservative politicians are mostly unaware of these forces, but often support Israel with a Cold War and post-9/11 fervor.

Significant elements of the Democratic Party are radicalizing with emerging Menshevik and Bolshevik factions—socialist and communist elements. A majority of Democrats, like the Republicans, rarely criticize Israel, often fearing the “anti-Semitism” epithet. But the vanguard of the Democrat Party led by Mamdani, the newly elected mayor of New York, is boldly rejecting support of Israel, rejecting Israeli atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon, and attracting many “America First” independents.

Many Catholics are horrified by the terrorism in the Middle East (by all sides) and the waging of endless wars. They find it increasingly difficult to remain in the Republican Party. Yet, they are loath to become Democrats because of the abortion, LGBTQ agenda, and, now, socialist-Marxist radicalism. But a new political movement may emerge as part of the solution.

The catalyst may be the immense $40 trillion national debt.

Historically, Democrats voted for big domestic spending, and Republicans supported a big defense budget. Since Lyndon Johnson, a big-spending consensus has emerged: Satisfy all constituencies and kick the fiscal crisis down the road.

The crushing national debt will only be overcome by future government spending cuts, massive increases in economic productivity, rampant inflation, or economic collapse. Perhaps the only realistic prospects are Weimar Republic-style inflation and widespread economic dislocations. But America is a large country with many natural resources, and with a people capable of great ingenuity. The prospect of an economic collapse may be the opportunity to usher in a new political movement.

Let’s call it “The Christian Subsidiarity Movement” (CSM). The CSM has precedents in the Christian Democrat parties in post-war Germany and Italy. The CSM would advocate for natural law (just as Catholic philosophers used it to craft the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights). The CSM would advocate subsidiarity—the doctrine that we should promote dispersed (usually not centralized) social associations to manage daily affairs. The CSM would advocate a kind of Bismarckian “balance of power” approach to international relations and heed George Washington’s warning to avoid “foreign entanglements.”

Natural law would attract Catholics and men of goodwill. Subsidiarity would attract “America Firsters” and libertarians. Local, not globalist, political logrolling would be expected.

Visualize a Christian Subsidiarity takeover of the GOP. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness.