With more than a year until the upcoming presidential election, I am already dreading the anticipated negative aspects of the political season: the polarization, the hostility, the exhaustion, the online arguments, the misinformation, and the potential for another Trump nomination. I am well aware that neither party’s platforms will represent me. I know that I will feel politically estranged and frustrated.
People like myself, who subscribe to what Roman Catholic Cardinal Joseph Bernardin referred to as a “consistent ethic of life,” do not have a clear political affiliation. This ethical stance involves a commitment to valuing life from the beginning to the end, as stated by Bernardin, and supports policies that assist those who are vulnerable or economically disadvantaged. Bernardin argued for equal advocacy for the “right to life of the weakest among us” as well as the “quality of life of the powerless among us.” This perspective combines issues that are typically separated in American politics.
For example, supporters of the whole life movement reject the idea that a party can claim to uphold family values while leaving children seeking asylum at our Southern border in grave danger. Nor can one extend compassion to those children while denying it to an unwanted child in the womb. A whole life ethic opposes war, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, and supports gun control. It finds connections between issues that are often treated as distinct by major party platforms.
Pope Francis, in his encyclical “Laudato Si,” highlighted the link between “throwaway culture,” which contributes to environmental degradation, and widespread elective abortions. These are not unrelated ideas to him; they stem from the same underlying impulse. Throwaway culture impacts the marginalized just as it quickly discards things of value.
Although not all Christians or Roman Catholics share this view, it is a common belief in Catholic social teaching. Many progressive evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and leaders in the Black church also champion similar perspectives. Despite this, no major political party embodies this consistent ethic of life. It is strange that a viewpoint respected by numerous religious groups and individuals is largely absent from our political discussions and voting options.
However, if those of us who hold this perspective actively live out a consistent ethic of human life and consistently articulate it as the basis for our political engagement, it has the potential to depolarize our political system. Our nation seems to be stuck at an impasse, divided on issues like abortion, immigration, and guns, among others, with no clear path forward. Perhaps the solution lies in a remix, a new moral vision that offers consistency by drawing from both progressive and conservative beliefs. By embracing and expressing a consistent ethic of life while remaining within existing political parties, we can create the necessary space to expand the moral imagination of both parties.
There is no fixed way to divide and categorize political issues and alliances. In the past, it was possible to be a pro-life Democrat or an anti-gun Republican. Roman Catholic leaders could support traditional sexual ethics while advocating for radical economic justice for workers and the impoverished. Theologically conservative evangelical leaders could call for a just redistribution of wealth and services to combat our materialistic culture.
The most polarizing issues today are rooted in deep moral disagreements, not merely debates over the size of government or policy intricacies. To move forward, we need to reassess our political issues, realign our alliances, and challenge the existing categories. By finding common ground on some issues, even when we disagree on others, and by refusing to conform to the current options offered, those committed to a consistent ethic of life can hope to feel represented, at least to some extent.
This reshaping will not happen overnight. Change takes time, and those of us who don’t fit neatly into any major party platform must persistently call for change. In particular, those who champion a consistent ethic of life must continue to uphold it and resist the rhetoric of either party.
In the conservative churches I grew up in, single-issue “pro-life” voters became part of the Republican coalition and eventually embraced the entire party platform, regardless of how well it aligned with a broader commitment to life. However, Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles reminded us that “there are no ‘single-issue’ saints.” For those of us who champion life, our task is to engage in the political process while steadfastly refusing to conform our views or loyalties to the current options available. We must insist that we cannot protect some lives while ignoring others.
Political scientist Morris Fiorina argues in “Unstable Majorities” that the perception of increased polarization among the American people is a misconception. However, the Republican and Democratic Party platforms have indeed become more polarized and “sorted.” The most zealous members of each party’s base contribute to this polarization, but they do not reflect the majority of voters or even a majority within their respective parties. This artificial bundling of platform positions does not necessarily align with the moral vision of most voters.
This artificial bundling is reinforced by the strong rhetoric of party leaders, elected officials, and vocal members of the base, creating a “spiral of silence,” as Fiorina describes it. People who believe they are in the minority within their groups often refrain from expressing their dissent for fear of rejection or punishment. Left unchecked, this dynamic leads the majority to believe that there are no dissenters, while the minority wrongly believes they are alone in their views. As a result, both the majority and minority think their groups are politically homogeneous.
Those of us who espouse a whole life ethic provide an opportunity for others to voice their own alienation and disagreement with the unsatisfactory state of our current political discourse.
As the saying goes, “If nothing changes, nothing changes.” There is no reason why the current bundling of political issues must continue indefinitely. Those of us who feel morally alienated from both parties must speak out and offer hope for a different kind of politics in America.
Tish Harrison Warren is a priest in the Anglican Church in North America and the author of “Prayer in the Night: For Those Who Work or Watch or Weep.”
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
