Christian Democratic Union Party of the United States of America

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I just found out about this...

http://www.cdusa.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Apparently, they're being helped out by Center for Public Justice.

I think I'm more libertarian-oriented and skeptical of such parties as they don't seem to have helped spread the Gospel in the countries where they've existed and have easily gotten corrupted when they came into power. I also don't believe that the center has any stable meaning in politics and so trying to base a political party on the center is more or less making a claim to control of the gov't. I'd rather have ideologically more dynamic main two parties, with third parties or movements within the parties providing the dynamism as to what is the center that the main two parties tend to center themselves around.

Though, I wouldn't mind seeing a bipartisan Christian Democratic Caucus emerge....

dlw

[Meh_Gerbil]

I just found out about this...

http://www.cdusa.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Apparently, they're being helped out by Center for Public Justice.

I think I'm more libertarian-oriented and skeptical of such parties as they don't seem to have helped spread the Gospel in the countries where they've existed and have easily gotten corrupted when they came into power. I also don't believe that the center has any stable meaning in politics and so trying to base a political party on the center is more or less making a claim to control of the gov't. I'd rather have ideologically more dynamic main two parties, with third parties or movements within the parties providing the dynamism as to what is the center that the main two parties tend to center themselves around.

Though, I wouldn't mind seeing a bipartisan Christian Democratic Caucus emerge....

dlw

Your fears mirror mine.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

it's still worth debating about. It will need to adapt to be successful in the US.

I think it can get power right now by giving socially conservative Christians more of an exit threat with the Republican party.

I think these sorts of parties shd blackmail the major parties with the potential of running at the nat'l level as spoilers and then concentrate on state level politics, getting a toe hold on state level politics and making key changes like making the state legislatures unicameral and pressing for a system that would be a cross between a majoritarian and proportional system.

Like in my native MN, we could divide up the state into 4 or 5 regions and then roughly allot the no. of representatives for each region to the parties by virtue of the proportion of the vote that the party won in that region.

This wd keep political campaigning local, make elections not winner-takes-all games(this tends to reduce negative campaigning.) and give third parties a better chance of winning some representation, but, because of how the delegates are still assigned by region, it will also limit the ability of obscure third parties to win representation.

I think that if we then simplified the state income tax to be a flat tax with a thousand dollar transfer for each grownup so long as they vote(that would be deposited monthly in their bank account) that we could ensure near 100% voting in state elections and have yearly elections so as to keep our politicians on our toes and empower those who have stronger community roots.

I think that then the political reforms at the state level wd eventually spill over into possible changes at the nat'l level in terms of how our political systems work. The existence of institutionalized third parties at the state level would raise the threat of them potentially spoiling elections at the nat'l level and force both parties to be more dynamic in dealing effectively with the issues that face people...

dlw

[Mountain Man]

Is it me, or is there some inverse correlation between the length of a group's name and their actual effectiveness for whatever cause it is they're promoting?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Is it me, or is there some inverse correlation between the length of a group's name and their actual effectiveness for whatever cause it is they're promoting?

Is it just me or did your parents beat you while you were growing up?

dlw

[aavans]

I just found out about this...

http://www.cdusa.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Apparently, they're being helped out by Center for Public Justice.

I think I'm more libertarian-oriented and skeptical of such parties as they don't seem to have helped spread the Gospel in the countries where they've existed and have easily gotten corrupted when they came into power. I also don't believe that the center has any stable meaning in politics and so trying to base a political party on the center is more or less making a claim to control of the gov't. I'd rather have ideologically more dynamic main two parties, with third parties or movements within the parties providing the dynamism as to what is the center that the main two parties tend to center themselves around.

Though, I wouldn't mind seeing a bipartisan Christian Democratic Caucus emerge....

dlw

Great comments throughout the thread so far, both pro and con. I hope that no one here was beaten during childhood and that you all had a magical youth. ;)

Strictly speaking, and in the eyes of the Federal Election Commission, the CDU is not a national party. Nor do we aim to be. What we aim to be is a national political association made up of state Christian Democratic parties operating in closed primary and fusion-ballot states, as well as non-partisan CDU caucuses operating in open primary states where caucus nominees may run in Republican or Democratic primaries.

The latter strategy was executed quite successfully in open primary states by the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota to take over both state Republican and Democratic parties in the upper midwest and western states. In closed primary states, as Minnesota was at the time of NPL's rise, NPL formed the Farmer-Labor Party, which later merged with Minnesota's Democratic Party to form the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party. We anticipate that when state CDU parties and state CDU caucus manage to succeed in electing Christian Democrats to the US House and US Senate, there may indeed be a bipartisan Christian Democratic caucus on Capitol Hill.

USAmerica's CDU is small, but our numbers include a consultant to the Vatican's Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace as well as a former UN ambassador. We have no formal relationship to the <a href="www.cpjustice.org">Center for Public Justice</a>, a Christian-Democratic think tank in Annapolis Maryland headed by James Skillen.

Regards
Alan Avans
Executive Secretary
Christian Democratic Union
http://www.cdusa.org

[Rusty T]

Constitution Party!!!

[Mountain Man]

Is it just me or did your parents beat you while you were growing up?

No, it's just you.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

No, it's just you.

I hoped so...

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Great comments throughout the thread so far, both pro and con. I hope that no one here was beaten during childhood and that you all had a magical youth. ;)

Strictly speaking, and in the eyes of the Federal Election Commission, the CDU is not a national party. Nor do we aim to be. What we aim to be is a national political association made up of state Christian Democratic parties operating in closed primary and fusion-ballot states, as well as non-partisan CDU caucuses operating in open primary states where caucus nominees may run in Republican or Democratic primaries.

I was just reading about the fusion-ballot system and it sounds like it was a really good idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion

I only wish that different third parties could put aside their differences and join together in coalitions that would have as a priority making statewide legal changes to give third parties more of a chance of affecting the main parties' platforms.

The latter strategy was executed quite successfully in open primary states by the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota to take over both state Republican and Democratic parties in the upper midwest and western states. In closed primary states, as Minnesota was at the time of NPL's rise, NPL formed the Farmer-Labor Party, which later merged with Minnesota's Democratic Party to form the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party. We anticipate that when state CDU parties and state CDU caucus manage to succeed in electing Christian Democrats to the US House and US Senate, there may indeed be a bipartisan Christian Democratic caucus on Capitol Hill.

Why do you need to have your own candidates elected to have such a bipartisan caucus? I was thinking that you could give endorsements to candidates across partisan status at the nat'l level, if you set your goals broadly enough and, perhaps, threaten to run spoiler candidates in some elections where neither party's candidates are good or they refuse to strategically contribute to your party.

Third parties have to balance idealism and realism, principles neglected by the main parties and opportunism at their expense...

USAmerica's CDU is small, but our numbers include a consultant to the Vatican's Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace as well as a former UN ambassador. We have no formal relationship to the <a href="www.cpjustice.org">Center for Public Justice</a>, a Christian-Democratic think tank in Annapolis Maryland headed by James Skillen.

Regards
Alan Avans
Executive Secretary
Christian Democratic Union
http://www.cdusa.org

If you all would consider some of my key ideas from my ideal-type platform, I could become a member. I'm also supporting a member of my church, Pam Ellison, who is running as an independent candidate for gov'r of MN. Hopefully she will get the MN independence party nomination. She is a Christian but averse to joining parties that have the label Christian on them.

dlw

[13Krieger]

The possibilities of a Christian Democratic Union are extremely possible now.

With the Democrats and Republicans moving closer and closer with the only real difference being the (r) and (d) next to the names; it seems the time has come for the United States to break this incestrial relationship that has been going on for over 100 years in the USA. But it will not be a easy task.

Ben Franklin warned the USA about having a two party system and the dangers of it and it seems his words are now ringing true especially, if you look at the policital system of the USA over the past 20 years.

Why Christian Democracy as a real alternative?

First you have to look at its roots from the early 1800s and what are the drivers for being a Christian Democrat.

First, you don't have to be a Christian persay but you have to believe in basic Christian values like the dignity of man and the believe that all men are equal in God's eyes.

Second you have the be a liberal. (LIBERAL?) Yes you have the be a true classical liberal. Socialists and Democrats have hijacked this label and desecrated its true meaning. A classic liberal believes in ''Laissez-faire“, LIMITED government, and free markets, and the liberty of man. Hense the name ''Liberal''.

Because of that Christian Democrats are all classic Liberals.

If this sounds good to you then go to christiandemocraticunion.wordpress.com to find alot of really good information.

I think this is a movement whos time has come.....

[joel]

Those two websites paint very different pictures.

The first
http://www.cdusa.org/
presents CDU as a big-government, anti-libertarian party, taking the more statist elements from each of the two main parties and combining them into a super-statist party.

Some things mentioned:
- Requirements on vehicle fuels
- universal health care
- "social justice", including language similar to Obama's "You didn't build that" sentiments. "Even if someone works hard for their wealth, their riches were given to them."


Whereas
http://christiandemocraticunion.wordpress.com/
presents CDU as being for limited government, free markets (resisting regulation), skepticism of the idea of "social justice."

[13Krieger]

That is because the progressive SoJourners group registered the domain name first. There is nothing about cduusa.org (other than the name) that is remote in the true Christian Democratic political beliefs. (ok they also mention God) ;)

The christiandemocraticunion.wordpress.com website is very close to all the other CDU websites in world with their its beliefs and political views. This is just another attempt by Socialists and Progressives to keep the name quiet so no one will understand what it truely means to be a Christian Democrat.

Check out the links on the ChristianDemocraticUnion website and you will see that it is true Classic Liberal Social Democratic approach in its core beliefs and political viewpoints.

However, from what I understand they are wanting the domain name from the SoJourners group back.

[13Krieger]

On re-reading the two sites I see that CDU USA says that Woodrow Wilson and William Jenning Bryan were Christian Democrats. That is false. Both WIlson and Bryan were hardcore Democrat Progressives and the only thing in common with the fact they were democrats that also they happen to be of the Christian faith. Just like Theodore Roosevelt they were Progressives whos intent was to grow the Federal Government into every sector of human life.

This is not at all what a Christian Democrat stands for. A Christian Democrat believes that government should be ''as small and neccessarily possible'' and markets should have as little regulation as possible as not to impede on the Social Economic model of ''Lassiez-Faire''

The cduusa.org website states ''The rich did not get to be so on their own. Even if someone works hard for their wealth, their riches were given to them.'' That is plain Socialism bordering on Communistic mindset and not in any way, shape, or form close to anything a Christian Democrat believes. Why? Because that statement goes against the core principles of Liberalism (specifically principle #8). So, that by itself proves cduusa.org is just a front for Progressive Socialists and are stealing a title claiming to be Christian Democrats when in reality they are just Progressives and left-wing Democratic Progressives at that!

If you want to come close to an American type of Christian Democratic Union values and Politics you have to go back to the WHIG party of the USA and look at people like; William Henry Harrison or Zachary Taylor or Millard Fillmore. They begin to get close to Christian Democratic values and ideals.

[joel]

On re-reading the two sites I see that CDU USA says that Woodrow Wilson and William Jenning Bryan were Christian Democrats. That is false. Both WIlson and Bryan were hardcore Democrat Progressives and the only thing in common with the fact they were democrats that also they happen to be of the Christian faith. Just like Theodore Roosevelt they were Progressives whos intent was to grow the Federal Government into every sector of human life.

This is not at all what a Christian Democrat stands for. A Christian Democrat believes that government should be ''as small and neccessarily possible'' and markets should have as little regulation as possible as not to impede on the Social Economic model of ''Lassiez-Faire''

The cduusa.org website states ''The rich did not get to be so on their own. Even if someone works hard for their wealth, their riches were given to them.'' That is plain Socialism bordering on Communistic mindset and not in any way, shape, or form close to anything a Christian Democrat believes. Why? Because that statement goes against the core principles of Liberalism (specifically principle #8). So, that by itself proves cduusa.org is just a front for Progressive Socialists and are stealing a title claiming to be Christian Democrats when in reality they are just Progressives and left-wing Democratic Progressives at that!

If you want to come close to an American type of Christian Democratic Union values and Politics you have to go back to the WHIG party of the USA and look at people like; William Henry Harrison or Zachary Taylor or Millard Fillmore. They begin to get close to Christian Democratic values and ideals.

What you say sounds all right, except:

- My understanding is that the Whig party was a continuation of the Federalists especially the Hamiltonians. I, however, despise Hamilton, and a much more of a Jeffersonian. From what I've heard, I prefer the early Democratic Party over the Whigs. (The Democrats back then were very different from Democrats today; they were the laissez-faire party, while the Whigs were more interventionist.)

- You used "Social Democrat", which is also known as "democratic socialism", is a form of socialism, which is incompatible with laissez faire Classical Liberalism.


You mention "principles of Liberalism (specifically principle #8)". What are the principles?