I love that quote. It’s from Dave Letterman about Hillary Clinton’s inability to see that it’s game over and that Barack Obama is almost definitely going to be the Democratic nominee for the presidential race in November.
November. It sounds so far away! I can’t believe that we’ve had this much saturation with regards to American politics and the main race hasn’t even begun yet! Sigh. I don’t know how much more of this I can take.
Anyway, I’m sure with this year being an election year in both NZ and America, we can expect plenty of Being Frank posts over the coming months mixing religion and politics – and this will be another one.
I was talking to some good friends the other night and the topic of politics and who we would vote for came up. Each of us had different opinions – from “the ‘blue’ party” to “whomever my husband says to vote for” – but the whole thing got me thinking about how utterly unimpressed I am with the voting options in the U.S. and here.
See, for those who don’t know, in the States there are basically two main parties – Republican and Democrat. Bush is a Republican. The Republican Party (or the “Grand Old Party”) is broadly characterised as being socially conservative, anti-gay marriage, pro-war, anti-gun control, pro-business and anti-abortion. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is basically the opposite – socially progressive, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice etc. (For any Republican or Democratic fanboys out there who feel I have inaccurately described what your parties stand for, forgive me or take me to school in the comments. 
)
Now, I have always had precious little interest in the U.S. governing structure and didn’t really know much about the parties aside from what I learnt from The West Wing. However, during the Bush/Kerry debate (which was carried out on this very blog too!), that was the first time I saw the conflict that is being a Catholic voter in the U.S. See, Kerry is Catholic but is a Democrat. Yet, the Democratic party is pro-choice – Kerry and other Catholic Democrats (and President Bartlett! 
) claim they are not for abortion, but they are against the State legislating on the issue. Call it what you will, the party is all for the “reforms” of Roe vs. Wade.
So, I just assumed that Catholics traditionally vote Republican because that’s the more socially conservative party. Not true, noted one of my learned friends the other night. The traditional Catholic vote went to the Democrats (before Roe vs. Wade) because the Democratic party was all for helping the poor through welfare programmes. JFK was a Catholic and he was a Democrat. It had the Catholic view on theology – i.e. help each other out – as opposed to the Calvinist approach taken by the Republicans – i.e. if I’m rich, it’s because I’m a good person and God’s rewarded me. I’m again being very broad with my brush strokes here, but work with me.
Now look at modern-day America. Who does a good Catholic vote for? Voting Democrat is voting for helping the poor, social justice, being good stewards of the environment, education for all, anti-war; voting Republican is voting for anti-abortion, pro-marriage and anti-stem cell research.
But shouldn’t a good Catholic be for both? By the looks of things, this split in policy has split the Church over there. In the 2004 election, one poll showed a 1% advantage to the Democrats in terms of Catholic members. Mind you, the same poll had 56% of “All Catholics” being pro-choice, so what are you going to do?
Don’t you get the feeling that the system is broken? And so is ours? Who should a good Catholic vote for in New Zealand? Helen’s party is all about the social welfare and education and healthcare, yet they’re also all for civil unions, legal prostitution, abortion and photoshopping. But John’s party doesn’t seem to offer a strong alternative. I can’t even see a pro-life policy on their site (or many policies for that matter). Help me Obi-NZ Catholic – with your assessment of the parties and their policies that I assume is coming this year, you’re my only help!
One more thing – we’re supposed to be better off with MMP, but I don’t see a Catholic political party, do you? And even if we did, who would vote for them? I mean, as this blog has shown, we don’t all seem to agree on everything “Catholic” anyway. Maybe that’s the problem. Are we leading in the state of denial about our own disunity? Is that the problem we need to fix before the elections come?
Time’s ticking people…
Republicans – i.e. if I’m rich, it’s because I’m a good person and God’s rewarded me. I’m again being very broad with my brush strokes here, but work with me
Am working with you! But as someone who considers herself more conservative, I must comment
I think that many people need to realise that if you are ‘republican’ or conservative its not just about being small government, or anti-state welfare because your rich and thats great.
Its more about looking at what is the best for society? Broadly speaking, conservative v liberal, or labour v national, or however you want to look at it, have different idealogies about what is the best way to run their country.
Now as I said before I’m all for helping people out but as someone more conservative minded, I wonder, does the government do the job that WE as a community should be doing sometimes? I wonder about the sort of ‘hand out’ culture (not to take away from those people that really need help) as opposed to the ‘hand up’ and about the environment and norms it creates. I also wonder most of all at the culture it creates in us ; ie that we view its the governments role to do things that we in fact should be doing.
B16 summed it up nicely in Deus Caritas Est when he says:
“There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love. Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such. There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbour is indispensable. The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern.”
I’m not rich or old; I’m a women, yet I don’t see that as having much to do with my political opinions, or that that interferes with my voting as a Catholic.
The problem is that parties generally no longer fall into those guidelines.
As a Catholic my first vote would always be the protection of LIFE; following that I think we all have to come to some conclusion about what we think is the best future we want for NZ and go with that. Don’t fall into the polemic of being ‘anti poor people’ if you vote National, or ‘anti environmental’ if you don’t vote Green.
Also I’ve said it once before but I think we don’t see a ‘Catholic party’ because some christians/catholics have decided to work with what we’ve got rather than creating their own party that a very small majority would vote for.
I’m all about engaging the world head on including in politics and changing it from the inside out rather than just having your own little group to go from. I think we can do more that way.
That said if anyone decided to start a Catholic party, good on em! Heck of an uphill climb though!
In Germany they had a Catholic Party. It voted Hitler into office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_(Germany)
I’m not sure why we lock ourselves into the two party National/Labour or Republican/Democract tweedledee/tweedledum trap.
When with MMP we can vote for a third party with a real chance to have some political influence.
From what I can tell the Kiwi Party seems to be broadly consistent with Catholic Social Teaching.
http://thekiwiparty.org.nz/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=38
God Bless
Chris
FYI Hitler actually did a lot of good stuff and brought a lot of hope to his country prior to his craziness. Not trying to defend this but your whole little comment that catholic voted hitler to power (or rather the party did) needs to be put in historical context.
Gianna,
I think the point is that a Catholic political party has been tried and failed. In Germany it ended up voting in fascism.
God Bless
The reason that Catholic political parties are not a good idea is that the Church has no particular competance in the political arena (other than presenting her social teaching as a deposit of moral wisdom).
Too often down the ages the Church has backed one tyrant or another.
One only has to recall that in the 1930’s the Catholic Church in New Zealand was raising aid for Franco’s fascists in Spain.
God Bless
Gianna,
True. Good stuff. So who would you vote for then? Because my whole point is that neither of the parties here or in the States seem to be for life.
Chris,
Then, with all due respect, that’s a pretty weak point.
You’re saying that one failure by a single Catholic party 50 years ago means that Catholic-aligned politics will always fail? Pretty bleak summary if you ask me. That’s like saying that all unions should be banned because some of them are corrupt!
Chris,
That just doesn’t stack up. I’m not suggesting a Catholic party filled with priests and the like. I’m suggesting a party for Catholics with Catholics running it adhering to Catholic teaching. There are plenty of people who have huge competence in these areas who would be good politicians don’t you think?
James,
Given the history of Catholic entanglement in politics, no I don’t think a Catholic Party would be a good idea.
I don’t think the bishops do either.
And if you think Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy are exceptions then just look at US Catholic politicians and their track record on voting for abortion or NZ Catholic politicians like Jim Bolger and Bill English and their track record of violating Catholic social teaching on trade unions when they imposed the Employment Contracts Act, which the bishops taught was clearly a violation of Catholic Social Teaching.
http://www.catholic.org.nz/statements/9804_employment.php
God Bless
There are plenty of people who have huge competence in these areas who would be good politicians don’t you think?
Actually, the number of Catholics with huge competance in Catholic Social teaching are rather few.
A Catholic Party would very likely be run by Catholics who don’t actually follow Catholic Social Teaching so it would be CINO – Catholic In Name Only.
The number of people prepared to vote for a Catholic Party would be vanishingly small.
And starting a Catholic Party would simply divide those prepared to actually implement Catholic Social Teaching in politics and also be a sure fire way of publicly discrediting Catholic Social Teaching as merely a power grab by the Church.
The Catholic calling in politics isn’t to start a Catholic Party.
It’s to carefully discern and follow the best political opportunities to advance the Common Good as proposed by Catholic Social Teaching.
As Catholic Social Doctrine itself teaches, Catholics will differ on the exact details of the best ways to do that.
Some will be called to work in one party, others in another, and most of us to work in none.
I’m not sure that gathering all the Catholics in one party will actually best advance the Common Good. An example is Bill English’s work against abortion when he was a minister. If he had opted for a Catholic party he would never have got into cabinet.
Our common calling in politics isn’t so much to support one political party or another.
It’s to do what we can in various avenues to advance the Common Good by taking up particular issues of concern.
Its the issues not the political parties which ought to be our focus.
God Bless
Chris,
Employment contracts don’t violate Catholic social teaching at all.
In fact every Catholic diocese in this country has employment contracts with their staff – and just in case you’ve forgotten – the very same NZ Bishops that you claim are opposed to employment contracts are actually in charge of those dioceses.
red,
The Bishops teach :-
http://www.catholic.org.nz/statements/9804_employment.php
God Bless
Well why then do the Catholic bishops of NZ have employment contracts with all of their various staff?
If they really believe that it is contrary to Catholic social doctrine then why are they participating in it?
Unless of course, they now realize that the legislation DOESN’T actually oppose Catholic social teaching at all as the legislation actually allows for group bargaining, etc
“The Republican Party (or the “Grand Old Party”) is broadly characterised as being socially conservative, anti-gay marriage, pro-war, anti-gun control, pro-business and anti-abortion. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is basically the opposite – socially progressive, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice etc.”
The 3 leading Republican Candidates during most of the Presidential Race, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Gulliani were all pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and pro-gun control. Two of them flip-flopped right before their campaigns which means it was out of mere political expediency. You can even look up youtube for videos of Rudy Gulliani cross dressing… These supposed leaders of the GOP aren’t fitting your description!
However I will concede that they are current largely pro-war but this is an aberration in the history of the GOP as it has traditionally been the anti-war party and the Democrats have been the war party. Woodrow Wilson a Democrat entered the First World War, Taft the Republican leader opposed this. Truman, a Democrat dropped the nukes on Japan and then started the Korean War, Eisenhower a Republican was voted in to stop the war and did. Lyndon B Johnson a Democrat started the Vietnam War and Nixon a Republican was voted in to stop it (unfortunately he lied and was pro-war, but did eventually stop it), etc etc.
The Republican Party has only moved to an almost universal pro-war stance since the Reagan era. This was when a political movement called Neo-conservatism migrated from the Democratic Party to the GOP. Neo-conservatives believe in big Government and the liberal use of war as a tool of Foreign Policy. Bush is a Neo-conservative but so are Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama (don’t look at their current rhetoric, look at their voting record). So this political movement bridges the gap between the parties and fuzzes the distinction.
The GOP being “pro-business” and the Democrats presumably being the opposite is also inaccurate as for instance it was Woodrow Wilson who founded the Federal Reserve. The Fed as it’s known controls the US Dollar like our Reserve Bank does for the NZ Dollar. Whats different is that the Fed is owned by private banks!! The Fed has the power to create as much money as it likes out of thin air and manipulate interest rates and entire markets with no transparency (it’s easier to get information out of the CIA than the Fed) and basically no oversight. Also both parties have liberally subsidised various industries and both get liberal donations from corporations. And so their walks are almost identical the only thing that isn’t is their rhetoric.
If you want a traditional Republican then I recommend checking out Ron Paul.
James,
I’m waiting to hear what the Republicans are up to! They are united and working towards an election already, and they certainly aren’t idle! It’s just that the Barack/Hillary is such a damn good story the journos are forgetting everything else….it is a good story isn’t it? It must be to be able to get sooooo much air time.
My totally uneducated and ill-founded wager:
Barack will win the primaries.
McCain will be the next president.
Anyone care for a flutter
Chris,
Actually, the number of Catholics with huge competance in Catholic Social teaching are rather few.
-According to who exactly? How many exactly do you think would be required?
A Catholic Party would very likely be run by Catholics who don’t actually follow Catholic Social Teaching so it would be CINO – Catholic In Name Only.
-Again, says who? you have proof of this I suppose?
The number of people prepared to vote for a Catholic Party would be vanishingly small.
-I would have said the same thing about finding people who believed both the Koran and the Bible. You too might be surprised.
And starting a Catholic Party would simply divide those prepared to actually implement Catholic Social Teaching in politics and also be a sure fire way of publicly discrediting Catholic Social Teaching as merely a power grab by the Church.
- Ok, better not discredit Catholic Social Teaching! I guess we’d best stick to vandalising government property then, shall we?
And if you think Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy are exceptions then just look at US Catholic politicians and their track record on voting for abortion or NZ Catholic politicians like Jim Bolger and Bill English and their track record of violating Catholic social teaching on trade unions when they imposed the Employment Contracts Act, which the bishops taught was clearly a violation of Catholic Social Teaching.
too often down the ages the Church has backed one tyrant or another.
- Please name one group or organisation that by your litmus test above, should be allowed to participate in politics?
Mac,
If I were a betting man — oh, hang on (*cough, thanks Trevor Immelman*) — I wouldn’t take that bet. I agree with your analysis.
I think it’s at least four years too soon for the US to vote a black man president. And, despite the dissatisfaction with President Bush, the approval rating for the Democrat-controlled Congress is even lower than Bush’s. And Obama is, according to political analysis of his voting records, the most liberal senator in the US.
And on the media coverage, it’s a media dream for most outlets in the US. They would have predominantly been rooting for a Democratic president anyway, but the protracted primary contest has given them even more reason to love Obama.
There were some interesting stats out lately on the media bias of US journalists. It was astonishing how many described themselves (anonymously) as very liberal, compared with those who described themselves as very conservative. I’ll see if I can find the research.
OK, found the stats.
Survey of 585 print and broadcast journalists (a very reliable sample size) and they found these political leanings —
Very liberal: 8%
Liberal: 24%
Moderate: 53%
Conservative: 6%
Very conservative: 2%
So 32% percent of journalists are liberal or very liberal, compared with 19% of the general population.. And 8% say they’re conservative or very conservative, compared with 36% of the general population.
Full story here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/NATION/418533987/1002
little red,
The Bishops opposed the Employment Contracts Act because it was a patent attack on trade union organisation and on workers wages and working conditions.
At the time, my wife worked for a Christian Social Service agency and they used the Employment Contracts Act to quite literally halve her wages.
We’ll never vote National again because we’ve experienced their brutal attacks on low paid workers ourselves.
Of course the Church herself isn’t always just in her treatment of her own employees. And I expect that not all of her own employment contracts would stand the light of public examination. According to the NZ Catholic newspaper, in Nazi Germany every Catholic diocese in Germany used Nazi supplied slave labour.
The sad fact is that when you’ve got Catholics in positions of power and authority they are often no better than anyone else, and they are often a lot worse.
God Bless
I take issue with the fact that state enforced education, state funded healthcare, and state support of the poor is actually a good thing. Surely the organisation charged with caring for the sick, and feeding the poor is the church. It is only when the Annglican church in England stopped being able to do this did the modern welfare state actually begin to grow.
Indeed the idea that the state should provide is inherently socalistic. And Pope Leo in Rerum said Novarum, “In working for a wage he works also for a full and perfect right to use his earnings as seems good to him. If, therefore, a man spends less on consumption and uses what he saves to buy a farm, that farm is his wage in another form, as much at his disposal as was the wage itself. It is precisely in this power of disposal that ownership consists, whether the property be in real estate or in movable goods. It follows that when socialists endeavour to transfer privately owned goods into common ownership they worsen the condition of all wage earners. By taking away from them freedom to dispose of their wages they rob them of all hope and opportunity of increasing their possessions and bettering their condition.”
Also there are the (much shorter) quotes
“…Socialism…cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.”
QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, 117, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI
Reconstruction of the Social Order, May 15, 1931
“…no Catholic [can] subscribe even to moderate Socialism.”
MATER ET MAGISTRA, 34, Pope John XXIII
On Christianity and Social Progress, May 15, 1961
“Socialists…debase the natural union of man and woman…the [family] bond they…deliver up to lust. Lured…by the greed of present goods…they assail the right of property. While they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title, by labor, or by thrift.”
QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS, 1, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII
On Socialism, December 28, 1878
The church teaches that education, caring for the sick, and feeding the hugrary are works of mercy that ought to be carried out by the familiy, and by the church. It is not the state’s role.
“In Germany they had a Catholic Party. It voted Hitler into office.”
Chris, are you going to put that simplified and shonky assertion into a more accurate context or do you want someone else to waste their time tidying up after you?
Ian Kershaw disagrees with you for one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kershaw
“We’ll never vote National again because we’ve experienced their brutal attacks on low paid workers ourselves.”
So let me get this straight – you and your wife are never going to vote for National because a PREVIOUS and totally DIFFERENT National party instituted a piece of legislation that you didn’t like.
What a dumb way to vote.
That’s like saying “I’ll never support the All Blacks because they lost that game to South Africa in the 1995 World Cup Final”.
“Of course the Church herself isn’t always just in her treatment of her own employees. And I expect that not all of her own employment contracts would stand the light of public examination. According to the NZ Catholic newspaper, in Nazi Germany every Catholic diocese in Germany used Nazi supplied slave labour.”
OK then; somebody’s had too many crazy pills today – or is that not enough, I forget.
In fact, speaking as someone who has been intimately involved with diocesan employment contracts, I can state that diocesan employees have some of the best employment conditions and protections in NZ.
Including free health insurance in many cases.
I suspect that you don’t know your a*se from your elbow on this issue Mr. Sullivan, so you have resorted to the insanity of comparing NZ diocesan employment issues to the Nazi slave labour issue.
Based on your performance on this thread I expect that you will be voting for the Mcgillicuddy Serious Party at the upcoming election.
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/bernard.smith/manifesto/front.htm
little red,
I know people who have worked for the Church and she hasn’t always treated them fairly. A lot of exCatholics are exCatholics because they’ve seen the Church act unjustly.
I see no reason to believe that the National Party’s attitude to the poor has changed from the arrogance and contempt it had for them the last time it was in office.
Now, of course National are not foolish enough to publicly own up to what their real plans are if they are elected back into office, just as the last time they returned to power they carefully hid their plans to severely axe welfare benefits in the Bolger/Richardson mother of all budgets, to raise state housing renatls to markets levels, to sell off state houses etc.
God Bless
Who will win the US election?
The office of president has never been held by two men from the same party in succession. i.e. Republican president for two terms, then in the next vote there has never been a republican president i.e. No party has ever held presidential office for more than two terms in a row by voters choice (during Vietnam the US was in a state of war and so Nixon declared a third term justifiable)
Hence I think this election is going to follow history and Barack Obama is going to win the election.
Chris: If you have a bone to pick with the Catholic Church, I suggest you protest and go down the road where you will find lots of people who agree with you in your local Presbyterian parish. In fact I suggest you start your own blog site, and please make that blog the only one you blog on. Some of your comments in this post haven’t been helpful to the aim of the facilitator, let alone truthful.
The question of who to vote and support in the US election is rather tricky: on one side (and lets be honest) we have a party who prides themselves by being Pro choice, pro-hybrid family’s “how you want them”, pro-stem cell research through unjustified use of embryos etc, but the trickiest one is the general consistency of all Democratic candidates to be pro-social aid schemes (as a really high priority)
On the other side: The republicans believe in pro-social aid but they don’t think that the state has the right to give hand outs. This is strongly rooted in an idea that the state can’t know what is best for us, and money certainly isn’t the only thing people who need help should get. Therefore they suggest that instead of the cold personal hand of the state feeding out money to her young babes, they believe in the empowering of the community to do such schemes: or so it would seem.
However: (note that the following may be atypical of all Republicans) – Bill Clinton devised a massive social welfare scheme where it was not Government run organisations but rather government funded privately owned organisations who were doing massive social aid work. When the republican president came in, he dropped funding from those schemes in a split second and went to work on NRA – Because every kid has a right to hold weapons and bear arms (what about food in their mouth? – now that was a mock, and he didn’t do that last bit but you get my point…
It is very well for the republican supporters to say that they promote social schemes run by society not the state. In reality if I didn’t have to pay my 19.5% tax, the only scheme getting my money would be the LLF (Lawrence Lunch Fund).
Whilst I think that cold money hand outs (such as those pushed extensively by Labour) are not the solution to society’s social problems, they do a damn good job in catching those poor people who I don’t know about and helping the severely disadvantaged get back on their feet.
Objectors will then say: but research shows that out of those people who are on the welfare scheme, the percentage who are returning and relying on those schemes are in the 40% range!!!
I hear what you are saying; however when my dad was out of work for six months because of a job slump in NZ and there were no companies prepared to pay him what he was worth, the little bit of extra support from the government helped my family a ton.
Furthermore, it is not the moneys fault that the people stay on the dole. It is societys fault for not teaching them the values and moral character that should be inherent in every citizen. It is the schooling systems fault for giving kids free license to act however they want to without fear of reprecussion, physical or non. It is our churches (plural) fault for not empowering their members to create social networks where we can be lights to those families who do not know the way. We are called to be lights but what good is a light if it is hidden under a bucket (or in our case: lovely pretty cathedrals)
Of course there are a large number of people who are trapped by the never ending poverty and reliance on the dole.
The question becomes (at the voting polls): how do we fix this?
I see us having three options:
1. We vote a party who will continue to give them those hand outs with no love, care, and kindness.
2. We remove those handouts “so they get a taste of the real world” and thereby my family would have gone bankrupt.
3. We walk out of the booth, and instead of on election night sitting around with friends having a few drinks and watching the polls. We take some of our savings, we take that group of friends and we head out into the community to try help those people we know are suffering.. I suggest perhaps volunteering at the soup kitchen, or going to an elderly home and spending some time with the residents, or even (shock horror) go down the street and visit the person with the slightly worn down fence, with the peeling paint, and over grown garden and help them to clean up their property whilst having friendly conversation!
Through dignity of the person comes dignity of life. By simply helping others, you are shining your light in the world, and as each of us did this, these “drop outs of society” will get what they really need: a caring hand, a listening ear, and a support network of friends who they can rely on.
That is a fully functioning society, and by God wouldn’t it **** Uncle Helen off if Christians rendered the welfare scheme unnecessary through our love and support of those currently on it!
Perhaps she may even have to drop those damn awful tax rates in response.
Lawrence is over and out: whilst this blog is fun, I realise that there are people who actually do need my help. And I love helping them
Blessings all
Lawrence
lawrence,
What did I say that was untruthful ?
Sure it may not have been what some people want to hear.
But, rereading what I wrote above, I stand by its truthfullness.
God Bless
Hence I think this election is going to follow history and Barack Obama is going to win the election.
Oh, lawrence! You are ON!
Shall we say $20 spilt? I wonder what the bookies are giving on it.
or even (shock horror) go down the street and visit the person with the slightly worn down fence, with the peeling paint, and over grown garden and help them to clean up their property whilst having friendly conversation!
You’ll love this! Guerrilla Gardening
Ah Red,
In fact, speaking as someone who has been intimately involved with diocesan employment contracts, I can state that diocesan employees have some of the best employment conditions and protections in NZ.
Including free health insurance in many cases.
Not in my experience. Not at all. I side with Chris on this one.
Scribe,
Thanks for those stats. Velly interesting! I suspected as much, but it’s good to get the proof!
MacGyver,
When I speak of NZ diocese’s – I am speaking generally and I realise that there will be exceptions to this rule – and I think it’s fair to say that youth workers are often treated poorly in regards to wages in some diocese’s, but then in others they are treated well, so yeah.
little red,
So you’re going to retract what you said in 23 above about me having too many crazy pills today ?
And about me knowing my a*se from my elbow ?
God Bless
Reddy, fair call.
So so far we are agreed that Barack is gonna win the primaries.
And it’s 2-1 for a Republican presidency. (Scribe n me vs lawrence)
Any other takers? Let’s do a mini US election!
Lawrence your wrote-
“The office of president has never been held by two men from the same party in succession. i.e. Republican president for two terms, then in the next vote there has never been a republican president i.e. No party has ever held presidential office for more than two terms in a row by voters choice.”
But didnt George Bush (the first) win in 1988 after 2 terms of Ronald Regan and they were both Republicans. So America had 12 years of Republican Presidents until Clinton in 1992
Franklin Roosevelt, President 1933-1945 (Democrat), elected three times.
22nd Amendment (1951) limits Presidential office to two terms.
Also,
from 1801 to 1829 the same party (”Democrat-Republican”) was elected to the office four times in a row with Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams.
They were followed by Jackson and van Buren, 1829-1841 (Democrat)
Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, 1869-93 (Republican).
Actually there’s too may examples of consecutive party elections to bother.
Credit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
Not only that but after Roosevelt died Truman his Vice President was voted in for a term. So that was 4 terms with two Democratic Presidents.
I’m still waiting for Chris to modify his statement, “In Germany they had a Catholic Party. It voted Hitler into office.” (#3)
On another thread (concrete example…) you’re urging retractions and suggesting other’s calumny so please readdress the above the statement.
Ian Kershaw still disagrees.
====
In addition to Lawrence’s point 3 above, you can always join a political party and participate first hand.
greg,
In Germany they did have a Catholic Party (the Center party).
It voted for Hitlers Act of Enablement which put Hitler in power and granted him the right to override the constitution.
God Bless
Chris,
Evidence of your assertion please.
Universal,
Link in post 3 above.
God Bless
In that entire —wikipedia— article there are no citations to back it up apart from a single one at the very bottom of the article that is totally unrelated to what you are referring to.
If this is the historical scholarship you are relying on I am not surprised that your view is so skewed.
Universal,
From that link :
When the chips were down the Catholic Centre Party sided with the fascists in Germany and voted them into power.
God Bless
Where are the citations Chris to actual historical documents or trustworthy resources? Wikipedia is quite useful as a central location to go to find sources, it is not a worthy source on it’s own! Your “evidence” is therefore eminently suspect.
If you look at the article now you’ll notice that your quote is now:
Because I just changed it! Anyone can, anonymously change wikipedia to whatever they like. What one can’t change are the sources cited. Since that article contains no citations then it’s all completely suspect.
Universal,
Can you quote a source which establishes that the Catholic Centre party did not vote for Hitler’s enabling act ? From what I can tell, it’s widely reported that the Centre Party voted for Hitler’s enablign act.
There’s more information at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
BTW, Klass, the leader of the Centre Party, was a Catholic priest !
So much for Catholic priests being required to keep out of politics, huh ?
God Bless
I’m not making an assertion one way or the other Chris, I am getting you to back up your assertion! This whole issue is beside the point anyway, just because some Catholic party reluctantly did something really stupid 80 years ago doesn’t make it a bad idea that any Catholic Party exist ever. By that logic no socialist party should exist because Hitler’s party were the National Socialists!
Nor does that article provide conclusive sources for it’s assertion and in fact it’s unclear whether citation 3 is even related to the apparent voting of the Centre Party.
They cite a book by Klaus Scholder which as I said may or may not address the voting record of the Centre Party however if Ian Kershaw disagrees with him as Greg asserts then we’re far from any grounds where a conclusive decision on it is possible.
When the chips were down the Catholic Centre Party sided with the fascists in Germany and voted them into power.
Chris, have you thought of something called hindsight. Are you aware of the political situation in Germany at the time? Lets see. Something ridiculous like over 60% of the country was unemployed. Inflation was so high that approx 1milliom german dollars was equal to one US, because of crazy attempts to pay off a fine imposed by the west that if they had kept, Germany would probably have only just paid it off.
Hitler came in offering stability, an end to inflation and jobs. Something he did quite well actually. In fact if you go to Germany and drive on the fabulous ‘autobahns’ (where everyone should have a good BMW due to no speed limit
) many of those were built by Hitler.
This in no way EXCUSES his actions, but aims to help you to see from the perspective of the German people, and those in power.
At the time, Hitler seemed like a good idea. The fact that the Catholic party voted them may be fact but it doesn’t mean that you can then somehow implicate Catholics as causing the massacre of WWII. You can’t judge ALL decisions by your hindsight.
Gianna,
As I said, the chips were down. The situation was grim. But it’s moments like that which test the mettle of men and force them to stand on one side or the other.
God Bless
Oh, and its not just hindsight. The Communists and the Socialists correctly discerned what Hitler was up to and stood firm against the Enabling Act.
God Bless
From 1929 to 1933 economic activity in Germany had fallen over 40% and by late 1932 it is reckoned that 8.7 million people were unemployed. Moreover, democracy was a failed idea that was deserted by both the masses and the leadership elite.
From Jan 1932 to March 1933 there were six elections in Germany.
=======
The fifth election, in Nov 1932, was precipitated by a vote of no confidence in Papen’s government. The motion was put forward by the Communists and supported by the Nazis and all major parties. The fifth election of 1932 was set for 6 Nov and the Nazis received 33%. However there was no clear working majority of any party, subsequently Papen’s government was completely dissolved and efforts to fabricate a new cabinet and new Chancellor began. In early December Hindenburg appointed Schleicher Chancellor. However, Hindenburg did not allow Schleicher an extended adjournment of government as he had previously allowed Papen. Because of the short time period pressure Schleicher was unable to form a working cabinet before the constitutional 60-day prorogue elapsed and was trumped by Papen and Hitler. Thus, on 30 January 1933 Hindenburg approved the Chancellorship of Hitler.
Hindenburg, who arguably senile, then granted Hitler extended adjournment of the Reichstag, something he had refused Schleicher days before. So, the Reichstag of the Nov 1932 election were still yet to give their confidence to the new government.
On Feb 1 the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections set for March 5. During February the SA and SS were off the lease assaulting and imprisoning Communist, Social Democrat, unionists, and intellectuals.
On February 27 the Reichstag was famously torched and the next day a decree sharply reduced civil liberties passed.
The election of March 5 1933 gave Chancellor Hitler’s NSDAP 43.9%. The ‘left” obtained about 30% (SPD and Comm.) over two parties and Zentrum (Center ‘Catholic’) only 11%.
The March 5 election was “the trigger to the real seizure of power”.
The Communist deputies could not “stand firm” against the Enabling Act because they were in custody.
The number required for a quorum and thus a constitutional vote was reduced from 432 to 378, which was arrived at by ignoring the tally of missing Communists. The safeguarding of the Churches from the NSDAP was a the chief consideration of Zentrum as the anti-Christian posture of the Nazis was well established.
By this time about 15,000 people were in “protective detention” and intimidation was evident.
It was a case of blackmail, either you take the Chancellor’s verbal assurance of Church protection and vote for the act or you say “no” and join the Communists and have no recourse to any preservation of the wider Churches.
The Reichstag then voted itself out of existence 441-94, the ninety-four being the SPD Social Democrats.
The vote was taken on 23 March.
The two days before Dachau had opened with a press conference given by Himmler.
Zentrum leader Pralat Kaas left Germany in April 1933. Over the next year all non-NSDAP parties dissolved, the last, Zentrum, on 6 July 1934. In mid-July 1934 the “Law against the construction of new parties” was passed by the only existing party – The Nazis.
The death of Hindenburg in 1934 was also of great advantage to Hitler as the President was his only competition for loyalty, particularly from the Army.
+++
Quite simply really, totally straight forward.
Saying, “In Germany they had a Catholic Party. It voted Hitler into office.”
Which “office”? Completely in their own? What of contributions by the tragic Papen and senile Hidenburg?
“Communists… correctly discerned” but if their insight was so limpid why did they roll Papen’s government in late 1932 which led directly to Hitler’s Chancellorship??
Yes, Zentrum certainly screwed the pooch but it wasn’t a leisurely and free decision and they had help. 44% in the March election helped.
Credit:
Hitler:Hubris (vol.1), Kershaw, Ian. (1998), p. 380-480.
Communists and the Socialists correctly discerned what Hitler was up to and stood firm against the Enabling Act
Because they have a fabulous track record of being concerned with human rights.
Chris you don’t seem to be understanding me. It wasn’t just the chips were down. Hitler looked like a great leader, an Obama as such for those who are that way inclined.
The socialists and commies would have hated him because he was a facist so its not like they were voting from a common highground.
Sheesh, you make it seem like the centre party made this fatal flaw; i say they did what they thought best. You ahve no idea what it was like to live in Germany at this time and I suspect you haven’t read your history in this.
he Reichstag then voted itself out of existence 441-94, the ninety-four being the SPD Social Democrats.
OK, so Kershaw admits that the Catholic Centre Party voted for Hitlers Enabling Act, the act which established his power and that only the Social Democrats voted against (the communist MPs all being in jail).
One would have to say that the Socialists came out rather well and that the Catholic Centre party didn’t.
God Bless
Ignatius Loyola advises that if something can be interpreted two ways, charitable or not, that it is best to interpret a message charitably.
—-
I think that your thinking is hopefully charitable.
Kershaw doesn’t “admit” anything as he’s probably unaware of this blog. Kershaw records the complexities of the situation, which I have given in precis, and to say that it all boiled down to the Enabling Act is simplistic.
—-
Chris, you originally said, “In Germany they had a Catholic Party. It voted Hitler into office.”
That statement is incorrect, but contains, if charitably interpreted, a direction to accuracy – the Zentrum vote in March 1933.
HITLER WAS ALREADY IN OFFICE by March 1933.
Zentrum DID NOT VOTE HIM INTO “OFFICE”.
Hitler gained the Chancellorship following the November 1932 election (NSDAP 33%) which was precipitated by the Communist’s “no-confidence” motion. He trumped Chancellor Scheleicher by conspiracy with Papen and the senile Hindenburg.
The NSDAP with its fascist coalition partner already had +50% of the March 1933 vote. Zentrum had only 11% and their vote was only significant because the quorum had been CORRUPTLY REDUCED (by ignoring the absent Communists).
Zentrum’s vote was miserable vain self-protection in an un-democratic authoritarian and disintergrating state.
As I said, Dachau was hungry as it had been opened only two days previous!
Vote ‘no’ you know where you go. The Socialist SDP had no illusions and went down standing up.
+++
My only point is that the original statement was misleadingly simplistic, possibly damaging to a naive reader. It demanded clarification which I have bothered to give.