abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by Gerald Bowyer

Jerry Bowyer is executive director of the National Reform Association and editor of this magazine.

I have great respect for all the writers featured in this symposium. I would not knowingly subject you to inferior counsel. I have, nevertheless, come to conclusions contrary to some of them. I can do this because I have an advantage over them: I got to read them all beforehand. They didn't have that opportunity.

The only way to deal with a complex question like this is to peel it like an onion, one layer at a time.

First, the ethics. Some writers implied that there is a moral imperative for Christians to form a separate political party, as if membership in a non-Christian party is an unequal yoking with unbelievers. This is a misuse of Scripture; Paul's injunction is dealing with the marital relationship. How could people of differing faiths reasonably enter a relationship of such intimacy? The rule also applies in church matters where the same apostle tells us not even to associate with apostates. But he makes great pains to specify that he is talking about the Church. Isolation from non-Christian thought and behavior outside the Church would require that we "leave the world." Relationships such as employment contracts are permitted. A relationship such as membership in a political party does not require life-long commitment, but Christian baptism or Christian marriage do. Marriage is "till death do us part." Baptism is forever. Party membership is until you resign or miss two consecutive elections.

Further, family and church covenants impose obligations; party memberships involve no oaths or promises. If advocates of this view really want to be consistent, they should consider revoking their U.S. citizenships.

That having been said, there are some who imply something like an ethical obligation to stay in the two- party system. There are hints that it would be a violation of Christian charity, and insensitive to form our own party. I cannot agree with this. How can any unbeliever consistently object to Christians exercising the same right that he is exercising in his secular party, namely the right to participate in voluntary associations which reflect his religious values? If state worshipers find themselves attracted to the Democrats and money worshipers find themselves attracted to the Republicans, how can he object if Christ worshipers find themselves attracted to some Christian political party?

Neither side can claim ethical obligation. This is a prudential question, more dependent on strategy than morality. Let's look at some of the practical questions.

Would the formation of a third party really eliminate the possibility of coalition-building with non-members? Not really. Look at the multi-party democracies of Western Europe; they are master coalition-builders. But, you say, that's because of their parliamentary system of government. No it isn't; their system makes it easier for smaller parties to get elected, but there is nothing about it that is any more helpful to coalition-building once the elections are over. Like Libertarian state reps who tend to vote with conservative Republicans except on social issues, a Christian third party representative would form and dissolve voting coalitions as would seem right to him.

A far more apt tactical question is: Can such a party be effective in winning elections? I'm afraid the answer is no. The rules strongly favor the two-party system. Yes, realignment is theoretically possible, but extraordinarily unlikely. If the party structure was no longer useful to any major player, then realignment might occur, as with the formation of the Republican Party over a century ago. In our day, however, there are many groups clamoring for control of the major parties. Even if the conservative evangelicals walk away from the GOP, would the country club liberals do the same? No, they would be happy the riff raff had left and once again take their place as undisputed leaders.

Elections are not kind to third parties, at least not while the two main parties are intact. Even with massive effort, they seldom rise even into the double digits in the polls. Furthermore, it would take far more effort and money to form and maintain a viable party than it would take to successfully capture one or both of the mainline parties. In a recent effort in Pennsylvania, a third party candidate was required to get 40,000 signatures in order to get on the ballot as a senatorial candidate. If instead of gathering all these for one man (who had almost no chance of winning), 2600 individuals gathered 15 signatures each to fulfill the many vacant committee slots in the Pennsylvania Republican Party, the party would be irrevocably changed. If this margin were added to the already significant presence that we have in the party, we'd have virtually unchallenged control.

Does all of this mean that a third party would be completely ineffective? No, it means that such a party would be ineffective electorally, but parties sometimes have other purposes.

Sometimes groups like this can be effective blackmail parties. When the mainline party leadership strays from principle (for example, the GOP fielding pro-abortion candidates), the blackmail party runs another candidate who pulls away just enough votes to remove the mainline party's margin of victory. This strategy only works if enough pro-lifers stay in the party to make the case. For instance, if Christians left the GOP and left rich liberals and feminists in control, electoral defeat would not induce the party to return to pro-life policies any more than the continual burying of Democratic presidential candidates has pulled them back from the far left. The blackmail only works if enough stay in the party to be a conscience. But, if Christians could control enough votes to form a living third party and have enough left over to stay in the mainline party, then they had enough votes to keep the party from straying in the first place.

There is another purpose to a third party: it could serve as a mouthpiece. This is really the only tactical value I can imagine. Christians who choose to remain mainline are strongly pressured to downplay some of their positions. The process encourages them to compromise on various issues. What is lost is a clear presentation of a Christian policy agenda. A Christian party, even if it hasn't got a prayer to win elections, can serve as a soapbox for our issues.

This is a useful function, but at what cost? Maintenance of a party requires quite a bit of time and money. Will this pull resources away from the Christian presence in the mainline party? It could. This is the real judgment call. If the leaders of the new party are bringing new people into the system, then there is no problem. Christians could continue to be salt and light in the two-party system, while a new group of Christian activists could use a third party as a soapbox, cajoling and blackmailing the other parties into more biblical positions. If, on the other hand, such an enterprise divided and weakened an already divided and weakened pool of Christian activists, our cause would be set back by a decade or more.

As is usually the case with casuistry, the reasoning is complex but the advice is simple. Christians who want to form a third party should go into it with no illusions. They will not succeed at the ballot box, but perhaps they can succeed at the soapbox. Activists in mainline parties should probably stay there. Leaders who want to make the third party work are going to need to bring new people to the table. If they are successful, then more experienced GOP activists should begin to send some of their orators over to the new party. In the meantime, I think they should finish what they started: the re-Christianization of the Republican Party.

back to top