“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.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Another excellent and balanced article by Father Pokorsky.
“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”.”
“And the IDF atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon in response to Arab attacks…”
Seems like a certain amount of moral equivalence here. I am not aware of any suicide bomber members of Mossad going into Arab/Muslim restaurants and blowing everyone up. Nor have they boarded a bus in Egypt and blown everyone up. In regard to Hamas and Hizballah Israel responded to attacks on them.
“They [Catholics] find it increasingly difficult to remain in the Republican Party.” I would be interested in evidence that would support that statement.
In April 2026, Zenit News Agency reported on polling:
“The data suggest that this tension is not merely theoretical. On the specific issue of Iran, only 40 percent of Catholic respondents approve of Trump’s handling of the conflict, while 60 percent disapprove. A similar pattern emerges regarding the use of force: 45 percent support military action against Iran, but a majority of 55 percent oppose it. When asked about effectiveness, again 45 percent believe the military approach is yielding results, compared to 55 percent who do not.”
Support for Trump among Catholics plummets, according to a new poll conducted amid the war | ZENIT – English
Some Cattholics are just plain dolts, now aren’t they?
Thank you Mr. Vespucci for this polling data. Even those who vote for a particular president occasionally disagree with something he does. This does not involve leaving their political party, and your response does not address that. And, where would they go – to the pro-death democrat party or the non-existent CSM?
Also any polling that claims to list Catholic positions should separate the 20 -25% of Catholics who at least do the minimum of Mass on the weekend from the 75 – 80% who do not practice the faith.
We desperately need a movement toward subsidiarity; we can only hope that it finds a home in some political party, even a new one.
“Historically, Democrats voted for big domestic spending, and Republicans supported a big defense budget. Since Lyndon Johnson, a big-spending consensus has emerged.”
Overly simplistic and oversimplified. The political differences in our culture fall between those who believe in a God (other than themselves) and those who do. But it goes beyond mere statements about belief as it necessitates putting intentions into practice.
While there is some oversimplification, the essay does raise a question that needs to be explicitly asked. When exactly, did subsidiarity give way to statism as a Catholic teaching? Whatever changes I might want, the very fact that he notes that we are in fiscal danger is a huge improvement over anything the USCCB might produce-where the only question isn’t SHOULD the government spend money, but HOW MUCH as if it was a boundless cornucopia.
If I were Father Jerry, I’d be concerned the likes of McElror or Cupich might ignore jurisdictional boundaries and episcopal “collegiality” and sent a goon squad after him.
Amerigo Vespucci: The vast majority of Catholics violate Catholic Church teaching by using contraceptives. A majority of Catholics support a woman’s “right” to choose abortion. Now, remind us once more about the moral position of Catholics regarding military action to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
I was hoping this was about subsidiarity.Not Israel again…
I always had a soft spot in my heart for LBJ. In spite of some of the outcomes of the “War Against Poverty” I think he sincerely wanted to better things for the poor & those discriminated against. But even good intentions can have have unintended consequences.
“think he sincerely wanted to better things for the poor & those discriminated against”
Your credulousness and gullibility is truly frightening. Can you just once post something with more sophistication and critical thought that a Little Golden Book?
A megalomaniac who ran for office four times, only death pried power from his grubby mitts.
Ran on fiscal restraint, and spent with reckless abandon on increasing the size of government.
Seized gold (Executive Order 6260) to replace money with currency.
Ran an administration filled with Communists and sympathizers.
Allowed concentration of Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, attempted to “railroad” Admiral Husband Kimmel for his failure as C in C (and there’s evidence he intentionally baited the Japanese as a pretext to enter the war, he certainly did have a stirring speech ready)
Failed to inform his Vice President of the Manhattan Project.
Signed Executive Order to Inter Japanese (and others) (Executive Order 9066).
Attempted to exercise economic tyranny through the NRA. Defeated by poultry merchants.
Pursued for Treas. Secretary Mellon for tax evasion for political purposes.
Called Stalin “Uncle Joe” and failed to recover B-29 bombers that were used to give the USSR the virtual copy Tu-4, providing them their first nuclear delivery platform.
Created a panoply of three lettered agencies to control everything under the guise of “recover”
And the far from the idiotic drivel posited in school textbooks, Roosevelt didn’t rescue the country from what is improperly called “the great depression”, he prolonged it, with a parody of the already defective Keynesian economics, economic data from the 1930’s showed multiple recessions, in part induced by his fiscal and regulatory policies.
The full list of his derelictions of duty are beyond a combox.
I sympathized with much of your drift, but in each case a few more devils are also in the details.
Take for example: “Failed to inform his Vice President of the Manhattan Project.” Truman was VP for only three weeks before Roosevelt died. But, yes, Roosevelt ran his own show close to the vest.
Yet more…earlier, as head of the Senate Budget Committee, Truman had inquired about a couple billion dollars that seemed to be disappearing somewhere (Los Alamos, Hanford, Oak Ridge). The wartime Manhattan Project was supremely “top secret” and Truman finally relented that he “didn’t have a need to know.”
For all of that, the project was still penetrated such that the Soviets had the bomb only four years after it was detonated experimentally and then on two cities. Lt. General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, was sure it would take twenty years for anyone to accomplish what he did in three, and that a monopoly over the “the gadget” could be used to impose peace after the War. It is said that Stalin was little interested in the Russian program to have a hypothetical bomb until after he saw photos of the reality from Hiroshima.
Was a post-war bi-polar world possible, but without the steroids of a nuclear arms race? Decades of military-industrial big bucks combined with your noted Keynesian economics. And, today, a proliferation of probably nine nuclear powers with a fledgling in Iran…
One complex and unfolding story among many which, as you say, is “beyond a combox.”
I admire LBJ for having a heart for the poor & those discriminated against. He’d had experience teaching in a segregated school in TX. His students came from extreme poverty & some came to class hungry. LBJ said he’d seen children scavenging for food in the garbage.
I don’t think his solutions worked out the way he thought they would, but I respect the motivation behind them.
We’re on our third war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel in the last thirty-five years. Yeah, I’d rather have to talk about Israel less than we do. Unfortunately, it keeps being thrust upon us.
You mean to say that poverty WASN’T eliminated by spending trillions of dollars since the mid-1960’s. Well I’ll be gobsmacked! Ya coulda fooled me.
Fr. Pokorsky’s historical and geopolitical analysis is always thought-provoking and interesting.
Truman’s decision to recognize the state of Israel in 1948 was mostly driven by domestic political considerations in an election year. Many in the State Department argued strongly against it. Besides that, Truman’s daughter Margaret alleged Israel or its sympathizers attempted to assassinate him through the mail.
Subsequent American presidents have occasionally summoned the resolve to put the Israelis in their place. Eisenhower ordered them out of Egypt during the Suez Canal Crisis. Kennedy attempted to thwart their nuclear ambitions. Carter and Nixon acted as Father Pokorsky’s describes. Reagan forced Begin to stop shelling Beirut in ’82. Bush Sr. opposed expansion of settlements on the West Bank, which caused what wealthy Jewish backers he had to pivot to Clinton. Even his son resisted their strong pressure to begin a war against Iran during the chaos of the Iraqi occupation. Obviously, Clinton and Obama didn’t give them everything they wanted. It was left to Trump to make the disastrous decision to launch a bombing campaign against Iran in direct coordination with Israel. Perhaps now he sees what a mistake he made and will try to establish some distance between us and them.
The power and influence of the Israel Lobby has grown steadily stronger since 1948 despite the speed bumps along the way mentioned above. It needs to be confronted and defeated if the United States is to survive much beyond 250 years. Shrill and dishonest accusations of antisemitism must be called out for the lies that they are.
Let’s just face it; We Catholics hate Jews.
Exactly the point I was trying to make with far too many words. Your comment is a perfect distillation of my post.
Natural law and subsidiarity are great places to start a new political movement. A “Bismarkian balance of power approach”, however, would be an abdication by any important nation sporting the description Christian. Accepting the carve-up of “influence” over the world by several “empires” or civilisations (China, Russia, Islam, the US) means accepting the swallowing up of Christian, Western nations that have “no cards”. It means the end of real autonomy for the Philippines, Ukraine, Christian peoples in East and West Africa, and Hispanic America. Accepting the so-called realities of power means abandoning our sacred sites in the Holy land and the Christian population that has tended them since the time of Our Lord. The Bismarkian approach would mean returning to the radical Enlightenment origins of US foreign policy, with its “Monroe doctrine” that was so harmful to the Church in the Americas.