MORE ON THE CENTRIST DEMOCRAT INTERNATIONAL

Taken from http://www.cdi-idc.com/subpagina.php?hoofdmenuID=1&submenuID=1

The Christian Democrat and People's Parties International was founded in 1961 under the name Christian Democrat World Union (CDWU). It stemmed from the "Nouvelles Equipes Internationales" (New International Teams), the organisation that was the predecessor of the European Union of Christian Democrats (EUCD), from the Christian Democrat Organisation of America (ODCA) and the Christian Democrat Union of Central Europe (CDUCE). In 1999, it adopted its present name.

The evolution of the international system since 1989, the end of the East-West confrontation which dominated the international scene since the end of World War II, as well as the appearance of new independent states, the struggle for democracy and the conditions of globalisation at the dawn of this new millennium, offer the peoples of the world new opportunities and new challenges for coexistence, both in national and international communities, so that they may live in peace, freedom, justice and solidarity.

The Christian Democrat and People’s Parties International federates the political parties and organisations based on the principles of Christian or integral humanism, that is, a humanism open to transcendency and committed to brotherhood. This implies on the part of these parties and organisations:

1. the irrevocable recognition of the dignity of every person, irrespective of sex, age, colour, economic, social or cultural status or personal convictions;

2. the recognition and promotion of the individual rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and complementary treaties;

3. the orientation of their policy in accordance with the fundamental values of the ethic of Christian or integral humanism, particularly the values of truth, freedom, personal responsibility, justice and solidarity;

4. the search for peace through the aforementioned values;

5. the recognition and assertion of the social nature of human beings, who live as members of the multiple communities, particularly the family, upon which human society is built;

6. the attainment of the common good as the objective of political society and the guiding principle of public power;

7. the recognition and defence of democracy as the sole form of political organisation of nations guaranteeing the participation of all in public life, particularly through free, secret, general and regular elections offering the possibility of alternation, within the framework of the rule of law, which ensures constitutional balance between State bodies;

8. the pursuit of sustainable human development with a view to satisfying the material, cultural and spiritual needs of the individual, the family and society whilst respecting their freedom and the natural environment, the resources of which must be preserved and renewed;

9. the recognition, particularly in the economic area, of the necessity to reconcile the private interests of the individual with those of others and of society as a whole, through measures based on the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity and justice, by means of a social and ecological market economy;

10. the promotion of forms of community organisation and participation that contribute, as of civil society, to development based on equity;

11. for optimal attainment of all the aforementioned, the adoption and maintenance of a centrist position, from which to pursue a policy that is as inclusive as possible and that introduces whatever changes may be required in society with the highest level of progress achievable fo all peoples through dialogue and consensus.

More on Health Care Reform

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9d92b651-cfcc-4a4a-83c3-b43aea91fc11

THE BIG PICTURE
The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We do not need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.
We must advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot.
WHAT WE CAN DO
We can make health care more affordable by reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; expanding health savings accounts to everyone, not just those with high deductibles; and making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. Low income families should get tax credits instead of deductions. We don't need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care. Americans must have more control of their health care options, not less.
We need to utilize the states as laboratories for new market-based approaches, and our next President should encourage those efforts. He should work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system, not more of the same, paid for by Uncle Sam at the expense of hard-working families.
Health care spending is now about $2 trillion a year, which is close to $7,000 for each one of us. It consumes about 17% of our gross domestic product, easily surpassing the few European nations where spending is close to 10% and far higher than any other country in the world. If we reduced our out-of-control health care costs from 17% to 11%, we'd save $700 billion a year, which is about twice our annual national deficit.
Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. General Motors spends more on health care than it does on steel, $1,500 per car. Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans. We have an employer-based system from the 1940's, a system devised not because it was the best way to provide health care, but as a way around World War II wage-and-price controls. Costs have skyrocketed because the party paying for the health care - the employer - and the party using the health care - the employee - are not the same. It is human nature to consume more of something that is essentially free.
Workers complain that their wages are stagnant, but businesses reply that their total compensation costs are rising significantly because they are paying so much more for health care. Health care costs are adversely affecting your paycheck, even if you're healthy. Some Americans are afraid to change jobs or start their own businesses because they're afraid of losing their health insurance. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health insurance, people do, and to ease the burden on our businesses. Our employer-based system has outlived its usefulness, but the answer is a consumer-based system, not socialized medicine.

Core Values in Health-Care Reform

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Health2.html

Health-care reform is upon us. We urge that core values other than curbing costs and ensuring universal access be given due consideration. We all favor saving money; indeed, controlling health-care costs should allow the nation to provide more health services and higher quality care. We also strongly favor the inclusion of all Americans in our health-care system. However, we are deeply concerned that many of the reform efforts currently under review will unwittingly undermine the culture of care in their pursuit of savings and access.
We rise to speak for the moral commitments, the social and institutional arrangements that are essential to maintain both the trust between patients and health-care professionals, and the professional commitments of health-care personnel. Let us not turn the health-care community into a health industry; let us take the steps necessary to sustain and nourish the care in health care. Specifically, we raise a communitarian voice for:
. sustaining the balance between individual rights and social responsibilities, especially regarding that which we must do on our own, and for others, and that which we can legitimately expect from others in the way of health care. As a matter of simple justice, we believe that it is legitimate to ask one and all to make a contribution to the commons and not simply seek more from the commons.
. the need to protect the moral integrity and unique character of the health-care system. In particular, we warn against the intrusion of commercialism and the managerial imperative. Unless health-care reforms are carefully crafted, they may undermine a system which is far from flawless but treats millions every year--with a great deal of care.
. the imperative of providing coverage for and crafting a health system in which preventing disease and promoting health are an integral part of the plan, not afterthoughts.
. the imperative of reforming other aspects of American society to reduce the burdens on our health-care system. We must not treat health care as the social garbage can into which we deposit the ill consequences of our nations problems, and expect it readily to absorb the costs.
. the moral justification for cutting administrative waste, defensive medicine, lavish promotions and excessive profits before we begin rationing beneficial and humane health services.
. the priority of serving children, that vulnerable group of society which has no vote, has no political muscle and represents the future of the nation.
. and, the social responsibilities of health-care professionals, who ought to raise their moral voice to alert and counsel the society within which they work.
Only by attending to these signal areas, as we attempt to provide every American with decent health care, will we ensure that our health-care system will sustain rather than lose the culture of care and the moral values and institutional arrangements that sustain it.

to read more visit http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Health2.html

CDI Manifesto

taken from http://www.cdi-idc.com/

The Centrist Democrat International on the side of the citizen
In a changing world, where the interdependence between West and East and North and
South is increasing, the Centrist Democrat view of society offers each person the
prospect of being able to thrive as an individual with specific talents, alongside other
individuals in the society. Centrist Democrats have clear answers to the new challenges
facing the international community. Placing themselves alongside the citizen, they are
building a world which also offers prospects to future generations.
The Centrist Democrat International (CDI) stands for the goals of Centrist Democrat
and related People's Parties and movements all over the world. As an international
organisation, the CDI supports the worldwide establishment of a free but socially
responsible market economy, which is the expression of the christian democratic ideal
for the shaping of our society.
The Centrist Democrat International sets out the following basic principles:
The fondamental values of Christian Democratic thinking, i.e. freedom and
responsibility, basic equality for all, justice, solidarité and subsidiarity, are the
keystones of a society in which individuals can thrive in coexistence with others. These
values hold out to the individual now and also to future generations the prospect of a
better world.
The recognition of fondamental human rights is the basis for building a society in which
individuals are able to fulfil themselves. Any attacks upon these rights must be opposed.
The nuclear family is the cornerstone of society, since it provides the best conditions for
the developments of the individual's personality. We must mobilise all available means
to ensure that the family is able to remain the environment in wich our children, the
adults of tomorrow, can grow into responsible people.
Poverty is a form of injustice. The international community must make strenous efforts
to abolish it. It is incombent on the developed countries
to help the less developed. We
must create the requisite conditions to enable countries to achieve their own
development. There is a need for a new set of development aid policies which will also
guarantee the personal safety of the aid providers.
Centrist Democrat and People's Parties, which place a high value on the principle of
solidarity, believe that economic policies must go hand in hand with a set of social
policies which will guarantee the weaker members of society the right to equal
opportunities for self-development. This concept of common responsibility also implies
the duty to integrate and support the disadvantaged in our societies.
Each society develops on the basis of the human resources available to it. Hence CDI
regards it as a priority to develop and support education and education systems.
Human beings ought to live in harmony with nature. CDI attaches great importance to
the development of a world environment policy designed to prevent problems and to
avoid shifting problems on to the less developed countries. Social development must not
lead to environmental damage. The present generation bears the responsibility for
managing our Earth properly and passing it on intact to future generations.
CDI is convinced of the need for cooperative links between countries. They support the
concept of federalism, in the spirit of genuine subsidiarity, and promote the idea of
regional cooperation agreements all over the world. In line with this process of
regionalisation, they strongly support mutual
cooperation between regional entities with
the goal of reducing the discrepancies between the various regions of the world.
The blueprint for cooperation on which the CDI is working is based upon a firm resolve
to establish peace and security across the world's borders. That is why the CDI is calling
for the setting up of efficient structures capable of guaranteeing peace and security.
They are convinced that the United Nations Organisation has a vital task to perform,
together with regional peace-keeping
organisations, in maintaining peace and
guaranteeing security. Dialogue and negotiation in all their forms in use in civil society
must take first priority in order to avert conflicts. In this respect, the process of
disarmament must be taken further, and
the international arms trade must be
discouraged.
In order to initiate, stimulate, and nourish the process of consultation among those who
share our view as to how society ought to develop, the CDI wishes to set up a strong
world organisation for the Centrist Democratic movement. The Centrist Democrat
International, with its President and Permanent Secretariat, must steer this organisation,
support the Member Parties and promote mutual consultation and agreement between
them.

WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANS

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Issues.View&Issue_id=fffe61d4-fc59-4970-a349-5edb944ce3f9

The words of the Second Amendment are really pretty simple: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yet, this has been one of the most hotly debated Amendments in our history. The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and
self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property. Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Gun control should never be based on geography.

Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren't inalienable, they're just "on loan" from the government.

THE CONTROVERSY

Frequently politicians who favor gun control say that it doesn't affect hunting. But the truth is, the Second Amendment isn't really about hunting. It's about tyranny and self-defense. The Founding Fathers weren't worried about our being able to bag a duck or a deer, they were worried about our keeping our fundamental freedoms. Criminals will always find a way to get guns. By disarming our law-abiding citizens, we take away the strongest deterrent to violent criminals - the uncertainty that they don't know who is helpless and who is armed. Our law enforcement officials can't be everywhere, all the time. Lawfully-armed citizens back them up and prevent robberies, rapes, and the murder of innocents. Right after Katrina, with law enforcement non-existent, many victims were able to protect their lives, their homes, and their precious supplies of food and water only because they were armed.

Some politicians believe gun control should be determined geographically, but Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Your Second Amendment rights don't change when you change your address. Gun manufacturers must be protected from frivolous law suits. Rights must be given to law enforcement officials, such as permitting them to carry concealed handguns.

A major controversy about the right to bear arms is whether that should include assault weapons. Should Americans be allowed to have them? The answer is a resounding Yes!! Americans ought to be allowed to have anything they want to have, as long as they're law abiding, legal citizens. The Second Amendment was not put in our constitution for hunting.

Sanctity of Life

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com

WHEN LIFE BEGINS

Life does begin at the point of conception. We should protect human life, the foundation of our civilization. It defines us as much as anything does, as to how we treat and how we even view another human life, as to whether it has intrinsic value or worth or whether it does not. Those of us who are pro life believe that we must do everything possible to protect that life, because protection of life is the centerpiece of what makes us unique as Americans. We value the life of one as if it's the life of all. That's why we search non-stop for that missing Boy Scout, or that missing young mother. That's why we search for the 13 miners in Sago, West Virginia after a mine explosion, or the hikers on Mount Hood. We value life and it is part of what separates us from the Islamic jihadists who celebrate death. They have a culture of death. We have a culture of life.

The clear science of when life begins is "When the male sperm and female egg join, a new and unique life form is created." Not at birth or viability, or when a lawyer says so. This happens at conception. This life is either human or something else. Science irrefutably would declare that the life which is starting from that moment is human. It's not a parrot, squirrel, or dolphin. It will never become a tree-it can only become a human. It has the entire DNA sequence that it will have for the rest of its life right then. In days it will begin to take on increasingly observable human characteristics and form, but at conception, it is biologically human.

A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EXIST

If this life is human, then the only issue left is whether this human life falls under the notion that it has a fundamental right of existence or not. If not, it is because we as a culture have decided that some human lives are simply not worth living. If we can decide that about an innocent and unborn baby, we can also decide it on the basis of less absolute criteria than that. If we make that choice (and this is all about "CHOICE," isn't it?) then someone may decide that a terminally ill person is not a life worth living. Maybe a severely disabled child is a life not worth living; what about a person with a limited IQ?

Some might say that's absurd--that an educated and enlightened society would never be so audacious as to begin to terminate life based on such arbitrary excuses? Well, Germany fell into just such a moral chasm in the 1930s. The murder of six million Jews, and millions of others, was justified because of their religion and millions of others were murdered because of their politics. Germany was not a primitive, superstitious culture. It was filled with those deemed to be intelligent and enlightened. But in the end, the truly good people were overwhelmed by the truly evil people.

THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE - FROM CONCEPTION TO DEATH

At the core of our society is the sanctity of human life. It is rooted in who we are as a culture and as a civilization. And should we turn our back on this fundamental truth, we have turned our back on the very essence and foundation of who we are as a people. We should always err on the side of life. We as a society believe life is precious. As Christians we believe that God is the creator and instigator of life.

At the heart of our belief in life is the understanding that if we are indeed equal all of us have intrinsic worth, and no one has more than another. But those of us who are pro life must recognize some fundamental facts. Life begins at conception but it doesn't end at birth. If we're really pro-life we have to be concerned about more than just the gestation period. Real pro-life people need to be concerned about affordable housing, safe neighborhoods, access to a college education. Every child deserves a quality education, first-rate health care, decent housing in a safe neighborhood, and clean air and drinking water. Every child deserves the opportunity to discover and use his God-given gifts and talents. That is what pro-life has to mean.

The issue of right to life is an issue of principle and conviction. If we value each other as human beings and believe that everybody has equal worth, and that that intrinsic value is not affected by net worth, or ancestry, or last name, or job description, or ability, or disability, then the issue of the sanctity of human life is far bigger than just being anti-abortion. Those of us who believe so strongly in the sanctity of life recognize that we became involved in politics because of our strong pro-life convictions. It's about being pro-life and exercising that deep conviction held by our founding fathers that all of us are equal and no one is more equal than another, recognizing that once we ever decide that some people are more equal or less equal than others, then we start moving that line, and it may include us some day. Every human being has value. Every decision we make should always be on the side of life without equivocation.

Obama is back!

taken from http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/2008/05/obama-is-back.html

For a while, on the long and torturous campaign trail, Obama seemed to focus excessively on the easier side of communitarianism: that we are all one; the hope and joy of togetherness. However, during his recent Wesleyan speech he revived the other half of his message: the call for service for the common good, a much more demanding subject.

For a time, we heard a lot of “we are not from red states, not from blue states, but from the United States.” We were invited to join the feel-good politics sprinkled liberally with the holy water of hope which has no cost.

In The Audacity of Hope, written before Obama declared his bid for the presidency, he was more mindful of the other half of the communitarian message, that we should “ground our politics in the notion of a common good.” He wrote, “We value the imperatives of family and the cross-generational obligations that family implies…We value patriotism and the obligations of citizenship, a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of our nation.”

On the campaign trail many of these profound insights faded. We heard painless declarations, such as “Our prosperity can and must be the tide that lifts every boat…we rise or fall as one nation,” and such undemanding observations as “…too often, we lose our sense of common destiny; [the] understanding that we are all tied together.”

The nation is upon hard times. Its coffers are empty; creditors are at the gate; the military is exhausted and depleted; the regard in which America is held overseas is at an all time low; and major economic and security challenges pile up like so many storm clouds. The nation demands a prolonged period of restoration, one in which merely replenishing all that was squandered will entail raising taxes and keeping new expenditures on a tight leash. In plain English— restoration means sacrifices and a commitment to serve, to give rather than just to take.

At Wesleyan, Obama re-embraced this theme. He told the graduating class—and the rest of us— about the days in which he first served as a community organizer in Chicago: “…I had worked for weeks on this project. We waited and waited for people to show up, and finally, a group of older people walked into the hall. And they sat down. And a little old lady raised her hand and asked, ‘Is this where the bingo game is?’”

He continued, “It wasn't easy, but eventually, we made progress. Day by day, block by block, we brought the community together, and registered new voters, and we set up after school programs, and fought for new jobs, and helped people live lives with some measure of dignity.”

Better yet, he introduced a new note, one of great import: “I also began to realize that I wasn't just helping other people. Through service, I found a community that embraced me; citizenship that was meaningful; the direction that I'd been seeking. Through service, I discovered how my own improbable story fit in to the larger story of America.”

If you want to read more, go here, but the main point is clear: unless we all put our shoulders to the wheel, America with be stuck in the rut that it is in now. Right on, Obama.

Declaration of Principles agreed by IDU founders, London 1983.

taken from http://www.idu.org/principle.aspx

HAVING REGARD to their common convictions that democratic societies provide individuals throughout the world with the best conditions for political liberty, personal freedom, equality of opportunity and economic development under the rule of law; and therefore

BEING COMMITTED to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in particular, the right of free speech, organisation, assembly and non-violent dissent; the right to free elections and the freedom to organise effective parliamentary opposition to government; the right to a free and independent media; the right to religious belief; equality before the law; and individual opportunity and prosperity;

HAVING REGARD to their common beliefs in an open society, where power is dispersed widely amongst free institutions, dedicated to creating conditions that will enable each individual to reach his full potential and to carry out his responsibilities to his fellow man; and where the central task of government is to serve the individual and to safeguard and promote individual freedom; and equally

STRESSING the moral commitments of a free and open society, supporting the institution of the family as its fundamental social and cohesive force, as well as social responsibility towards the weak and less fortunate, particularly by encouraging self-help and individual enterprise and choice in the provision of services;

BEING DEDICATED to a society of individuals working together in partnership for the common good;

HAVING REGARD to their common views that political democracy and private property are inseparable components of individual liberty and that the socially-oriented market economy provides the best means of creating the wealth and material prosperity to meet the legitimate aspirations of individuals, and of tackling social evils such as unemployment and inflation;

BELIEVING that this is the most effective and beneficial way of providing individual initiative and enterprise, responsible economic development, employment opportunities, low taxation and consumer choice;

HAVING REGARD to the threats posed by the extreme Left and the extreme Right;

REJECTING any form of totalitarianism, which brings so much suffering and restricts so many freedoms today;

HAVING REGARD to the important global tasks which render necessary and desirable a closer and efficient collaboration of their parties, inspired by their common conviction;

PLEDGING THEMSELVES to work towards ever-closer co-operation among all the peoples of democratic nations, while recognising the right of each individual nation to preserve its identity and to safeguard its vital interests, to use their influence and above all their political values for the greater good of the world, especially by promoting the mutual responsibilities of all nations for global economic development;

DECLARE their dedication to a just and lasting peace and freedom throughout the world; and

FURTHER DECLARE that the cause of peace will be advanced by adherence to the principles expressed in this Declaration; and in

ACTIVELY INVITING other parties to subscribe to them;

AGREE to create a working association in pursuance of their common beliefs, hereinafter referred to as the INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRAT UNION.

Criminal Justice

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/crime.html

Thinking about criminal justice has undergone a major transformation over the past decade. At the core of the shift has been a rediscovery of the importance of community. "Community policing" has become the byword of police departments in numerous cities big and small. Many observers argue that these new police methods--which, among other things, emphasize the importance of order in public spaces and rely on stronger cooperation between police and neighborhood communities--bear at least part of the responsibility for the recent significant declines in crime.

Communitarians have long stressed the importance of the community as a powerful "third force" operating in the middle terrain between the individual and the government. Community norms can often be more effective than laws in regulating conduct. Indeed, without the support of the community’s "moral voice," laws and law enforcement can often be unavailing. Transforming a high-crime neighborhood into a livable community usually requires more than police action. The community itself must will a change.

The concept of community policing grew out of an important article by political scientists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling called "Broken Windows" (see below). In recent years communitarian-oriented sociologists and political scientists have contributed to the development of a broader concept of "community justice," which integrates insights from criminology with communitarian themes. An important collection of essays on the emerging concept of community justice was edited by David R. Karp, formerly of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies and now an assistant professor of sociology at Skidmore College.

Assemblies of God Perspectives on Social Issues

links taken from http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topic_index.cfm

The following statements are based upon Assemblies of God common understanding of scriptural teaching.

Abortion: Sanctity of Human Life Including Abortion and Euthanasia, Abuse, Alcohol, Tobacco & Drugs, Balancing Relationships and Responsibilities, Capital Punishment, Civil Disobedience, Counseling and Psychology, Environmental Protection, Family - A Biblical Institution, Feminism and Appropriate Roles for Women, Financial Practices & Credit, Governments and Political Parties, Immigration, Law: Law and Crime, Poverty: The Poor, Racism, War and Conscientious Objectors