Christian Unity Party (Sober Thought)

The Christian Unity Party of Sober Thought caters to practicing Christians who are also social conservatives.

Its platform clearly extolls the value of (and its members solemnly aver to promote) provincial autonomy, social conformity and getting back to the Bible basics. Insiders or boosters would describe themselves in "pro" terms like: "pro-life," "pro-family," "pro-God," "pro-Bible," perhaps with a "common sense," "no nonsense" or "country wisdom" for good measure.

Outsiders or detractors (especially former members) would describe them in "anti" terms like: "anti-abortion," "anti-woman," "anti-conscience," "anti-science," perhaps punctuated with an "unbalanced," "loopy" or even "wing nut." All groups agree on the term "fundamentalist," partisans because they perceive it as complimentary, anti-partisans as derogatory and neutrals as descriptive.

Compared with those of other parties, its members are much more likely to be Christian (obviously), highly religious (ditto), authoritarian (ditto), older than age 55 (and especially over 65), secondary school dropouts and white. Weaker correlations were found for those who are retired, male or blue-collar workers, some of these being perhaps merely echoes of their status as senior citizens, authoritarians and secondary school dropouts.

A brief history

The party's official history only begins in 1993, but the oldest of many often competing precursors was founded in 1935. Some authors (see below) claim the CUP is neither Christian, nor unified nor a party. The first charge is bolstered by the fact that several unconventional religious groups not widely considered by others as Christians, e.g., Mormon church, Church of Jesus Christ Christian and Christian Scientist church, are active at all levels in the party with percentages far above their portion of the whole population. A lack of unity is also evident when you consider a membership from several often incompatible threads of fundamentalist Christian thought. Chronology-challenged Orthodox, mackerel-snapping Catholics and snake-handling Pentecostals all rub shoulders. Dissatisfaction, defection and non-participation are common results of party squabbles over intractable beliefs.

A party typically has one or both of a one-off election manifesto and a more permanent party programme. CUP can write and adopt short, seemingly clear and rousing mission statements for its programme. Under pressure, it is even capable of similarly stirring platform planks which reflect recent public issues. However, when it comes time to elaborate or act on either the long-term or short-term party principles, clarity invariably vanishes. The tension between religion and politics in a religious party is often high, but it can be managed or even made symbiotic if there are clear religious and political goals.

Unfortunately, each denomination of so-called "Christian Unity" has already fixed -- by its own internal procedures and documents, often claimed to be the inspired or infallible word of God and thus not so easily repealed or amended -- its responses to most major issues of importance to a political party. So whatever agreement is reached in the caucus' back room or on the convention floor must also be made to conform to existing theology in at least several major denominations for it to have any meaningful effect. But parties exist in the moment, and such consultation is impossible.

Perhaps to avoid the somewhat substantiated charges against the party, echoing Voltaire’s against the Holy Roman Empire, one may best to describe the CUP as a long-term but fractious coalition of traditionalists respecting diverse Christian values. This avoids elaborating on how "Christian" one must be to qualify, indicates how fragile the consensus is and accurately describes the de facto internal organisation.

Instructive case study

Although it is often the smallest actual party represented in the federal legislature, it provides some of the most intense, sustained and interesting discussion for many people. Debates often rage among current and former Christian Unionists, whether they are parliamentarians, failed candidates, party officials, party activists, party members or just party voters. When some of this debate attracts public attention, it tends to throw a bad light on the Christian Unity or Christian Unionists.

The elected members of the party are also scrutinised by their colleagues in the House of the Federation. The when one of the dozen or fewer CUP members rises to speak during Question Time, parliamentary colleagues listen carefully for all (in the MHF's minds) the wrong reasons: right-wingers to conduct damage control or identify likely prospects for floor-crossing, left-wingers for potential wedge issues, and centrists to remind themselves that being the mushy middle is not the worst thing in the political world. News hounds in the legislative press gallery who have been looking for a colourful quote to spice up some boring copy have been known to lament that, given the shortness of Question Time and Christian Unity's status as last or penultimate in party standings, it is only one question per legislative day.

Outside the formal area of partisan politics, right- and left-wing critics and social activists of all stripes have a field day supporting or opposing one or more of the positions. Foreign and sensational reporters who are either unfamiliar with, or choose to exaggerate the news, are quick to laud or condemn CUP positions in accordance with the readers' appetites or advertisers' wishes.

So people of many backgrounds and many motives agree the party provides a very useful case study. Political scientists like it because it allows the exploration by proxy of the nation's political culture, group relations, socio-economic cleavages, intra-party cohesion and inter-party interactions.

Demographics and cleavage

Statisticians may collect objective demographic information on sex, age, race, income, religious belief, educational achievement, criminal record, home ownership, etc. However, these dry data alone are meaningless to illustrate cleavages which require both a range of values in the variable and a measurable impact of the variable. For instance, if everybody has the same level of education (e.g., the first-year students at a university), this cannot illustrate cleavage. Similarly, if these same students are have widely differing abilities in intramural sports competitions, this probably will have no impact on what kind of car they will buy.

Twisting these examples around only slightly, level of education is negatively correlated to station wagon car ownership: While first-year university students may be more or less likely to drive a car (one line of reasoning going that university costs preclude car purchases, while another that only wealth families who can afford to buy a car would spend money educating their offspring at university), the type of car driven by most students is definitely not a station wagon (students in the first group being unable to buy anything, students in the second group preferring to buy sports cars or sports utility vehicles instead). Similarly, enrolment in kinesiology university programmes is positively correlated to ability in intramural sport since physical education students are more likely to be proficient in sports and active athletes are more likely to be physical education students.

Political scientists help identify or demarcate subjective socio-economic cleavages. They usually describe a party as having a pool of potential voters, some or none of whom may become a permanent base. For instance a Communist party might have unionised industrial workers as its pool, but have only a few proletarians in its base which consists largely of bourgeois students. Likewise, Jesus called the Jews but when not enough were coming, he focussed on Gentiles instead.

Parties may also be described using the analogy of camping. A big tent pitched on the real life 3000 kilometre long Appalachian Trail might simultaneously accommodate north-south through hikers, south-north through hikers, overnight hikers, day-trippers, bush-partiers, well-wishers, etc. All are welcome, and even though their interests as a whole diverge, they converge during a cloudburst or at sundown. Small tent parties are akin to permanent shelters erected on the trail which are restricted to registered through hikers. The interests of the users converge much more and for longer periods; indeed, hikers keeping the same pace might meet nightly for weeks or months at a time in these shelters. Informally, no tent parties are said to exist where the membership requirements are so stringent that entry is virtually or practically impossible, like lodges without roads for which a through hiker must register months in advance and provide a motor vehicle as a security deposit.

How big is the tent?

So considering these analogies, how big is the Christian Unity Party's tent? Christian Unionists perceive themselves as having a large tent party because a majority of people in the country are still religious and a majority of those are still Christian. Furthermore, they believe they cater to all true Christians regardless of denomination, engage in unofficial interfaith dialogue and tolerate certain religious practices not incompatible with Christianity (grudgingly in the case of Jews and even more grudgingly in the case of Muslims). In fact, a large minority of people who are in the pool of potential voters but who elect not to take the plunge consider it so much of a big tent they won't enter on theological grounds.

However, an overwhelming majority of outsiders would define Christian Unity as a small tent party: Most secularists and many lax Christians for being simply irrelevant to mainstream political discourse in Sober Thought, most non-Christians for its thinly-disguised prejudice against them, and cautious or cursory political scientists for its scarce election victories.

Moreover, a small but vocal and influential minority of outsiders consider the Christian Unity Party a no tent party due to important and persistent irreconcilable differences among supposed Unionists inside and outside their own Christian denominations. Political scientists specialising in the CUP usually lend academic credence to this, demonstrating by longitudinal electoral studies that there is an abnormally high turnover of voter support due to withdrawal from political participation, voter defections, party purges and death by natural causes. More subjective and overtly anti-religious observers would add that Christian Unionists paradoxically engage in some very unchristian behaviour in their dealings with themselves and others.

So, self-identification says big tent, but the empirical evidence proves at least small tent if not outright no tent. No matter how wide the canopy may look from the inside, on the outside it looks quite small if it isn't made from the cloth that also made the emperor's new clothes.

Cleavage and party cohesion

Cleavages may and frequently do exist in parties. The bigger the tent, the more likely cleavages are to exist but the less likely they are to be serious. This apparent paradox resolves itself when one considers that naturally the more issues a party is willing to take on, the greater the probability some will come in conflict. But because there are many competing interests, no single subset of interests is likely to be excluded all of the time, and big tent parties tend to attract pragmatic or moderate people. This may be considered part of the checks and balances.

At a social party serving only bread and having fewer slices than guests, getting a full slice is very important but getting even part of a slice is preferable to getting none at all. This is the half a loaf theory. However, at a neighbouring gathering with the same amount of bread but also pretzels, crackers and crisps, getting a full slice is less important. This is true even if there are more guests, since some people will trade their portion of bread for a snack they prefer more. This may lead to log rolling.

Now back from analogy to practicality. Christian Unionists all claim to support a short and seemingly clear party programme based on social and political stability achieved through Biblical principles. Unfortunately, Unionists' individual understanding of both the Bible and the party platform diverge dramatically.

In 1995, only two years after its formal creation and at its high-water mark of 15 MHFs, Christian Unity convulsed and was nearly shattered. An investigative reporter alleged that private Bible study classes conducted by teachers regularly employed by the Thuvian government but on their own time and dime were cutting into the regular secular curriculum. Yellow journalists quickly picked up the story, and like a prairie fire it raged fiercely for a short time then seemed to burn itself out after causing widespread damage.

The party's then-leader said at a public rally that Biblical teachings should influence public teaching, since it was one of the party's stated values. The party's then-deputy leader was quoted in the House saying that preventing regulation of government teachers was an encroachment on provincial autonomy, also a central part of the programme. A one-term backbencher and lay preacher denounced the teachers for spreading words contaminated by Satan, i.e., those from a Biblical translation other than that of the King James or Authorised Version.

The short-term political fallout, after weeks of private turmoil and public acrimony, was heavy but not unmanageable. In swift succession, the leader crushed what he termed a frontbench coup attempt by his deputy and a backbench revolt led by the self-ordained minister. In the medium-term, after months of secret machinations, the preacher was expelled, the deputy leader crossed over to the Rural Alliance and, shortly before the next election in 1998, the visibly stressed leader announced he would neither seek nor accept re-election as party leader or MHF. Christian Unity executives chose a faction-neutral and undistinguished backbencher as the compromise candidate for interim party leader. The results were dismal: the former leader's open seat went to the Conservative Party, the former deputy leader and former rebel leader retained their seats, the interim leader and two others lost their seats, and a vacancy in a swing seat caused by the death between elections of the sitting MHF went to the Free Enterprise Party. So, mainly over one badly handled issue, 15 seats became 8.

Logo controversy

Lack of party cohesion is also graphically (un)illustrated by the party logo: After much discussion behind the scenes and on the convention floor, the party finally agreed to accept a cross as the party's logo as part of the party constitution. However, the design was not specified because most Catholics preferred a what they called a Christian cross with a gruesome Biblical depiction of the wounds of Jesus, most Baptists and Lutherans, some Pentecostals and most Salvationists a Christian cross combined with one or both of flames and the sword of the Lord, many charismatic Catholics a Christian cross with flames only, and conservative Eastern Orthodox one depiction or another of the four or six armed Greek cross (more moderate ones preferring a what they call a Latin cross [the very same one their Western tradition colleagues call simply "Christian"] to avoid further schism with the Western tradition).

To further complicate matters, Anglicans, who form the largest single denomination in the party, were so hopelessly divided that they could not choose among the High Church position favouring a more stylized version of the Catholics' Christian cross, the Low Church one favouring a more ornate version of the Protestants' Latin cross, and the Broad church which didn't care so long as nobody was offended. True to form, the latter secretly favoured yet a third option -- a Latin cross with a smaller Greek one on top symbolising rather than realistically representing the body of Jesus -- but not did not feeling strongly enough about it to mention it.

This has the best design elements and greatest likelihood of gaining acceptance as compromise choice because it incorporates three elements common to the majority of designs (Latin †, adorned, visible indication of the Godhead), three elements common to some (adornments confined to the field of the cross itself, adornments on cross and includes the Greek + but not quite the Greek ‡). In fact, this design incorporates part of each of the 13 serious candidates, except the Greek cross with six arms with non-parallel horizontal bars. So if it ever comes to the convention floor, this is the design likely to received official sanction. In the meantime, local party organisations use logos on an ad hoc basis -- a poor way to develop brand recognition and voter loyalty since party logos appear on ballots to assist illiterates when they vote.

Inter-party relations

There are only two pro-religious parties the CUP could even theoretically develop ties with: the Rural Alliance and the Conservative Party. The former is closest in outlook, differing mainly on the intensity of devotion and the importance of worldly affairs. However, a coalition of the second and third least represented parties hardly constitutes a parliamentary powerhouse. As far as individual Christian Unionists go, the only party likely to attract defectors in any numbers is the RA -- which itself is in danger of being absorbed or co-opted by the Conservatives.

Christian Unionists also accept the platitudes and good wishes offered by the big-tent Conservatives, but wonder quietly and sometimes not so quietly why the latter don't follow through with Bible-based responses (often found in the Book of Leviticus) to government issues. From time to time, in response, the extreme left Liberal Democratic Action party asks in parliament why Christian unity does not espouse Communism on pain of death as espoused in Acts 2:44-47, 4:32-37, 5:1-10.

Naturally, the moderate Conservatives are reluctant to associate with the reactionary Unionists who are prone to publicly condemning homosexuals, apostates, divorcees and uppity women. Nevertheless, sometimes they really need CUP votes to govern. Even if it costs them one or no vice ministries, the cost of securing power though the support of Christian Unionists is high.

So why pick on defenceless Christian Unity? Why not pick on Liberal Democracy, its political spectrum and religious opposite but conceptual and organisational twin? Briefly, because I’m betting Martin Willett's speculations are more important than Karl Marx's.

Lessons learned

So what does this all mean in the end? Firstly, religion will always exist regardless of the level of education, civilisation, scientific knowledge or extraterrestrial origin. One brief but carefully argued expression of this idea is described as Willett's Wager. Because religion is a belief based not on reason but faith, and atheism is a belief based on reason but not faith, there can be no permanent victory of either religion or atheism. Government based on religion is the natural opponent of sober thought and Sober Thought.

Secondly, no matter how much in common people may have or think they have, interests will always diverge. By understanding what these cleavages are, observing their interactions and predicting the outcome of cross cleavage pull, one may gain an understanding of what the mainstream political culture of a society is and how specific parties relate to it.

Thirdly, political parties exist for many other reasons that to form a government. Staying true to principles, glossing over internal divisions at the expense of external appearances, being able to manage crises and a healthy dose of chance all effect the ability of parties to perform according to objective measures like seats taken and votes cast.

So in this context, what has the Christian Unity Party and its antecedents achieved? For one, thanks to proportional representation, Christians can use their political voice untainted by significant compromise with the profane. While they feel good about this fact, many others don't and are frightened by politically active staunch Christians. This holds true even when the latter are effectively immobilised by internal bickering.

After seeing the incompetent and intolerant antics of their more extreme co-religionists, moderate Christians are encouraged to distance themselves from the worst excesses of the Christian Unity Party, and emphasise instead the more universal and socially responsible aspects of their religion. This especially true of those in the Conservative Party, who are often in government and consequently must face the temporal world in a way the Christian Unity Party never does.

Christian Unionists remind non-Christians of the advantages of a robust Community Charter of Civil and Human Rights and Responsibilities. Whatever burdens it may place upon observant non-Christians -- whether foreskin-amputating Jews and Muslims, knife-carrying Sikhs or kilted Kirk Scots, or animal-sacrificing Satanists and Hindus, in their minds the Charter at least insulates them from Christian whackos. Embracing human rights in this context seems like a small price to pay.

Atheists, agnostics, the uncommitted and the unspiritual are also encouraged to maintain Sober Thought on a steady course between the shoals of Christian fundamentalism and anti-Christian bigotry. Over decades, for diverse reasons but strangely united by the glue of the Christian right, the national political culture has maintained an even course. Successive governments' areligious rather than anti-religious policies have borne the fruit of stability, a secular society in which all religions and denominations may be exercised freely on the same basis as any other.

Whatever discontent religious zealots may feel is safely diffused because they are neither oppressed nor likely to gain any political power, and whatever anti-religious prejudice because religion holds no power. This is the core of the great bargain which guides the fate of Sober Thought.

Additional reading

(fictitious)

1. Anon. 1995 Dec 20. "Kozyara joins Alliance," Capital Times. 2nd ed. only.
2. Blanche-tête, S.J.E. 1998 Dec. "Reflections on the last election," Le Chapeau. Chapeauxdix U.
3. Blanche-tête, S.J.E. 1994, 1991. What's with the Right-Wing Christian Revival? Schweindorf, T.: Schweindorf U. P. [Orig.] and rev. eds.
4. Haisken, J.P.D. and A.P. Lennox. 1999 Jul. "Christian? Unity? Party?: The Consequences of Intraparty Squabbles," J Sober Pol Thought. 42:190-210.
5. Humphreys, A.S. 1998 Sep 11. "I Was a Liberal Plant," National Tattler.
6. Humphreys, A.S. 1995 Oct 1. "Satan seeks susceptible students," National Tattler.
7. Lennox, A.P. 1998 Sep 9. "Chandler vows to fight again," Worthington Spectator. Horseshoe County ed. only.
8. Lennox, A.P. 1996 Jan 8. "CUP implosion continues," Worthington Spectator.
9. Lennox, A.P. 1995 Oct 7. "Biology v. Creationism: Christian teaching scandal in Thuvia." Worthington Spectator.
10. Siaroff, A. 2005. "The Christian Unity Party: A Case Study in Intra-Party Political Cleavages," Readings on Political Parties. Readings in Political Science series, v. 4. Georgetown, T.: U. of Thuvia Press.