The Christian Libertarian Party

Eugene Robinson writes today about the quandry the Republicans are in over the Foley scandal and how it is revealing the pressence of "gasp" gays and lesbians in their membership and on their staffs. He wonders if the Republicans can explain the reality of the situation to their conservative voters or abandon what could be a teaching moment in favor of a gay purge.

One could get the impression that all Christians are conservatives. That is not the case. There is a Christian Left, some of whom are politically liberal and others who are doctrinally so and who might even be politically moderate, since they are definitely to the right of the secular left.

As much at fault has been the Democratic Party's recent predeliction for secularism (even though in reality the Reagans were secularists and the Clintons weekly attenders at services). Even looking at conventions, one must note that gospel choirs and singers are as apt to entertain at the Democratic Convention as the Republican. Of course, beyond the facade, the noisiest of activists in the Democratic Party are secularists. If they are unwilling to share the microphone, people of faith who are not Republican are going to look elsewhere. Our hope is that they will look here.

Sebastian Mallaby writes about the Democrats in today's Washington Post, mostly in reference to Social Security Reform.

A conservative group circulated a petition calling for bipartisan talks on Social Security, with all potential solutions to be part of the discussion. Rather than embracing this eminently sane idea, top Democrats in Congress loudly slammed the door on it.

There's a long tradition of demagoguery on entitlement reform, but refusing even to discuss the challenge plumbs new depths of cynicism. A decade ago, Democratic centrists such as Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska argued that runaway entitlement spending would rob the rest of the budget, draining money from social programs that liberals are supposed to care about. Today, a pragmatic Republican such as Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah can propose a progressive fix to Social Security that does not involve personal accounts. But Democrats won't come forward to support him.

In rejecting Social Security discussions last week, the Democrats painted the conservatives' petition as a Trojan horse designed to get personal accounts back onto the table. Even if that were true, since when was all mention of personal accounts
taboo for Democrats? A decade ago, a majority of the appointees to Bill Clinton's Social Security commission came out in favor of personal accounts. Even the dissenting minority was open to the idea of investing Social Security funds in the stock market.

If today's Democratic leaders were even a little bit awake, they would realize that the case for Social Security reform has grown stronger since the Clinton era. It's not just that the budget outlook has deteriorated or that the squandering of a decade renders a solvency fix more urgent.

When he's right, he's right (for now).

The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity is studying how, once the Democrats win the majority, they may be more apt to discuss this.

If the Democrats don't, the Christian Libertarian Party surely will. I think the Dems underestimate the attraction of this issue to more than just investment managers.