My Political Views

The coronation of Charles VII of France (1429)
detail of the painting Jeanne d'Arc (1886–1890) by Jules Eugène Lenepveu.

I realise it may seem strange to offer my political views on a religious blog, but I think it's warranted in this case. Namely because my Catholic Christian faith doesn't just influence my political views. Rather it defines them. Obviously I hold to the basic principles of human life and family...
  • I am solidly Pro-Life.
  • I oppose abortion, euthanasia, foetal and embryonic stem-cell research, all experimentation on human beings, unnecessary wars and the death penalty.
  • I believe true sacramental marriage is between one man and one woman.
  • I believe every human being has a right to food, clothing, shelter and medical attention.
  • I'm in favour of affordable education and vouchers for home schooling and private schools.
  • I support labour unions, minimum wage, and international trade tariffs to protect American industry. This is really a family related issue when you think about it. Blue-collar workers (the American middle class) have really gotten the shaft over the last 30 years with horrible "free-trade" policies.
But these are just a list of issues. They really don't define how I think or who I am politically speaking, what really makes me tick, so to speak. Well, the best way to define me politically-speaking is as a Traditionalist

When I say Traditionalist, what I mean by that is that I support traditional forms of Christian governance and oppose revolutionary forms of governance. This has both a political and an economic side. 

On a political level, and this may sound shocking to some, I am a Catholic monarchist. When I say a monarchist, what I mean by that is that I think Christian nations should be governed by Christian kings and queens. However, when I say Catholic, what I mean by that is not only should the monarch be Catholic, but in practising Catholicism, the monarch should implement the highest levels of subsidiarity and solidarity.

Solidarity is just what it sounds like. It's both charity for the poor, and comradery with the middle class. It's about governments and societies being organised to put people first, and take care of one another in a Christian way. This of course involves the Church, but it also involves cooperation (partnership) between the Church and the state. The two should always work together toward taking care of the weak and suffering in society. 

Subsidiarity is a word many Americans simply aren't familiar with. It means government from the bottom up, not the top down. In other words, the lower levels of government take higher precedence and higher levels of government should be "at the service" (subsidiary) of the lower. So for example; if there is an issue that needs to be dealt with by government, it should be the local government (city or county) that tackles it first. Then the state government should operate to support the city or county government. Then the national government serves the state. It's pretty much the opposite of how things are usually run in a federal republic like the United States. 

I recognise that democratic republics are inherently weak forms of government, and they're highly prone to over-centralisation, bureaucratic red tape, corruption, and ultimately tyranny. We should be reminded that 20th century European dictators, like Adolph Hitler for example, used the democratic process to lawfully rise to power in the German Weimar Republic. We see the same thing happen all the time in various democratic republics around the world. The United States is no different. We too have had our dictatorial presidents, just none yet quite as bad as what we have seen in smaller countries. That can change though, under the right conditions.

I'm not against democracy per se'. I think it can work, and does work, on smaller and more local levels. Nor am I against parliamentary forms of higher government (state and national). What is needed, however, is a check and balance on these things. We have seen that the checks and balances on federal government, put in place by our nation's founding fathers in the U.S. Constitution, have failed miserably. This is nothing new. The American Civil War was a perfect example of how woefully inefficient the original republic was. What we ended up with after that was a republican system that put dictatorial powers into the hands of the president, and godlike divine powers into the hands of the federal courts. We now have a federal government that taxes us to a level the founding fathers would consider slavery, a tax code that manipulates our very way of life, and in spite of that a federal debt that rivals anything in world history. Then we have federal courts that tell us its okay for mothers to murder their children and to force taxpayers to fund it. They also say it's permissible for governments to plunder private property, all the while forcing same-sex "marriage" on all Americans, even though most states oppose it. The American experiment in self-governance (without a king) has woefully failed and is beyond repair. The system of checks and balances the founding fathers originally designed have failed. The entire American federal government is a failure of epic proportions, which will become painfully more clear in the years ahead. We need a king!

Sadly, the American experiment, along with the French experiment, has inspired the world to imitate us, so much so that most Western countries are democratic republics now, and the few monarchies that remain have been so neutered by constitutional constraints that they're basically nothing more than royal figureheads. When the American system falls, and it will someday, it's going to start a chain reaction that will take down nearly every republic in the Western world.

A king to reign over a constitutional parliament, who is not himself subject to the constitution, would be the ultimate check and balance on any representational form of government. When the government tramples on the God-given rights of the people, and it always does eventually, Christians would then have recourse to their Christian king. Such a king could then override the constitutional government's ruling, order or legislation, to protect the God-given rights of the people, and there would be nothing the constitutional government could do to stop him. 

Case in point; let's take the example of Christian bakers forced by the courts to back wedding cakes for same-sex "marriages" against their Christian conscience. This is what the courts inevitably do. They inflate the "rights" of homosexuals, to publicly celebrate sodomy, over the rights of Christians to practice their religion publicly. So according to the courts, celebrating sodomy publicly is okay, but observing Christian virtue publicly is not. We have witnessed, in our time, the paralysis of the legislative and executive branches of government in this very situation. It is clear now. There must be somebody over the federal government, and that somebody must be a practising Catholic king. I say Catholic only because no other Church has the binding force of canon law to compel a king to uphold Christian virtue. The Baptists couldn't do it, nor could the Methodists, and certainly not the Evangelicals or Pentecostals. The king has to be Catholic, because only the Pope would have the will to excommunicate him if he fails to do his job of protecting Christian virtue. So in our case, with the Christian baker, the people could appeal to the Catholic king to override the courts, and so he would to protect the Christian's right to conscience.

I know this is a hard pill for Americans to swallow, but it's the truth. If you're a Christian you must understand this. The United States Federal Government will not, and cannot, protect you anymore. It never really could, but that hadn't become so painfully obvious until now. Today it's small Christian businessmen. Tomorrow it will be Christian professionals. Then it will be Christian employees. Finally, it will be any Christian who simply wants to open a bank account. In the end, Christianity will be made functionally illegal, unless it's the kind of "Christianity" (if we can even call it that) which compromises on moral issues across the board. But any Christian that upholds classical Christian moral virtue will soon become a pariah in the United States, and the federal government can't save you. In fact, it will probably sign your persecution warrant. If you're a Christian, you need a Christian king to override our federal government. You may not like that idea as an American, but that's how it is. You really don't have much of a choice anymore. 

That king will need to be Catholic, by the way, because if he's not, he won't be accountable to anyone really, and he can redefine his Christian faith based on his own will (become his own pope), and trust me, we've learned from history that doesn't work so well either. In fact, our nation's founding fathers fought a bloody revolution just to get away from all of that business. We need a king who is answerable to the Pope, and seeks to please local Catholic bishops. It's the best protection from government tyranny we can ever hope for.

Politics naturally leads to economics, as the two are always interrelated. Economically speaking, I am a distributist (micro-capitalist) and this is an economic ideology based on the teachings of the Catholic Church. To summarise, it simply means that productive-property ownership (businesses and farms) should be owned by individuals, families and worker-owned cooperatives. The idea here is that when regular, ordinary people own their own livelihood, they not only take greater pride in their work, but they also tend to reap better benefits from it. Pay is usually more fair, and the need for labour unions is almost eliminated. In turn, regular people do a better job propping up local charities and churches. Regular people do a better job taking care of their neighbourhoods and parks. Regular people do a better job taking care of each other. They do much better than big business or big government. That's distributism in a nutshell. It's as Christian as a Bible study, and as Catholic as Rosary beads. 

So as you can see, there isn't really a major political party in America that represents my solidly ultra-Catholic views on economics and politics. So I have to vote as an independent in most elections, when I choose to vote at all. There is, however, one political movement that does embody my political views. It's called "The Counter Revolution" and I strongly recommend it...

The Counter Revolution