Things Fall Apart - How Democrats gave up on religious voters

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not too sure I believe there is such a thing as a “religious left”.

In some ways, I could consider myself a member of the “religious left” in principle. If I could, I would greatly improve SSI benefits. (the disabled poor) which are scandalously low. But where is this “religious left” on that subject? Those people, who, by definition, can’t help themselves, get about $600/month. I do not think this is at all in line with the Social Encyclicals, or even American political liberalism. But do we hear anything from the “religious left” about that? No, we don’t. We do hear a lot about serving “social justice” with middle class welfare, though.

I would support increased legal immigration, but I believe it should be done equitably, not penalizing the law-abiding hopeful who are still living in poverty and rewarding those who already earn American-level wages and knowingly break the law in pushing ahead of their peers abroad. We don’t hear anything from the “religious left” about some poor guy in Guatemala who lives in poverty with his family, and who is trying to get here (or in Mexico) legally. We only hear about those who are already here, often living in nice houses and driving nice cars and wearing nice clothing and getting free educations, but who don’t want to return to their home countries to live the way their countrymen do.

Why this dichotomy between expressions of religious motivation and the actual objectives which seem more like vote-buying than anything else?

I realize the “relgious left” talks the talk. But to me, its positions in no way vary from standard political liberalism. To me, addition of the word “religious” to “left” is adding a superfluous word. “Left” seems to cover all of its segments entirely.

 

[manualman]

Ridgerunner, the religious left really does exist. I was unaware myself until my own mother got swallowed up in that movement. Look up Sojourners magazine for examples (NOT an endorsement, mind you. Just an example). I don’t think it’s fair to pass off ALL leftists as secular humanists. Some really do come from the starting point of seeing all humanity as God’s children and deserving of treatment accordingly. They just (IMO) tend to adopt proposed solutions that ignore the problem of original sin (no incorruptible humans to run the programs they desire or to participate in them).

 

[estesbob]

It is totally uncalled for and objectionable to suggest that Democrats are somehow godless or anti-Christian. Reported.

Have you read Democrat party platform?

 

[catholictiger]

It is totally uncalled for and objectionable to suggest that Democrats are somehow godless or anti-Christian. Reported.

the fact that they support abortion makes them Godless and anti christian

 

[NotCrazyDan]

It is totally uncalled for and objectionable to suggest that Democrats are somehow godless or anti-Christian. Reported.

Go ahead and report me too. They have proven themselves repeatedly to be exactly that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner, the religious left really does exist. I was unaware myself until my own mother got swallowed up in that movement. Look up Sojourners magazine for examples (NOT an endorsement, mind you. Just an example). I don’t think it’s fair to pass off ALL leftists as secular humanists. Some really do come from the starting point of seeing all humanity as God’s children and deserving of treatment accordingly. They just (IMO) tend to adopt proposed solutions that ignore the problem of original sin (no incorruptible humans to run the programs they desire or to participate in them).

Possibly, but the “religious left” represented by magazines like Sojourners are lockstep liberals. They have no position unique to themselves. It’s just ordinary liberalism, with a religious paint job slathered on. And, when those Catholics, certainly, who call themselves members of the “religious left” support people like Obama, they have to gulp down a whole trainload of positions contrary to the teachings of the Church in order to ingest one thimblefull of something that seems to them to be “social justice”. And they do. We see it on here all the time. I still maintain that the “religious left” doesn’t really exist. There’s only the “left”, some of whom purport to have religious reasons for espousing the liberal agenda, and some of whom do not.

 

[catholictiger]

Read back and note that I said “HW Bush.” Junior, for all his faults, was solidly pro-life. I voted twice. (though I was a McCain guy in the primaries back in 1999)

always vote pro life, I think it will be even bigger next election, take back the senate and get the white house pro life we can make a big difference.

 

[manualman]

Possibly, but the “religious left” represented by magazines like Sojourners are lockstep liberals. They have no position unique to themselves. It’s just ordinary liberalism, with a religious paint job slathered on. And, when those Catholics, certainly, who call themselves members of the “religious left” support people like Obama, they have to gulp down a whole trainload of positions contrary to the teachings of the Church in order to ingest one thimblefull of something that seems to them to be “social justice”. And they do. We see it on here all the time. I still maintain that the “religious left” doesn’t really exist. There’s only the “left”, some of whom purport to have religious reasons for espousing the liberal agenda, and some of whom do not.

I hear you and would probably agree if I didn’t know some of the adherents so closely. It’s tempting to presume bad faith on the part of those who utterly disagree with us and whose reasoning we find incomprehensible. But humans are strange critters and I believe that we have a better chance of witnessing to the ‘religious left’ by taking them seriously than by dismissing them as merely wolves wearing wool.

 

[steveandersen]

while in general, church goers support the republicans in larger proportions, Blacks IIRC are both the largest percentage church going group and the largest percentage Democratic voters

so the religious= Republican model does not hold for all cases

 

[Ridgerunner]

I hear you and would probably agree if I didn’t know some of the adherents so closely. It’s tempting to presume bad faith on the part of those who utterly disagree with us and whose reasoning we find incomprehensible. But humans are strange critters and I believe that we have a better chance of witnessing to the ‘religious left’ by taking them seriously than by dismissing them as merely wolves wearing wool.

I didn’t mean to imply that all members of the “religious left” are disingenuous concerning the origins of their political positions. I don’t doubt that many of them really think they’re doing “God’s work” in supporting, e.g., various forms of middle class welfare, and probably don’t even realize there are those in far greater need which the liberals ignore. But what is striking to me about the “religious left” is that they do not seem to have a vision that’s in any way different from the putative vision of liberalism generally. There’s nothing unique about it.

When it comes to economic policies, I could say the same about at least many members of the “religious right”. One can be pretty much on all fours with conservatism generally if one simply studies and follows the Social Encyclicals. But there would still be differences from the positions of the right, generally; a perspective all its own and having different underpinnings regarding economic issues. Parenthetically, I will add that It does seem to me that, among Catholics anyway, conservatives often do not sufficiently inform themselves of the teachings of the Church regarding economic issues to be a distinct mindset in that regard. But some do, and their perspective is different from that of the generic “right”.

When it comes to social issues, it’s different. The “religious right” is less compromised by politics because its underpinnings regarding social issues actually do have their origins in religious tenets, whereas it seems to me the “religious left” tacitly or directly, accepts liberal social policies (e.g., abortion on demand) that are very much contrary to religious tenets (at least from those of the Catholic Church) because acceptance of those is the “price of the ticket” for being a liberal at all. And it’s a price they seem quite willing to pay. As I said, we see that very frequently,even on CAF.

Finally, I will at least say it seems to me that the positions of the “religious left” are, in general, fundamentally informed by political liberalism, whereas it is less true that the positions of members of the “religious right” are fundamentally informed by political conservatism. Look, for example, at the debates on CAF about DADT. The “religious left” arguments are basically about functionality, “pride”, “fairness” and “discrimination”; all generic (and secular) liberal approaches. Those of the “religious right” are fundamentally either biblical or based on concepts such as modesty, conflicts with religion, or the giving of scandal. Those positions are not inherent to conservatism, but to the tenets of particular religions. It may be taken as instructive the libertarians, who can legitimately be placed on the “right” generally speaking, do not take those same positions.

Consequently, while I do think there truly is a “religious right” that’s identifiable and distinct from the generic “right”, I don’t see a “religious left” that’s actually distinct in any significant way from the generic left.

 

[ishii]

manualman, please don’t regret voting for Bush, Sr. What was the alternative? A pro-abortion-on-demand Democrat, that’s what. You didn’t throw your vote away by voting for GHB like some did who voted for 3rd party candidates that didn’t have a chance in France of winning, thus ensuring a Clinton win and a huge loss for the pro-life cause.

You’re right Della. Bush Sr. gave us justice Kennedy (a disappointment) but he also gave us Clarence Thomas. By contrast, Clinton gave us the pro-abortion justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Bryer. It is likely that if Bush Sr. had prevailed in 92’, we would have Renquist, Thomas, Byron White (who voted against Roe v Wade - thanks JFK), Scalia as a core anti-Roe voters, along with two more justices, one, of which, it is fair to assume, would have been a solid anti-roe vote given the track record of Reagan and Bush Sr. There would have been a challenge to Roe, and there would be five votes, enough to overturn the decision of Roe V. Wade. What could have been. Instead, enough voted for Perot to help Clinton get elected. Of course, Bush didn’t help matters by reneging on his promise of “read my lips, no new taxes”.

Ishii

 

[gnjsdad]

You’re right Della. Bush Sr. gave us justice Kennedy (a disappointment) but he also gave us Clarence Thomas. By contrast, Clinton gave us the pro-abortion justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Bryer. It is likely that if Bush Sr. had prevailed in 92’, we would have Renquist, Thomas, Byron White (who voted against Roe v Wade - thanks JFK), Scalia as a core anti-Roe voters, along with two more justices, one, of which, it is fair to assume, would have been a solid anti-roe vote given the track record of Reagan and Bush Sr. There would have been a challenge to Roe, and there would be five votes, enough to overturn the decision of Roe V. Wade. What could have been. Instead, enough voted for Perot to help Clinton get elected. Of course, Bush didn’t help matters by reneging on his promise of “read my lips, no new taxes”.

Ishii

Planned Parenthood vs Casey, decided June 29, 1992 (before Clinton was elected, therefore before he was able to appoint the pro abortion Bryer and Ginsburg) invalidates the “if only the Republicans were given the chance to appoint one more pro life justice” argument.

This decision affirming Roe v Wade was handed down at the peak of Republican power.

 

[scipio337]

Planned Parenthood vs Casey, decided June 29, 1992 (before Clinton was elected, therefore before he was able to appoint the pro abortion Bryer and Ginsburg) invalidates the “if only the Republicans were given the chance to appoint one more pro life justice” argument.

This decision affirming Roe v Wade was handed down at the peak of Republican power.

They were Soutered.

 

[ishii]

Planned Parenthood vs Casey, decided June 29, 1992 (before Clinton was elected, therefore before he was able to appoint the pro abortion Bryer and Ginsburg) invalidates the “if only the Republicans were given the chance to appoint one more pro life justice” argument.

This decision affirming Roe v Wade was handed down at the peak of Republican power.

Sorry, your revisionist history is a canard, and you also misrepresented what I said. I never claimed that all Republican appointed supreme court justices have been pro-life (while all post-Roe Democrat appointed supreme court justices have been pro-abortion). Some Republican justices have been a disappointment, and some have been great. I don’t know anyone that claims any justice nominated by a Republican president is guarenteed to be pro-life. Justices Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens were appointed by Nixon and Ford, respectively, and neither of those presidents were pro-life. Of all the appointments of Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush 1 & Bush 2) who were elected since abortion became a big issue, four are likely to be strong pro-life votes. Unfortunately three (Souter, Kennedy, & O’connor) have been a disappointment. In other words, the ratio of pro-life to pro-abortion justices is 4:3. It makes sense therefore, that if Bush 1 had won the election in 1992 and had two opportunities to appoint a supreme court justice, it is likely that one of them would vote to overturn Roe V. Wade. Finally, I find that the ones who downplay the possibility of overturning Roe V. Wade by Republican appointed supreme court justices are usually pro-abortion rights Democrat catholics trying to rationalize their votes for pro-abortion rights candidates.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

Sorry, your revisionist history is a canard, and you also misrepresented what I said. I never claimed that all Republican appointed supreme court justices have been pro-life (while all post-Roe Democrat appointed supreme court justices have been pro-abortion). Some Republican justices have been a disappointment, and some have been great. I don’t know anyone that claims any justice nominated by a Republican president is guarenteed to be pro-life. Justices Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens were appointed by Nixon and Ford, respectively, and neither of those presidents were pro-life. Of all the appointments of Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush 1 & Bush 2) who were elected since abortion became a big issue, four are likely to be strong pro-life votes. Unfortunately three (Souter, Kennedy, & O’connor) have been a disappointment. In other words, the ratio of pro-life to pro-abortion justices is 4:3. It makes sense therefore, that if Bush 1 had won the election in 1992 and had two opportunities to appoint a supreme court justice, it is likely that one of them would vote to overturn Roe V. Wade. Finally, I find that the ones who downplay the possibility of overturning Roe V. Wade by Republican appointed supreme court justices are usually pro-abortion rights Democrat catholics trying to rationalize their votes for pro-abortion rights candidates.

Ishii

It’s the usual convoluted thinking we always see from Catholics who support pro-abortion politicians trot out. Republicans must spend every second of every day opposing abortion and proposings bills to end it or they are hypocrites who care only about suckering pro-life voters into supporting them. Democrats ,OTH , merely have to mouth vague comments about abortion bring unpleasant and how they really would like to see less abortions some day and they become pro-life champions

 

[manualman]

It’s the usual convoluted thinking we always see from Catholics who support pro-abortion politicians trot out. Republicans must spend every second of every day opposing abortion and proposings bills to end it or they are hypocrites who care only about suckering pro-life voters into supporting them. Democrats ,OTH , merely have to mouth vague comments about abortion bring unpleasant and how they really would like to see less abortions some day and they become pro-life champions

I haven’t seen many CAF lefties claim that ANY national democrat is a “pro-life champion.” Their argument is more often that NEITHER party is doing anything effective about abortion, so they might as well vote on issues where there ARE substantive differences in outcome. I’ve come to believe they might be onto something, but I tend to disagree with their solution.

Don’t you find is the least bit distressing that Democrats ALWAYS manage to nominate SC justices that uphold Roe, but Republicans can barely muster better than 50% in opposition. Are the Dems just THAT much better at vetting or is something more sinister at work? It’s a valid question! In the case of Bush Sr. I suspect they are right. He could have ended abortion with good SC picks and failed. Did he fail or did he throw the game to ensure OUR perpetual support? I dunno for sure, but it looks fishy! This is why I no longer support any republicans wobbly on abortion.

 

[gnjsdad]

Sorry, your revisionist history is a canard,

My revisionist history? Did I get the date Planned Parenthood vs Casey was decided wrong? Was the summer of 1992 not the peak of Republican power? Was that year not the culmination of 12 years of Reagan and Bush 41, two presidents who, combined, appointed five of the nine sitting Justices at the time?

ishii:

and you also misrepresented what I said.

This is what you said…

ishii:

It is likely that if Bush Sr. had prevailed in 92’, we would have Renquist, Thomas, Byron White (who voted against Roe v Wade - thanks JFK), Scalia as a core anti-Roe voters, along with two more justices, one, of which, it is fair to assume, would have been a solid anti-roe vote given the track record of Reagan and Bush Sr. There would have been a challenge to Roe, and there would be five votes, enough to overturn the decision of Roe V. Wade. What could have been.

I interpreted your statement as one more variant of the argument the Republican Party uses (vote for us so we can finally get the one more pro-life justice we need…). If only we had given Bush 41 another term…If that is not what you were saying and I got it wrong, then I apologize. Could you please clarify?

ishii:

I never claimed that all Republican appointed supreme court justices have been pro-life (while all post-Roe Democrat appointed supreme court justices have been pro-abortion).

I never said that you claimed that.

ishii:

Some Republican justices have been a disappointment, and some have been great. I don’t know anyone that claims any justice nominated by a Republican president is guarenteed to be pro-life. Justices Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens were appointed by Nixon and Ford, respectively, and neither of those presidents were pro-life. Of all the appointments of Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush 1 & Bush 2) who were elected since abortion became a big issue, four are likely to be strong pro-life votes. Unfortunately three (Souter, Kennedy, & O’connor) have been a disappointment. In other words, the ratio of pro-life to pro-abortion justices is 4:3.

At best, then, the Republicans are hit or miss…maybe they will or maybe they won’t get a pro-life justice appointed.

For me, after 38 years of abortion on demand, hit or miss doesn’t cut it anymore. Hit or miss on something as foul as abortion for so long a time is certainly not a record to be proud of, and it certainly does not justify the moralistic rhetoric expressed by some (not you, BTW) Republicans in these forums. The Democrats are the “Party of Death”. The Democrats “gave up on religion”, etc.

You said that Souter, Kennedy, and O’Connor were disappointments. I, for one, would not want to go to my grave, as these three probably will, with that decision on my conscience. They are more than “disappointments” to me. Their decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey was a grave mortal sin which requires public repentance.

The way I see it, the Republicans have certainly not given up on religion. They cynically use it to get gullible Catholics to keep voting for them.

ishii:

I find that the ones who downplay the possibility of overturning Roe V. Wade by Republican appointed supreme court justices are usually pro-abortion rights Democrat catholics trying to rationalize their votes for pro-abortion rights candidates.

I am not a pro-abortion rights Democrat, as I’ve said many times before.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

When he said, “The United States is no longer a Christian nation”, did he mean it is secular, pagan, or a Muslim conquest?

 

[ishii]

My revisionist history? Did I get the date Planned Parenthood vs Casey was decided wrong? Was the summer of 1992 not the peak of Republican power? Was that year not the culmination of 12 years of Reagan and Bush 41, two presidents who, combined, appointed five of the nine sitting Justices at the time?

Thanks for responding. I disagree with you that 1992 was the peak of Republican power. The Democrats were in charge of the House and Senate. They had virtual veto power over Republican supreme court appointments. Remember Bork? Do I need to mention that it was catholic senators Biden and Kennedy who grossly misrepresented his record and falsely portrayed him as an extremist, saying his approval would lead to “back alley abortions” and “segregated lunch counters”. Did you also know that of the 42 who voted to confirm Bork, 40 were Republicans and of the 58 who voted against him, 52 were Democrats. With the Bork debacle in fresh memory, it is not surprising that Bush’s first nomination was a “stealth” nominee like Souter who didn’t have a paper trail and therefore couldn’t be “Borked”. Of course, Bush gave us Clarence Thomas, who has been a pro-life justice.

This is what you said…

I interpreted your statement as one more variant of the argument the Republican Party uses (vote for us so we can finally get the one more pro-life justice we need…). If only we had given Bush 41 another term…If that is not what you were saying and I got it wrong, then I apologize. Could you please clarify?

I was merely saying that if Bush 1 had been re-elected, there would have been a good chance that another justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas would have made it to the bench. No guarantees, though. There is no way to know how a justice will vote on a given case. One thing is for sure though, there is pretty much a guarentee that a Democrat nominated justice will vote to uphold Roe V. Wade. You seem to have a view of the Republican party and the supreme court appointment process that is unrealistic. Let me ask you: do you deny the fact that giving Bush a second term would have given the pro-life movement a chance at getting the fifth anti-Roe v Wade vote? He would have had two chances to appoint a justice. I suppose the Democrats could have Borked both picks, but its very possible a pro-life justice would have prevailed. We’ll never know, we’ll we?

I never said that you claimed that.

At best, then, the Republicans are hit or miss…maybe they will or maybe they won’t get a pro-life justice appointed.

Yes, hit or miss indeed. I find that frustrating as you do. But don’t act like they haven’t had an opposition party opposing them at every turn. Nominate a pro-life justice (Bork)and they will smear him. Nominate a pro-life black justice and they will give him a high tech lynching - “they” being the Democrats.

For me, after 38 years of abortion on demand, hit or miss doesn’t cut it anymore. Hit or miss on something as foul as abortion for so long a time is certainly not a record to be proud of, and it certainly does not justify the moralistic rhetoric expressed by some (not you, BTW) Republicans in these forums. The Democrats are the “Party of Death”. The Democrats “gave up on religion”, etc.

I think you are focusing on the wrong party. The Republican party has been overall pro-life. You need to look at the Democrat party to find the reason why abortion remains the law of the land. What would you call the party that would have as its standard bearer a person (Obama) who voted to allow partial birth abortion (infanticide)? The party of life? What would you call a party that would count as one of its top allies, Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby, Emily’s list, etc? The party of life? You tell me.

You said that Souter, Kennedy, and O’Connor were disappointments. I, for one, would not want to go to my grave, as these three probably will, with that decision on my conscience. They are more than “disappointments” to me. Their decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey was a grave mortal sin which requires public repentance.

You’re right. They were much more than “disappointments”. Good point.

The way I see it, the Republicans have certainly not given up on religion. They cynically use it to get gullible Catholics to keep voting for them.

Again, I think you may be expecting too much from our system. Go back and look at the hearings and nomination process of Bork and Clarence Thomas, - look at the opposition of the Democrat party and tell me that it should be no problem for the Republicans to overturn Roe V. Wade through new supreme court justices.

I am not a pro-abortion rights Democrat, as I’ve said many times before.

Never said you were. I’m glad you’re not.

Ishii

Merry Christmas.

 

[CalifCatholic]

Anyone who votes for Democrats has the blood of millions of aborted babies dripping from their hands