Seamless Garment Party: the Future is Now (?)

Later this week the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis will host an important conference devoted to exploring the future of pro-life progressivism.  I cannot attend, but I'm hoping that readers or co-bloggers who attend will report on the proceedings, as this conference seems as closely related to the ongoing conversations at MoJ as any academic conference in recent memory.

In particular, I hope that participants will at least attempt to formulate some answers to a tough question I've been asked.  Shortly after the election, I was speaking with a friend in the Midwest who was lamenting the choice she faced when voting for President.  I relayed our talk of a "Seamless Garment Party," and her mood changed immediately.  Not only did she offer on the spot to make a sizeable financial contribution to such an endeavor, she identified several neighboring families who would back the party with maximum effort.  She then asked, "So when is this party going to start up?"  I hemmed and hawed, of course, muttering about how academics like to talk about things a lot, hoping to inspire the doers who pick up the baton later.  She was not satisfied, and asked, "Given the obvious need, why doesn't anyone start a Seamless Garment Party?"  I did not have a good answer.

The Democrats have made some well-publicized statements about expanding their pro-choice tent, and President Bush makes friendly gestures on certain social justice issues.  But would both major parties take "seamless garment" claims more seriously if voters could register their discontent on election day?  Could an SGP platform be constructed in a way that would keep holders of the many divergent perspectives on Catholic social teaching together?  If not, would the SGP still serve a purpose if it was built on only a few core, non-negotiable issues?

Finally, to the extent we decide that the SGP is not a viable or prudent path, does that signal our acceptance of the current two-party split-the-baby division of the Church's web of social teaching?  Or does it signal our belief that the teaching is not well-suited to real-world politics?  Or is it simply laziness, timidity, or something else?

Rob   

UPDATE: There's some interesting and provocative reader comments on this post over at Open Book.