We are a Political Party, not a Church

by Henry Braddock, Past State Chairman of the Constitution Party of Minnesota

It’s been over thirty years since Bill Shearer founded the American Independent Party of California. With several hundred thousand members, it remains the largest state affiliate of the Constitution Party nationally. One of the strengths of our Party is that it has leaders like Shearer. He volunteered to serve as national Chairman of the Constitution Party, a post he held for 3 years (1996-99) during the turbulent start-up years of the party. He has more practical experience in politics then anyone else in the party.

Shearer is the author of the quote that serves as the title for this article. He is wont to say it whenever he sees anyone getting carried away with enthusiasms for political salvation or deliverance from evil by our Party. “We’re a political party, not a church,” Bill will caution. He has had occasion to say it many times, because our party is prone to this error. At any national convention, you always find someone who is treating the Party as though it were a church. This can be suicidal for a political party, so it behooves us to hearken to Shearer’s admonition.

To join a church, you need to understand and accept its beliefs. A religious creed does not admit of exceptions. You either believe it or you don’t (this is not a theological article but, in passing, we can note that it is the gift of faith that allows one to believe in the revealed truths of God). Too often we see people in the Constitution Party who have brought to the party the predisposition of their faith, and to be prepared to excommunicate anyone who falters on any plank of the platform.


This kind of quest for ideological purity is antithetical to politics. As Howard Phillips likes to say, “We should let people vote for us for their own reasons.” In reality, people usually vote for a candidate (or a party) for one particular reason, not for a whole platform of reasons. People vote for you because they know you’re pro-life, and they’re pro-life, and that’s the number one item on their political agenda. Or they vote for you because they know you’re pro-abortion and they’re pro-abortion, and that’s the number one item on their agenda. The fact that they may not agree with you on other policies is irrelevant, because they agree with you on the issue that is most important to them.

Phillips’ point is that we get votes (and financial and other support) by allowing people to support whatever part of our platform they find appealing without requiring them to embrace our entire political philosophy. I’ve never met anyone who heartily endorsed every word of every plank in the party’s platform (except as a matter of “faith”). An enormous amount of work has gone into making of the CP platform. It reflects many a knock-down fight to forge language that accommodates many interests and is a wonderful example of political compromise without sacrifice of principle. Of course, the platform changes over time as we become more knowledgeable or sophisticated about what we’re doing and trying to achieve. There is nothing sacrosanct or holy about the platform. It’s just a working document to help guide us along the many paths of public policy. That someone might not agree with something in the platform is no grounds for hurling him into outer political darkness.

The confusion between party and church is seen whenever the question of coalitions and alliances arises. We are often inclined to treat this as we would a question of ecumenism in religion. Can we join forces with another religion? Many think that to do so would mean diluting our own beliefs in an unacceptable way. But to carry this sentiment into politics is to confuse politics and religion in a way detrimental to both. Politics requires compromise; it requires accommodation; it requires coalition. Without these, there is no politics. Howard Phillips again articulated the appropriate guideline. He has taught us that there are good compromises and bad compromises. A good compromise is one that moves you toward your objective. A bad compromise is one that moves you away from your objective.

For example, as a practical matter many of our political interests often would be served by electing a Libertarian to office. Because some Libertarians are not Christians, and because the Libertarian Party has no religious litmus test, there are some in the CP who would argue that we cannot support a Libertarian for office. This is confusing our party with a church. We might exclude from our religious company someone who did not embrace all our dogma, but to carry this criterion into politics is to preclude the possibility of success at the outset.

It’s important for us to establish our priorities, and to realize that we’re not going to accomplish all our objectives at once. We need to work on the most important things first. And to accomplish something important to us, we need to gain the support of people who share our desire for that important objective even though they may not agree with us on other objectives (indeed, they may completely disagree with us on other matters). This is the art of politics—finding those opportunities for coalitions and alliances where forces may be combined for a shared objective without consideration of other policy concerns beyond that primary one.

Does this mean we could support someone who was 100% pro-life even though he favored increasing income taxes? The political answer is: yes, if the life issue is our top priority; no, if taxation is our top priority. Would we be willing to pay higher taxes in exchange for a pro-life government and society? If the tax question is more important to you then the life question, then you would withhold support from the pro-life candidate who favored higher taxes. But if the life question was more important, then your interests would be well served by supporting the life candidate, even though his other policies might be inimical to your political philosophy.

Such political alliances and coalitions do not require that we abandon or dilute our political principles or modify our platform. They simply mean that we have established our priorities and we’re focusing on what’s most important to us at a particular moment. It’s a recognition that half a loaf is better than none, if it keeps moving us to our objective. It means we’re serious about accomplishing what we can, and not foregoing present gains for the (dubious) prospect of imminent total victory and the institution of our complete platform as universal policy.

“We’re a political party, not a Church.” The wisdom of Bill Shearer and Howard Phillips and other founders of our Party, a wisdom based both on years of practical political experience as well as lives devoted to truth and honor, is a deep well from which we all should draw freely. it can help guide us to the political success we covet, and help keep us from wandering endlessly in the political wilderness.

Thought Police Strike Again

Newest 'Hate Crime' Bill Violates Constitution: Attempts End-Run Around Free Speech

Lancaster, PA: The Constitution Party, the country's third largest political party in
terms of voter registration, warns Americans that the latest federal 'hate-crime' bill introduced
in the House of Representatives is a dangerous threat to Constitutionally protected rights.

H.R. 254, introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, is another version of
proposed legislation passed by the House in 2005 and the Senate in 2004. Only strong
public outcry and a Republican controlled Congress kept this type of legislation from
becoming law. Now that Democrats are in charge there's a tough fight ahead to keep this
dangerous bill from passing. H.R. 254 would make certain types of speech a federal offense.
So-called 'hate crimes' legislation is dangerous for a number of reasons, not the least of
which is the blatant unconstitutionality of such laws. 'Hate crime' laws would allow federal
"thought police" to interfere in the law enforcement authority of states and localities -
something our founders were clear was NOT to be allowed.

H.R. 254 would require every state to pass and enforce 'anti-hate' laws. It would
outlaw stating a "bias" against certain 'federally protected' groups such as homosexuals.

Constitution Party National Chairman Jim Clymer warned "So-called 'hate crime'
laws could mean the Bible would be considered 'hate literature' and preaching from it would
be 'hate speech' because of references to religious teachings on homosexuality or other
behaviors. The Orwellian implications of these types of laws mean Bible-believing Christians
could become criminals simply because they spoke out about their beliefs."

Citing a 2004 case in Philadelphia, where 11 Christians were charged under a
'hate-crimes' statute for peacefully protesting at a gay rights rally, Mr. Clymer, a practicing
attorney, said "Law-abiding Americans became criminals because they exercised a right our
forebears fought and died for".

"By introducing the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) federal 'hate crime' bill into
Congress for the second time, Rep. Jackson-Lee shows she's bound and determined to stifle
your First Amendment Rights no matter how many times she has to make a run at it", noted
Constitution Party Communication Director Mary Starrett who added: "The Constitution Party
condemns H.R. 254 as an affront to our liberty. Today, ADL-inspired 'thought crime' laws are
stripping nations of free speech.

"In Canada and many European countries, it is a crime to use the internet to
criticize 'federally protected' groups, such as homosexuals and Muslims. In England, two men
who called Islam 'wicked' were indicted under Britain's 'hate crime' law and now face seven
years in prison. Those horrors do not belong in America!"

Referring to the group behind this bill, Clymer noted: "Congresswoman
Jackson-Lee's H.R. 254 is being pushed by the same group, ADL, responsible for the British
law that says truth cannot be used as a defense in court. only the complaints by members of
specially protected groups who say their feelings have been hurt are being allowed. The
reality of what these types of laws are doing and have done to people across the world
should be a chilling reminder to Americans to oppose these laws while we still can" warned
Clymer.