The Pope, the President, and the Changing Catholic Voter - (Catholics strong for G.W

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
George W. Bush was the first sitting president to attend a papal funeral. Such symbolism speaks volumes about the evolution in Catholic America’s voting habits during the past quarter-century and about Pope John Paul II’s role in that conversion.

Catholic voters were historically one of the most reliable Democratic voting blocs. However, Pope John Paul II played a significant role in converting many conservative Catholics into reliable Republican voters. This sea change demonstrated that the contemporary Catholic vote is now the most important swing vote in American politics. Catholics are the bellwether voters: as go Catholics, so goes the nation.

From the Cato Institute
 
While it is flattering, after 200 years of the Know-Nothings, the KKK, and various other more “genteel” anti-Catholic attitudes, to finally get the recognition that a voting block that is ¼ of the total deserves…. The assumption that tens of millions of people will all vote the same way or react to issues in a predictable manner is kinda offensive.

IIRC the margin for Bush among Catholics was about the same as for the general population. So we are still talking about only a few percentage points.

Of course I guess that this is good news. A few decades ago the idea of a republican Catholic was as odd as a republican white southerner. So now we’re truly a part of the fabric of the country and reflect the attitudes of the nation as a whole.

And congress is now 29% Catholics
Not too bad 160 years after “Irish need not apply”
 
We spoke about this very thing in RCIA this evening. The Democrat party isn’t what it once was and neither for that matter is the Republican party. Plus a large part of the Democrat platform steers clear of issues and goes the opposite direction of those dear to the heart of Catholics, i.e. respect for life, or as Sister said this evening respect for life from the womb to the tomb. Just some observations discussed tonight and definately thought provoking.
 
Steve Andersen:
Of course I guess that this is good news. A few decades ago the idea of a republican Catholic was as odd as a republican white southerner.
Click to expand...
What is scarring to the Democrats is the trendline.

I expect to see Hillery pretending she is Catholic soon to try to woo some of our vote back. 😉
 
40.png
gilliam:
What is scarring to the Democrats is the trendline.

I expect to see Hillery pretending she is Catholic soon to try to woo some of our vote back. 😉
Click to expand...
Yeah good luck:rolleyes: I don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth.
 
I’m not sure what you mean by “Catholics strong from G.W.”- he didn’t win by a very large percentage (if at all) among Catholic voters. Also, this last election isn’t a very good source of information that can be applied to every election, considering that half the country (well, 51% to be exact) was scared out of their minds and didn’t want to have Kerry in office. Also, Bush was still the incumbent, and even though he won by a smaller margin than any other sitting president, that was still an advantage.
 
40.png
gilliam:
What is scarring to the Democrats is the trendline.

I expect to see Hillery pretending she is Catholic soon to try to woo some of our vote back. 😉
Click to expand...
Why not, Nancy Pelosi and Susan Collins have been pretending to be Catholics for years to garner votes.
 
My opinion is, more people in this country voted (against) John Kerry than voted (for) George Bush or exercised their Catholicity. When it came to Kerry, how could anyone of any faith not vote for the lesser of 2 evils? Bush walked in cause Kerry stunk. People were unsettled and scared about Kerry and his non commitment on issues. But rest assured if there were a “JFK” type who had ran against G.W, Mr. Bush would be shoveling horse manure back at the ranch right about now. And someone else would be cleaning up the huge mess he left this Country and the world in.
 
A JFK type?

You mean - a man who hid his severe physical ailments from everyone, with the media’s complicity and cheated on his wife?

I don’t buy into that “JFK” BS.

Catholics vote split tickets. Catholics in the Northeast still vote Democrat. Look at who gets elected in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey.
Same with Michigan, Illinois and California.
 
If one looks at the CHANGE IN PERCENT of Catholic voters, voting Republican in this last election-- it was substantial and went a long way to the election of Bush. As Catholic pastors and newspapers continue to educate Catholic voters on their moral responsibilities in elections, we can expect many more Catholics voting Republican. That is, providing that Republicans continue to stand for Catholic morality on abortion and other issues in their words and actions. On the other hand, if ever the Democrats truly change from immorality/amorality on Church defined key issues, the Republican party would be in jeopardy. But, I do not see this happening. As far as Hillary, dispite “changing” her identity, I must look at her identity as defined prior to this last election because I suspect everything else will be merely looking at the “wolf in sheeps clothing!”
 
I’m not sure it implies that JPII’s converted people to Republicanism - actually that’s kind of offensive in some light, reducing the pope to a political tool, but I’m sure that’s not what you meant (no sarcasm, really don’t believe you meant it that way).

What I think it’s more indicative of is that Catholicism has become more mainstream, more accepted as a regular part of our society. This is a potentially good thing. After all, the Church is to be the leaven, and having a strong Catholic presence in both parties can be very health for Democracy - imagine two parties battling it out on who can be the most pro-life, who can be the most concerned for social justice, etc. On the other hand, Catholics in whichever party need to guard against getting too assimilated. If you are a Democratic leaning Catholic, you need to admit that the party has a problem with abortion and work to change it. If you are a Republican leaning Catholic, you need to admit that the party is a far too prone to violence and coercion as a solution and need to work to change it.
 
Amen!!! How do we define ourselves? Are we:
  • Catholic democrats (Defined and vote by our Catholic Faith in all areas of faith and morality, but are members of the democratic party)
  • Democrat Catholics (Defined and vote by our political affiliation to the democratic party, but happen to be Catholic by baptism)
  • the same for Republican.
The Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee once told me that as a Catholic, I must be principled, not partisan. My whole worldview changed accordingly once I thought about this.
 
Philip P:
I’m not sure it implies that JPII’s converted people to Republicanism - actually that’s kind of offensive in some light, reducing the pope to a political tool, but I’m sure that’s not what you meant (no sarcasm, really don’t believe you meant it that way).

What I think it’s more indicative of is that Catholicism has become more mainstream, more accepted as a regular part of our society. This is a potentially good thing. After all, the Church is to be the leaven, and having a strong Catholic presence in both parties can be very health for Democracy - imagine two parties battling it out on who can be the most pro-life, who can be the most concerned for social justice, etc. On the other hand, Catholics in whichever party need to guard against getting too assimilated. If you are a Democratic leaning Catholic, you need to admit that the party has a problem with abortion and work to change it. If you are a Republican leaning Catholic, you need to admit that the party is a far too prone to violence and coercion as a solution and need to work to change it.
Click to expand...
Could you explain what I put in red?

I don’t recall reading anything about violence and coercion in the Republican platform. OTOH, there’s plenty of violence and coercion in the Democratic platform in the support for a woman’s choice to have a doctor kill her baby.

P.S. - I do agree with you about it being insulting that the Pope converted people to Republicans. It is reducing religion to politics, which is something we see way too often.
 
If I was american, I voted fro Bush, in Europe all goverments are pro-abortion and against the life, all parties, except minority parties. It´s a shame, Bush isn´t perfect, but in life issues ha is more brave than others.
 
Yes, but I think this has more to do with the US diplomatic ties with the Vatican having been established under John Paull II than with Catholic voting habits. Not only did the President go to this funeral, but his father and Mr. Clinton went, too. Apparently, had the US delegation not been limited to 5 in number, Mr. Carter would have gone, as well.
 
To all responding to this post – please note that I am not defending strong pro-abortion stance of much of the Democratic leadership. I already admitted this is a problem that Democrats need to address. I am responding to StJeanneDArc, who asked for some clarification of what I meant when I said that the GOP had problems with being too coercive and prone to violence.

Coercive first. The state is an inherently coercive power. The left is often accused of relying too much on state coercion in the realm of economics (i.e. minimum wage, worker protection laws, etc). This is, indeed, coercive, though I believe justified (arguing over whether it is justified or not is OT, best saved for a different thread). However, the right is fond of using the state’s coercive power in the realm of morals, which endangers the freedom of conscience. It’s not that freedom of conscience is an unlimited right (e.g. I can’t deny the real presence, claim freedom of conscience, and then expect to receive communion), but using coercion against it is still a serious matter. For example, when the anti-sodomy laws in Texas were repealed, many conservatives were dismayed – one senses that many feel that homosexual acts SHOULD be illegal. Or take the issue of abortion. The conservative approach to reducing (and eventually ending, God willing) abortion is to make it illegal. Yet there is far less enthusiasm on the right for measures designed to create an environment encouraging women to keep their children (e.g. expanded child-care for working mothers, etc). In other words, a lot of stick, very little carrot. Such a turn to the state, relying on its coercive power to enforce morality, gives me pause.

As far as violence, the two biggest examples are the war and the death penalty. Many supporters of the war have gone beyond simply justifying it, upholding it as a positive good rather than a necessary evil. Some have even gone on to defend torture, which really ought to be indefensible, by any standard. The embrace of violence as a solution, rather than viewing it as a tragic, even if unavoidable occurrence, is quite disturbing. I can understand arguing that the Iraq war was just; I can’t understand arguments suggesting it is good that it happened. A similar logic applies with the death penalty. I’ve seen plenty of arguments for why it can be applied, but to say that it ought to be seems to be an embrace of violence as a solution. Willingly choosing violence seems incompatible with a culture of life. Hope this clarifies what I meant.
 
Philip P:
of what I meant when I said that the GOP had problems with being too coercive and prone to violence.

Coercive first. The state is an inherently coercive power. The left is often accused of relying too much on state coercion in the realm of economics (i.e. minimum wage, worker protection laws, etc). This is, indeed, coercive, though I believe justified (arguing over whether it is justified or not is OT, best saved for a different thread). However, the right is fond of using the state’s coercive power in the realm of morals, which endangers the freedom of conscience. For example, when the anti-sodomy laws in Texas were repealed, many conservatives were dismayed – one senses that many feel that homosexual acts SHOULD be illegal.l.
Click to expand...
No I think you have totally misinterpreted the dismay regarding Lawerence v Texas. I have heard only a few VERY fundamentalist types who believe sodomy should be illegal. Most of us realize that it would simply be an ineffective law that would never be enforced. Further, even those who disagree with homosexuality do not think we should be peeping into someone’s bedroom. Michael Medved a conservative Jewish talk show host had a segment on whether sodomy should be illegal. He is totally against the Bedroom Police but he is also very opposed to homosexual marriage. I believe this is the actual conservative/Republican viewpoint with few exceptions. Further the idea of limited government, limited intrusion into our lives is a Republican/conservative approach while Dems/liberals want more and more government designating all of the minutia of our lives…as you said minimum wages, specific entitlements, etc.

But back to the reaction re: Lawrence: What was dismaying about Lawrence is that it paved the way for MORE homosexual activism, more homosexual rights, and homosexual marriage. I frankly couldn’t care less what Bill and Joe do in bed. But the activist court that has created rights out of breaded air makes me nuts and frankly I think the COURTS which are LIBERAL and LEFTITST are by far the most COERCIVE element in our society.
Philip P:
Or take the issue of abortion. The conservative approach to reducing (and eventually ending, God willing) abortion is to make it illega Yet there is far less enthusiasm on the right for measures designed to create an environment encouraging women to keep their children (e.g. expanded child-care for working mothers, etc). In other words, a lot of stick, very little carrot. Such a turn to the state, relying on its coercive power to enforce morality, gives me pause.
Click to expand...
Again you misinterpret the conservative approach as being some heartless law bringers. What kind of organizations ARE encouraging women to keep their children? Secular democrats/liberals? No. How many adoption agencies, homes for unwed mothers, and child care facilities are based out of churches? Plenty. I can think of numerous Catholic organizations that provide support for women and children. Don’t recall the last time Planned Parenthood provided care and support for a woman who wants to (God forbid!) have her baby. Again the conservative approach is not to have state inflicted day care and state run clinics. That kind of thing is much more the Democrat/Liberal approach, enact new laws providing more entitlements.
Philip P:
As far as violence, the two biggest examples are the war and the death penalty. Many supporters of the war have gone beyond simply justifying it, upholding it as a positive good rather than a necessary evil. Some have even gone on to defend torture,
Click to expand...
Well one more time with feeling, you’ve got it all wrong. First I know of NO ONE, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican who relishes a war. Nor have I heard anyone prominent on either side defending torture. Nor do I hear rousing support for the death penalty from anyone but a few nuts. I’d really like some specifics rather than vague accusations.

As to the war being ‘good’ well certainly if people are freed from a tyrannical despot, I think that IS a good thing. Obviously YMMV. Honestly Philip having dialogued with you in the past, it’s obvious you have a good heart and the best of intentions but you really do not understand the conservative/Republican approach. I suspect what you are saying results from listening to PBS or AirAmerica or reading the NYT. THey get it wrong all of the time.

Lisa N
 
Philip P:
Yet there is far less enthusiasm on the right for measures designed to create an environment encouraging women to keep their children (e.g. expanded child-care for working mothers, etc). In other words, a lot of stick, very little carrot. Such a turn to the state, relying on its coercive power to enforce morality, gives me pause.
Click to expand...
Hey Philip,
I have to point out one small section that struck me. I am a mix of “left and right”, but you are right. I do not think it is the government’s place to expand the welfare state. I believe it belongs to the Church (and other religious organiztions). The state should say provide your services to all in need. Here’s where Catholic Relief Services and the government programs vary ( at least should, I am not saying it always does). I believe government should provide basic health services for those in difficult circumstances, but a Church program attempts to help not only the physical person but minister to the soul. My concern is that if you fill the stomach enough leaving the soul’s hunger to shrival up and die.

I also have the conerns with the entitlement mentality. (i.e. the government owes me this, becuase…). I am not saying all of the people on welfare, child care, etc have this, but some do. The entitlement mentality discourages virtue. The philosophy is bad holistically (i.e. poor politically, socially, psychologically, physically, spiritually, culturally). There is a certain amount of humility going to the Faith based programs and saying hey I need help (Believe me, I know as my parents were poor due to medical conditions when I was growing up). Another side is that in some cases the system discourages giving to charities or enables to individuals to be more selfish (i.e. Dicken’s Scrooge in “A Christmas Carol” at the beginning.). I am all for finding men who try to shrirk their obligations to the mother and child. And we need program to teach adn encourage young men to stick it out. Most women adn children on the programs, the husbands or boyfriends have dropped out of the picture WAY too easily. (There are exceptions). Just some thoughts.

Do I want the government to abandon their citizens, no. Do I know how to bring back a Church charity instead of government or think it is possible in the short run, no. I want to help, but I ask that just because some question government programs as the best solution you don’t think we don’t want to build "environment encouraging women to keep their children ". Instead of treating the causes symptomatically only, we should focus holistically. I’d welcome your thoughts on how best to achieve this. 🙂 Thanks and God Bless.
 
Thanks Slinky and LisaN for your thoughtful responses. I do agree that an “entitlement mentality” is not healthy for society - of course this cuts across partisan lines - how many times have you been at the supermarket when the lady in front of you gets enraged at having to wait in line - as if she’s somehow entitled to cut in front of everyone else?

As far as social welfare programs, though, many programs work through public-private partnerships. Even Catholic Charities receives some state aid (and have for a long while, even before the president’s faith based initiatives). Withdrawing state support would seriously cripple many of these organizations. I think many conservatives hear “government program” and assume “governmnet run.” Among thoughtful, well-informed progressives, though, especially those actively involved in some sort of social work or ministry, the preferred model is the public-private partnership, where government is an enabler. Statist solutions have been pretty thoroughly discredited by this point.

A good example is housing policy. In retrospect, I think it’s fairly obvious that housing projects weren’t a very good idea. Basically, we decided to solve poverty by concentrating it all in one place and sticking it somewhere out of the way. A better approach is policies which encourage mixed neighborhoods - for instance, requirements that a certain percentage of units in a new building be reserved for low income. Or, low-interest loans for first-time homeowners, and sales of city property to qualified individuals at below-market value. These approaches differ from earlier ones in that government is merely the enabler - the individuals autonomy and responsibility are respected (a low interest loan still must be paid back), and by integrating the population into the neighborhood, it is also a far more holistic approach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top