[statecom-discuss] We are a political party, not a church

[Colby Peterson]

This was posted on thirdpartywatch.com.

The Constitution Party is fairly revolting, but I hope GRPers and  
GPers will recognize the significance this article has to our party  
and take away some of the hidden wisdom.

  - Colby


We are a Political Party, not a Church
A beautiful article by the former Minnesota Constitution Party  
Chairman. This, to me, is the best article on Third Parties &  
Religion ever written…
________________________________________________________

We are a Political Party, not a Church

by Henry Braddock, Past State Chairman of the Constitution Party of  
Minnesota

It’s been over thirty years since Bill Shearer founded the American  
Independent Party of California. With several hundred thousand  
members, it remains the largest state affiliate of the Constitution  
Party nationally. One of the strengths of our Party is that it has  
leaders like Shearer. He volunteered to serve as national Chairman of  
the Constitution Party, a post he held for 3 years (1996-99) during  
the turbulent start-up years of the party. He has more practical  
experience in politics then anyone else in the party.

Shearer is the author of the quote that serves as the title for this  
article. He is wont to say it whenever he sees anyone getting carried  
away with enthusiasms for political salvation or deliverance from  
evil by our Party. “We’re a political party, not a church,” Bill will  
caution. He has had occasion to say it many times, because our party  
is prone to this error. At any national convention, you always find  
someone who is treating the Party as though it were a church. This  
can be suicidal for a political party, so it behooves us to hearken  
to Shearer’s admonition.

To join a church, you need to understand and accept its beliefs. A  
religious creed does not admit of exceptions. You either believe it  
or you don’t (this is not a theological article but, in passing, we  
can note that it is the gift of faith that allows one to believe in  
the revealed truths of God). Too often we see people in the  
Constitution Party who have brought to the party the predisposition  
of their faith, and to be prepared to excommunicate anyone who  
falters on any plank of the platform.



This kind of quest for ideological purity is antithetical to  
politics. As Howard Phillips likes to say, “We should let people vote  
for us for their own reasons.” In reality, people usually vote for a  
candidate (or a party) for one particular reason, not for a whole  
platform of reasons. People vote for you because they know you’re pro- 
life, and they’re pro-life, and that’s the number one item on their  
political agenda. Or they vote for you because they know you’re pro- 
abortion and they’re pro-abortion, and that’s the number one item on  
their agenda. The fact that they may not agree with you on other  
policies is irrelevant, because they agree with you on the issue that  
is most important to them.

Phillips’ point is that we get votes (and financial and other  
support) by allowing people to support whatever part of our platform  
they find appealing without requiring them to embrace our entire  
political philosophy. I’ve never met anyone who heartily endorsed  
every word of every plank in the party’s platform (except as a matter  
of “faith”). An enormous amount of work has gone into making of the  
CP platform. It reflects many a knock-down fight to forge language  
that accommodates many interests and is a wonderful example of  
political compromise without sacrifice of principle. Of course, the  
platform changes over time as we become more knowledgeable or  
sophisticated about what we’re doing and trying to achieve. There is  
nothing sacrosanct or holy about the platform. It’s just a working  
document to help guide us along the many paths of public policy. That  
someone might not agree with something in the platform is no grounds  
for hurling him into outer political darkness.

The confusion between party and church is seen whenever the question  
of coalitions and alliances arises. We are often inclined to treat  
this as we would a question of ecumenism in religion. Can we join  
forces with another religion? Many think that to do so would mean  
diluting our own beliefs in an unacceptable way. But to carry this  
sentiment into politics is to confuse politics and religion in a way  
detrimental to both. Politics requires compromise; it requires  
accommodation; it requires coalition. Without these, there is no  
politics. Howard Phillips again articulated the appropriate  
guideline. He has taught us that there are good compromises and bad  
compromises. A good compromise is one that moves you toward your  
objective. A bad compromise is one that moves you away from your  
objective.

For example, as a practical matter many of our political interests  
often would be served by electing a Libertarian to office. Because  
some Libertarians are not Christians, and because the Libertarian  
Party has no religious litmus test, there are some in the CP who  
would argue that we cannot support a Libertarian for office. This is  
confusing our party with a church. We might exclude from our  
religious company someone who did not embrace all our dogma, but to  
carry this criterion into politics is to preclude the possibility of  
success at the outset.

It’s important for us to establish our priorities, and to realize  
that we’re not going to accomplish all our objectives at once. We  
need to work on the most important things first. And to accomplish  
something important to us, we need to gain the support of people who  
share our desire for that important objective even though they may  
not agree with us on other objectives (indeed, they may completely  
disagree with us on other matters). This is the art of politics— 
finding those opportunities for coalitions and alliances where forces  
may be combined for a shared objective without consideration of other  
policy concerns beyond that primary one.

Does this mean we could support someone who was 100% pro-life even  
though he favored increasing income taxes? The political answer is:  
yes, if the life issue is our top priority; no, if taxation is our  
top priority. Would we be willing to pay higher taxes in exchange for  
a pro-life government and society? If the tax question is more  
important to you then the life question, then you would withhold  
support from the pro-life candidate who favored higher taxes. But if  
the life question was more important, then your interests would be  
well served by supporting the life candidate, even though his other  
policies might be inimical to your political philosophy.

Such political alliances and coalitions do not require that we  
abandon or dilute our political principles or modify our platform.  
They simply mean that we have established our priorities and we’re  
focusing on what’s most important to us at a particular moment. It’s  
a recognition that half a loaf is better than none, if it keeps  
moving us to our objective. It means we’re serious about  
accomplishing what we can, and not foregoing present gains for the  
(dubious) prospect of imminent total victory and the institution of  
our complete platform as universal policy.

“We’re a political party, not a Church.” The wisdom of Bill Shearer  
and Howard Phillips and other founders of our Party, a wisdom based  
both on years of practical political experience as well as lives  
devoted to truth and honor, is a deep well from which we all should  
draw freely. it can help guide us to the political success we covet,  
and help keep us from wandering endlessly in the political wilderness.