I have been a party-line Republican voter/donor since the late 1980s. The Democrat's positions on abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, taxes, spending, religious liberties, economic regulation, and a host of other issues--especially those rejecting traditional moral values--constituted a host of dealbreakers.
For many years, I found the GOP's positions on those issues more congenial. Over the last couple of decades, however, I've been increasingly dissatisfied with the Republicans. Lots of talk but very little action about abortion. As I've come to oppose the death penalty, consistent with my Church's Gospel of Life, the GOP remains resolutely pro-death. I've consistently opposed the neoconservatives' Permanent War for Permanent Choice going as far back as Bush 43's war of choice in Iraq, possibly the worst foreign policy/national security blunder since Vietnam.
Both parties now depend on leveraging identity politics to polarize the electorate along racial and religious lines in hopes that angry voters are more likely to vote.
Both parties are also increasingly captives of Davos Man. This is particularly true of the mainstream of the Democratic Party establishment (the Clinton-Obama-Biden crowd).
I draw here on a book to which I came belatedly, Joel Kotkin's The New Class Conflict. In it he notes that 95% of income gains during Obama's first term went to the top 1%. He quotes a Huffington Post author as opining that "the rising tide has lifted fewer boars during the Obama years--and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts." (4)
This should not surprise us. Peter Temin sought to explore the now well-documented extreme polarization of income and wealth over the last generation in the US. In seeking to explain it, he split the working population into two sectors. He calls one the “primary” or “core” sector, and estimates it embraces about “thirty percent of the population” It is dominated by finance and technology and consists mainly of college educated workers and managers. In other words, the core or primary sector is what Noonan calls the protected class.
Kotkin breaks the protected class into two groups. At the very top, in terms of wealth and income, are the oligarchs of finance and tech. (6-7) Just below them are the Clerisy, which consist of those working at the top of the academic, media, government, and nonprofit sectors. (8) They created and propagate the political worldview Klotkin aptly calls “gentry liberalism,” which has become the prevailing political alignment among both the Clerisy and the Oligarchs.
Gentry liberalism is not concerned with the interests of working and middle class Americans. Instead, it is focused on advancing and protecting the interests of the much smaller—but much more affluent—managerial and knowledge classes and the public sector. Put simply, gentry liberalism is about perpetuating the distinction between the protected and unprotected classes.
Gentry liberalism, identity politics, and abortion make up the tripod on which the modern Democratic Party rests and all of them are deal breakers for me. By the way, for those of you who doubt the relationship of wealth and gentry liberalism, here's some interesting statistics from Joel Kotkin's book:
- Out of the 10 political groups to which the top 1% of the top 1% (the 0.01%?) contributed, 8 were liberal.
- Obama won 8 of the country's 10 wealthiest counties. Most by double digits
I had had hopes that Trump's rise might signal a GOP realignment in which the party would recognize that the future of the GOP must be one of detaching itself from the 1%, especially the tech and finance oligarchs who openly embrace progressive values. (See my post on Trump Being the Beta Test for the Cure for the Revolt of the Elites). Sadly, that hasn't happened. To the contrary, led by Trump, the GOP consistently doubles down on its most extreme positions. On top of which, the GOP consistently embraces stupidity. Witness the Party's embrace of heavily armed lockdown protestors.
Those who predicted Trump would prove to be a false prophet were right. Sadly, those who predicted he would lead the party down the wrong road were right about that too.
I've put up with my growing dissatisfaction with the GOP largely because the Democrats' positions-especially on Gospel of Life issues-were morally unacceptable. For much of the last 20 years, I've mainly been voting and donating AGAINST the Democrats rather than FOR the GOP.
At age 61, I'm sick and tired of it all. Unlike the NeverTrumpers, however, I can't bring myself to support the Democrats.
About a year ago, I started looking into the American Solidarity Party. It's an American version of what would be known in Europe as a Christian Democrat Party. I don't agree with everything the Party embraces (I'm skeptical of distributism, for example), but on issue after issue their positions map far more closely to mine than either of the duopoly parties. See the Party Platform.
- Consistently pro-life
- Against abortion
- Against euthanasia
- Against fetal stem cell research
- Against the death penalty
- Strong on religious liberty
- Sensible on immigration
- Create a path to citizenship for working undocumented aliens with no criminal record
- Enhanced border security
- Require strict background checks, psychological testing, and training for gun ownership
- Non-partisan political boundary drawing
- Supports voting reform, such as ranked voting or IRV
- Supports nuclear energy
- Supports limits on Presidential war power
- Supports charter schools
- Opposes free college tuition
As I said, I'm not on board all of their proposals, but in general I'm amenable to their core principles.
To be sure, American Solidarity is a small third party. I've long dismissed third parties as havens for cranks and the excessively earnest. But as Matthew Walther wrote The American Solidarity Party is a third party that actually makes sense.
The most striking thing about the platform of the ASP (formerly the "Christian Democratic Party USA") is how un-radical most of it sounds. Why should there not be a socially conservative party that is for a living wage, workplace protections, strong welfare programs, and opposed to the imprudent use of American force abroad? On paper this sounds like a recipe for winning 60 or so percent of the national popular vote. ...
I also strongly recommend reading David McPherson's Case for the American Solidarity Party.
While the ASP is shaped by a Christian worldview, it welcomes all people who find its vision for society compelling, even if they do not share in the same faith. ...
Another question for the ASP is this: Why should someone vote for a party that won’t win, especially in this election, when so much is at stake in terms of foreign relations, the economy, Supreme Court appointments, democratic rule of law, and so on? Isn’t it better to vote for the major-party candidate who seems the least bad?
Many people of goodwill are going to make this decision. But for those who cannot in good conscience vote for either Clinton or Trump—say, because of the candidates’ stances against the sanctity of human life—voting for the ASP may be seen as a protest vote against a system that presents us with such poor choices. But it is not merely a protest vote, because if we are to work fully toward the kind of politics we need, we must first break from the political status quo. The ASP should thus be understood as seeking primarily to build up a cultural movement, which ideally will come to have political influence.
So I've become a voting member of the ASP and am in the process of transferring my California voter registration to the ASP.
Apropos of which, I've been asked to pass along the following message:
The number of California Voting Members has grown so large that The Golden State will get 3 delegates at the National Convention in late June. This is very exciting for both California and the ASP as well. Ideally every state would be able to vote for its own delegates which would inspire and encourage local activity in the California State Chapter.
... California is only a few Voting Members short of getting 4 delegates at the Convention.
I wish to invite those who were on the fence about joining or renewing their membership with the party to go to solidarity-party.org/support to do this.
