This brings me back to a memorable and powerful statement of our host, M. Iafrate who wrote in the original post above:

“The best way to end abortion is to change our society at its roots, and in the mean time, to do what Christians have always done in the face of what seems to be an unchangeable situation of death-dealing systemic sin: change hearts one at a time.”

A Party of Life would focus not simply on abortion, but on what Cardinal Bernadin called the seamless garment, the “consistent ethic of life” that covers the entire spectrum of respect for life and human rights across the board. The focus would be on challenging the interconnected evils of poverty, unjust distribution of wealth, violence, war and the systemic degradation of the ecosystem.

Apply to this vision the bright promise and hope expressed in Obama’s mantra repeated in his acceptance speech last week: “Yes we can!”

This may sound visionary and unrealistic. But let us all remember that prophetic line from Proverbs: “Without a vision, the people perish”.

Fleshing out the incarnation of this vision is the task before us. From the head to the heart to the hand, we can make a difference in this world of ours. That is my concept of the Good News.

If such a Party, once again, was well-organized and funded, it could probably start out an election polling between 5 and 10 percent. If it pushed hard enough and got enough media coverage, it might be able to get 15%, which would include the candidate in the televised presidential debates. Then it;s just an issue of doing the ground work to get the message out and convince people that they can win.

My concerns, though, are that secular progressives would refuse to vote for an anti-abortion candidate, and that too many Christian conservatives flirt with idolatry in their love for the GOP and free market capitalism.

These are all just pipedreams, obviously, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about.

The biggest problem with such a pipedream is that accomplishing something like this, while it would be a monumental shift in American politics, would cost too much time and energy and money. It’s probably more prudent to work for change from the outside, as Ralph Nader did successfully for decades before running for president.

Still, when Ross Perot was heralded as a political hero by Larry King, he created the Reform Party, got into the debates, and wound up with 19% of the vote (which, in a three-way race, isn’t bad). Ever since then, the Reform Party has held major party status in many states, allowing their congressional candidates easy access to the ballot and public financing. If progressive Christians did this sort of thing, it could end very well.

Let’s face it, we are in an unprecedented human crisis.

Danger and opportunity are facing us simultaneously. And I believe that the Divine Creator is stirring us to action which could be redemptive and creative for a new beginning of salvation history. Perhaps what we need to do is to rediscover that there is only one God, that we have only one Redeemer and that we are all gifted by the Spirit of God to participate in the ongoing creation of the only universe we know of…

Voting third party may be a step in the process. Who knows? I think it’s worth a try. Now the question is how to ensure it is effective.

The self-defeat I was referring to, I suppose, was more aimed at people who say: “I won’t vote third party because third parties cannot win.”

In fact I’m really not sure that you even attempted to argue that voting third party is a bad idea, so I’m not sure that I’m arguing with you at this point.

I’ve lost my train of thought.

Moving to another model of democracy with several parties acting in coalition or in opposition to serve the common good, brings with it some fascinating (sometimes frustrating) alternatives.

In the Canadian parliament, there are currently four political parties in the House of Commons speaking and acting on behalf of their constituents. As many as six or seven candidates may appear on the voting ballot at election time, each contending for a seat in the parliament to represent the local riding constituency as well as their own political party. There are also a handful of independent members.

Back to the American conundrum: I understand that quite a few people who voted for Ralph Nader or for the Green candidates in 2004, in effect stole the presidency from Gore and gave it to Bush, given the slight percentage of advantage that pushed Bush into the White House.

So, although there is theoretically nothing wrong with voting for a 3rd party candidate, the challenge is how to make it an effective choice for real change that is needed?

Don’t look to Canada for your answer. Certainly not in the present configuration of minority government ruled by a Conservative party with a mentality and ideology that is straight out of the neoconservative handbook of neoliberal capitalism. These people came to power recently by claiming close ties with the Bush administration. Blind fools in Canada were entranced and voted them in to power.

The large corporate business class rules North America. It is the Industrial Military Complex which Eisenhower warned about fifty years ago in his final days as retiring commander-in-chief and President. This is the Empire we are all subject to, and God knows, we really do need a big change. Metanoia and repentance would be a good beginning.

At this point it seems doubtful and unrealistic to believe that Obama in the White House (and the boys in the pentagon) is really going to bring about the change we need.

This may sound cynical. But it is not self-defeating. Our true citizenship is in the reign of God, and our ultimate loyalty is one of faith in our redeemer and not in any political system. Meanwhile, we often are faced with choosing the lesser of two evils or perhaps between a multitude of evils and the one singular brilliant but painful choice that will truly save us.

It is the human predicament. But the incarnate God has entered our human condition and the Spirit of God guides us in conscience to choose the greater good.

And Scott—insofar as a candidate represents militarism and materialism, we can absolutely say, with legitimacy, that said candidate represents evil. The candidate that represents those forces of evil to a lesser degree represents a lesser of two evils. This is, I suppose, a tad different than saying that a candidate IS a lesser of two evils.

Perhaps we need to develop a new expression for this very helpful and practical way of resolving moral conflict.

However in this case – the voting situation -, I would say that when we are faced with an extremely limited choice of candidates and political parties (are there really more than two national federal parties in American politics today?), then by choosing the lesser of two evils (i.e. the Democrat rather than the Republican party and its platform)— it is not essentially labeling of the PERSON who is the candidate. But rather it is an understanding that neither PARTY offers us an unqualified positive good, but rather one (party and platform) is relatively less evil than the other.

I know this sounds like jesuitic casuistry. Perhaps it is, but at least it provides us with a rational solution to the moral and ethical conflict facing us on election day in our contemporary North American society.

If and when we move beyond the limited politics of the one juggernaut mega-party of big business and laissez faire capitalism, shattering the illusion that Democrat, Republican, Liberal and Conservative are separate and distinct political parties (they clearly are not), then perhaps we will have real options and true moral-ethical choices when going to the polls. Right now, we really don’t have that kind of free choice.

Noam Chomsky is brilliant at explaining how this concept works – at least for him and apparently for thousands of others who do give this question of voting serious consideration.