On the honesty of partisanship

There are certain commentators who like to think they argue from an unbiased or non-partisan point of view.* In the attempt to be fair and intellectually open-minded, they will consider and critique both political parties. This, by itself, is a good thing. Their misstep comes when they pretend they do not prefer one party over the other, or that they are somehow above such a pedestrian preference. By avoiding making a commitment to one set of ideas over another, they are able to avoid difficult and embarrassing conversations, like admitting they prefer the Democratic plan for society over the Republican one. This often takes the form of an argument that says neither political party is sufficiently satisfactory, and therefore the correct position is one that rejects the whole "system."

It is often said this tendency is rooted in intellectual honesty or in a true understanding of the faith or something of that sort. But this is not the case. Really, the rejection of political commitment is a rejection of what is human. Human affairs are imperfect and always will be. And it's true, from the point of view of Catholic Social Thought or the Platonic realm of true forms, that no political party or set of ideas will be satisfactory. From a certain point of view, nothing political is satisfactory. True justice is not possible in this world. This preference for the ideal is an easy trap for academics to fall into. Nothing human satisfies the academic, because academics are free from the constraints of reality, able to work out the perfect world in their minds. But back in the real world, we have to make choices. We have to make choices about how to live our lives, and we often have to choose from unsatisfactory options. Yes, neither party is perfect. Neither party represents the true political good. But guess what? No party will be such a thing. Under any system.

I think that what is needed to combat this tendency is the honest disclosure of political preferences. Admit you are a partisan and that you have some particular ideas about what the good society will look like, how it will be structured, and what its ends will be. Argue passionately for it. Do not pretend you do not prefer one set of ideas over another.

I hasten to add that we would do well to remember that perfectly faithful Catholics can have totally legitimate and totally different political opinions. If Michael Iafrate wants to live in a world without the nation-state, he is free to argue for that world. If Policraticus thinks it best if a democratic government takes control over the economy and redistributes wealth, he is welcome to think that. And if someone else thinks limited mixed governments are the way to go, more power to them. Catholicism allows for that diversity of political opinion. It is, I think, shameful to criticize and question the faith of someone whose politics you disagree with. Unless, of course, that person advocates for something that is in direct contradiction to basic Catholic moral teaching. Which is why we need to be able to distinguish between binding Catholic moral teaching and political opinions. It seems that Catholic Social Thought has made this more difficult, not less. I wish the opposite was the case.

*It is especially tempting for those who study Catholic Social Thought, which is usually (properly) understood as being neither Republican nor Democratic nor liberal nor conservative. Catholic Social Thought primarily exists to speak truths about the human person, and as such is not necessarily committed to one political or economic or cultural system over another.