WSJ on Christian Democratic Party

I have been trying to carefully read through an editorial at the Wall Street Journal that looks at Huckabee's Iowa victory and draws parallels between Huck and various European Christian Democratic parties. Here are a couple of quotes:

Christian Democracy is a reaction to the classical liberalism and socialism that came of age in late 19th century Europe. Both of these movements threatened the faithful with their secularism and economic theories. Classical liberal emphasis on unfettered markets evoked fears of untrammeled greed and exploitation of workers; socialism made many fear for the future of private property.

Christian Democrat parties have always distinguished themselves from liberals and socialists, favoring private property and traditional values while supporting government regulation and taxation to ameliorate what they perceive to be capitalism's defects. The German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), for example, is quite explicit about this, claiming it is the "party of the political center."

These parties uphold marriage and the traditional family as the bedrocks of society. They also advocate economic policies typified by the CDU's ideal of a "social market economy," which emphasizes the need for both government-provided welfare and capitalism. Contemporary Christian Democratic parties are also some of the staunchest supporters of rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. They reach this conclusion from the principle of "Christian stewardship," which the Norwegian Christian Democrats say "implies that the resources of the Earth should be taken care of for the best of present and future generations."

This certainly sounds like Huckabee. It also sounds like many of the "SoCons" that seem to consider abortion and gay marriage the only issues worth considering as a conservative issue (because they are the most important). Someone commented on a blog over the weekend that they wondered if there would be a third party in their lifetime--he was specifically hoping for a viable Libertarian party. My comment was that if there were to be a viable third party is would be a "populist" party. With the exception that I see this as a "secular" party, it is exactly what is being talked about here. So maybe this might make sense. I still think there are enough secular folk who would believe in the same platform (at least without specific religious language) that a "coalition" could be made that could produce a viable "populist" party.

On the other hand, a decision to make the Republican Party into a Christian Democratic Party will completely destroy the Republican Party and the conservatives will be looking for a home.