If a Catholic becomes a politician in the US, which party should he associate himself with?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mrsdizzyd said:
Despite the fact that the majority of democratic VOTERS are actually pro-life?!
Click to expand...
That’s not true at all, at least based upon the public opinion polls and results of the 2016 election.

The vast majority of Democratic voters in 2016 voted for an anti-life candidate.
 
It depends on how you define pro-life and anti-life. I doubt that you will find an avowedly anti-life person in either party.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Yet they have pro-life views. I wonder how that happened…
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with Mr. Trump’s allegedly caustic personal style and personality.

The eminently decent, milquetoast pro-lifer Mitt Romney lost a majority of Democratic votes too.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Augustinian said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
Yet they have pro-life views. I wonder how that happened…
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with Mr. Trump’s allegedly caustic personal style and personality.

The eminently decent, milquetoast pro-lifer Mitt Romney lost a majority of Democratic votes too.
Click to expand...
Gee… I wonder why it is that all these pro-life people keep voting for pro-choice Democrats?

It could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that you don’t have to be Christian or Catholic to be pro-life. Therefore, without the church telling you that abortion is the absolute worst of all sins, you are then free to hold your nose and vote for the pro-choice candidate who is otherwise most closely aligned to your personal beliefs about the role of government. Nope. Couldn’t be that at all.
 
In Canada you aren’t even allowed to run for federal office unless you support abortion and the Democratic Party has made it known that they feel the same way. Only difference is there is no law to back their stance. But they ARE the party of abortion and it is theirs lock stock and barrel. And giving them any kind of majority by way of voting them in or winning office is contributing to more permissive abortion laws whether you are personally pro life or not.
 
There is nothing the two major parties could use like Catholic candidates who insist on holding on to their principles.

There is no reason written in stone that all Democrats have to support abortion rights, just as it is clearly not written in stone that every Republican holding elected office has to kowtow to whatever Donald Trump says. The platforms of the parties are always works in progress. Neither party, as it existed 100 years ago, could recognize their own party today. That is because candidates came along with new ideas and got elected and by leadership convinced the other members of their party to change.

Having said that, there are only a few real pro-life Democrats left, and they are fighting for their political lives. It is correct to contend that their party is trying to get rid of them. On that account, it is more realistic at present for a pro-life candidate to run as a Republican.

It is not automatic that a Republican will be right-to-life, either. Sadly, the major GOP candidate in Oregon, Knute Buehler, is touting himself for his support for abortion and the availability of contraception.


“Regardless of what happens at the federal level, Oregon will remain a pro-choice state and I’ll continue to do the work that I have done in the past to expand access to contraception,” Buehler said.

It is going to be write-in time in the Beaver State. We cannot have candidates thinking they can just drop their support of the right to life because their opponent has and hold on to all the votes they would have had, otherwise. They need to know that if they support this profound evil there will be votes they just do not get.

I realize that it is morally defensible to choose between the lesser of two evils. I’m not saying it is immoral to vote for one of these two candidates on the premise if there is no 3rd party choice that is any better. I’m saying that I think that casting a vote in the general election but refusing to cast it for a pro-abortion candidate is the best use of my political voice.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
But a third of republican voters are also pro- choice . That’s got to require some serious gerry-mandering intra-party! :clinking_glasses:
Click to expand...
That’s because the pro-choice Republicans are from the libertarian ranks, which is still a minority fraction of the party. The Conservatives are still a majority of the party.
 
Dovekin said:
It depends on how you define pro-life and anti-life. I doubt that you will find an avowedly anti-life person in either party.
Click to expand...
You make a good point. Few come right out and say they are “in favor” of abortion, even as they defend the right to get one up to including the most egregious circumstances imaginable.

–For Brutus is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men–
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

You will find avowedly “if you don’t get rid of it, don’t expect me to help you feed it” persons in both parties, too, unfortunately. That would not include present company, but there are a lot of politically-active people who do not really care what women do when they do not want their unborn children or do not think they can take care of their unborn children, provided those women handle the matter on their own.
 
Last edited:
Augustinian said:
The Republicans are pro-life, the Democrats are anti-life.

Believe me when I tell you I have no intention of entering politics, but if you’re pro-life it would be pretty futile to joint the Democrat Party.

Our late governor, Bob Casey Sr. was pro-life and a Democrat- unlike his senatorial son-and he wasn’t permitted even to speak at the Democrat Convention.

I guess theoretically, Democrats can be pro-life, but its pretty futile especially if someone is in politics.
Click to expand...
A pro-life Democrat can be successful at the state level (at least in some states), but at the federal level, if a Democrat has a pro-life voting record, the DNC will torpedo you.

Heck, Gov Cuomo of NY has publicly said that pro-life people are not welcome in the State of NY. So obviously NY isn’t one of the states where a pro-life Democrat will be successful on the state level.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
The Conservatives are still a majority of the party.
Click to expand...
Let us admit that the party has social conservatives and financial conservatives and the two circles of the Venn diagram do not have nearly the overlap that is pretended at party conventions. Even the financial conservatives are splitting into fragments depending on whether they intend to foster tremendous wealth generation for the top tier of the nation’s citizens or simply fiscal responsibility and fairness by the government.
phil19034 said:
Heck, Gov Cuomo of NY has publicly said that pro-life people are not welcome in the State of NY. So obviously NY isn’t one of the states where a pro-life Democrat will be successful on the state level.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he tried to backpedal his foot out of his too-honest mouth on that one:
“if you are right to life, that is your opinion and that’s your religious belief, that is fine but that is not the opinion of this state, which 70% are pro-choice in this state.”


He calls himself Catholic, too. It is disgusting.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Let us admit that the party has social conservatives and financial conservatives and the two circles of the Venn diagram do not have nearly the overlap that is pretended at party conventions.
Click to expand...
Sure. But it’s also important to understand terms.
  • A true “conservative” is BOTH socially & fiscally conservative.
  • libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal
  • Religious Rite are typically both fiscally conservative and socially conservative, however, they are usually more accepting of social programs for the poor (esp on the state level) and accepting of legal immigrants.
  • Then you have neo-conservatives who are not really fiscally conservative & are militaristic
  • Finally, you have the moderates, who can very on either
The real myth is when people say all Republicans are “conservatives,” because that is simply not true. However, the conservatives are the majority (though perhaps a shrinking majority) of the party.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
Sure. But it’s also important to understand terms.
  • A true “conservative” is BOTH socially & fiscally conservative.
  • libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal
  • Then you have neo-conservatives who are not really fiscally conservative
  • Finally, you have the moderates, who can very on either
The real myth is when people say all Republicans are “conservatives,” because that is simply not true. However, the conservatives are the majority (though perhaps a shrinking majority) of the party.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there unfortunately is not any political party in existence for true conservatives, is there?
Maybe somebody in Oklahoma or Nebraska will start one. The way the Republicans are going, it is time to get a splinter going.

I am sick and tired of having to accept lip-service on pro-life and issues concerning the destitute from so many Republican candidates because they know the alternative is so much worse and they don’t think they have to do more because I won’t “throw away” my vote. Yes, well, when you get into office and don’t do a thing about abortion and worse yet also don’t do a thing for any other moral issue, there gets to be a point where we are in “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” territory. I think it is time for a real 3rd party that is actually conservative.
 
PetraG said:
Yes, but there unfortunately is not any political party in existence for true conservatives, is there?
Maybe somebody in Oklahoma or Nebraska will start one. The way the Republicans are going, it is time to get a splinter going.

I am sick and tired of having to accept lip-service on pro-life and issues concerning the destitute from so many Republican candidates because they know the alternative is so much worse and they don’t think they have to do more because I won’t “throw away” my vote. Yes, well, when you get into office and don’t do a thing about abortion and worse yet also don’t do a thing for any other moral issue, there gets to be a point where we are in “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” territory. I think it is time for a real 3rd party that is actually conservative.
Click to expand...
this is where I disagree with you.

I don’t think the Republican Party is a lost cause yet. I think it still can become a Catholic party. Today it is very much still Protestant in nature, but it is actually shifting towards Catholic social teaching. If we can get more Catholic politicians into the Republican Party, we really can make the Republican Party Catholic.

I strongly believe that.

A third party will never be viable in the United States, and unless there is a sizable shit, no third party is going to replace the Republican Party.

And honestly, I really think the time of party replacement is over. I don’t foresee any third parties replacing either the Republicans or Democrats ever again. Their ideologies may shift, but I don’t see another party ever replacing them in the world of modern campaign financing & management.

God Bless
 
phil19034 said:
I don’t think the Republican Party is a lost cause yet. I think it still can become a Catholic party
Click to expand...
I hope you are right. A remodel is a lot easier than clearing a new lot and building from scratch. As to your point that new parties cannot grow in, I think we’ve had new parties as surely as a remodel that replaces one room at a time down to the foundation actually results in a new house, even though there isn’t a day on which the old house was demolished and the new one started.

If the Catholics all voted as Catholics and the other denominations all voted what their own theology decreed, it would be the parties coming to the people with informed consciences, and not the other way around, but we live in a vale of tears. Still, you are right…a little leaven can do wonders to a whole loaf.

On the other hand, parties rise and fall by earthquake, and political earthquakes are not uncommon. They are usually not any fun to live through, but they do happen from time to time.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
He really should be excommunicated. Along with others who proudly defend abortion.
Click to expand...
Considering that they vote directly for material support, I agree. They ought to consider themselves excommunicated latae sententia, because they have certainly acted so as to receive personal credit and political advantage as active accomplices in the act of procuring an abortion! They have made the money available, they have preached that this is a right, they have not said to anyone, “please, do not do this, it is wrong.” In this case, this man has implied that all who would do such a thing ought to be shunned. Does he think he has to be in the room to be directly responsible for the procurement of abortions?

I really would like to hear a reporter ask, “There are women who were able to get abortions who certainly have you and your work to thank.” (Pause for acknowlegement by the elected official) “As a Catholic, do you consider yourself excommunicated latae sententia for having been an active accomplice in procuring an abortion? Well, sir, do you deserve thanks or not? You just admitted that you deserved thanks. You’ve been running on the premise that women who want abortions can depend on you to keep the way clear. You’ve even voted to make sure they don’t have any out-of-pocket expenses. Did you do that and you are proud of it or did you refrain from offering any help and lie to your constituents about how helpful you are? You can’t have both.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top