Why do some Catholics lean politically conservative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was an officer and aviator on a carrier in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Iran during the Hostage Crisis. It is well known that Carter could have prevented the Hostage Crisis and he pretty much single handedly caused the Desert One rescue attempt to fail by micro-managing it. He demanded to be “open mike” with the raid commander throughout the whole operation and was asking him questions and giving him direction minute-by-minute from Washington. An operational commander cannot function that way. Ironically Carter, who was a former Navy officer, should have known that.
 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
I wonder where we’ve seen that one played out recently? 😉
Click to expand...
Haha. 😛

This last election was actually really interesting. Watching the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections— there was almost zero enthusiasm for either McCain or Romney early on, but “the party” was quick to escort them each through the primaries and say, “Well! It looks like it’s (McCain) (Romney)! Time for everyone to unite behind them! For the good of the party!” The other party did similar things, but was much better at hiding it-- Howard Dean had precious little chance against Kerry; Clinton was supposed to have her turn in 2008, but she was quickly thrown overboard in favor of Obama, and was only mollified with the SoS gig and the promise that it would be “her turn for realz this time” in 2016. Then when you had Bernie Sanders generating so much enthusiasm and support, and winning state after state after state, but Clinton still kept in the lead due to the Superdelegates rules— that, on top of the leaked emails about how the DNC gave Clinton control of the party in exchange for her financial contributions, showed that it was the Party, not the People, who were at the wheel.

At the same time, it was interesting, because the Republican Party actually got hijacked from outside. Rather than a third party candidate splitting the vote, the equivalent of a third party candidate-- because it had been deemed Jeb Bush’s turn-- actually managed to win the Republican nomination. People were tired of having their candidates being dictated to them, as it had been with Romney and McCain, and they were willing to take their chances on someone who drummed up enthusiasm in a way Jeb Bush never did, and wasn’t part of a political dynasty. It was funny that someone who was a billionaire had more of a connection with ordinary people than a politician, and they were willing to give the presidency to someone who only had private-sector experience, because they were so tired of empty promises from professional politicians. 🙂

But the telling thing was when the Party didn’t say-- “Time for everyone to unite behind him! For the good of the party!” this time around. And instead, so many of the Republicans have been working just as fiercely against him as the people with D’s after their names. 🙂 Because ultimately, there’s not a whole lot of difference between D and R… often, it’s just a matter of convenience as to which is more elect-able in a particular territory. And it devolves quickly into an “us” versus “them” and an “insider” versus “outsider” attitude. And the insiders do not care to have an outsider forced upon them by the unwashed masses… 😛
 
Yes, but don’t the establishment have good reason to be wary about that man; for example, perhaps they were concerned that man would alienate the GOP brand from people of color and minority communities, the future majority of America, the future of our country (pardon if people don’t like race being mentioned). Additionally, the GOP appears to be hemorrhaging moderates over the years (though a lot of Indys do seem to pull for GOP maybe they should join the party and fix it).
 
Last edited:
RCIAGraduate said:
Yes, but don’t the establishment have good reason to be wary about that man; for example, perhaps they were concerned that man would alienate the GOP brand from people of color and minority communities,
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. President Trump outpolled both McCain and Romney among African American voters- actually doubling Sen. McCain’s numbers among blacks.

Its been a longstanding tactic of the Democratic Party to attack the Republican candidate as a racist or a nazi, that wasn’t going to change regardless of who was nominated
 
Sure thing. People can make up a lot of explanations to make things sound plausible.

Romney got 6% of the African-American vote, against Obama’s 93%, and 27% of the Hispanic vote, against Obama’s 71%. McCain got 4% of the African-American vote, to Obama’s 95%, and 31% of the Hispanic vote, to Obama’s 67%. In 2004, Bush got a whopping 11% of the African-American vote, to Kerry’s 88% , and 44% of the Hispanic vote, to Kerry’s 53%. In 2000, Bush got 9% of the African-American vote, to Gore’s 90%, and 35% of the Hispanic vote to Gore’s 62%. Looking back to 1996, Dole got 12% of the African-American vote to Clinton’s 84%, and 21% of the Hispanic vote to Clinton’s 73%.

Trump got 8% of the African-American vote, to Clinton’s 89%, and 28% of the Hispanic vote, to Clinton’s 66%.

Trump currently has a 36% approval rating among African Americans. It’s also interesting that, when Black unemployment is at its lowest point evahhh since they started breaking it down by race in the 1970’s-- it’s never dropped below 6% before-- there’s still 64 African Americans out of every 100 who disapprove of the job being done. 😛 (It was 16.5% Black unemployment in Jan 2010. It was 10.4% Black unemployment in Jan 2015.)

I got bored after I went back 6 elections (24 years) and only found two instances where the Republicans actually got double-digit support from the African-American voters. Something is interesting when, out of a group, you more than 9 people voting D for every 1 person voting R. Hispanics aren’t quite that lopsided— but in general, for every Hispanic who votes R, you have two or three who are voting D.

For someone who got twice the Black vote that McCain did— and a bit more than Romney-- “but, but, but the minority appeal!” is not a very compelling argument. 😛
 
Last edited:
It’s not really either-or. We need to do both. The USCCB calls it the “two feet of love.” You approach social problems with one “foot” representing charity and addressing urgency, e.g. diapers for single mothers. The other “foot” deals with the long-term, or big-picture changes. This might include, for example, more affordable childcare options so that a single mom can go to work and affordable health care for herself and her baby.
 
Don’t know what you’re getting at. That is often an argument used by abortion advocates. Is that what you’re saying or am I assuming the worst?
 
midori said:
It was funny that someone who was a billionaire had more of a connection with ordinary people than a politician, and they were willing to give the presidency to someone who only had private-sector experience, because they were so tired of empty promises from professional politicians
Click to expand...
I generally agree with you on the analysis of the parties.

However Trump’s main connection is from the tabloids and reality TV. His company does something…but at this point it is not pure real estate development. Sorry but “strategic” bankruptcies are never part of a sound business plan or if so it makes you a lowlife. The man is a publicity hound and he knows well how to do it. He also craves it more than anything and will promise you anything to get it.
midori said:
And instead, so many of the Republicans have been working just as fiercely against him
Click to expand...
How? Congressional leaders rarely rebuke him. Really the only ones that have are either out of office, planning to leave office, and now unfortunately dead. Honestly, I think they put up with him solely to advance their goals. They know that setting him off will make it that much harder for them to do so. But, the real benefit is that he is great at creating side shows and dumpster fires, this gives them news cycle coverage. The final thing is to get him to think this makes him look good to get him so sign it and they are golden.
 
Last edited:
midori said:
It was funny that someone who was a billionaire had more of a connection with ordinary people than a politician,
Click to expand...
Donald Trump just gave the common people of Flyover Country just a lot more respect than his opposition.

Even though he wasn’t one of them, he showed them respect while Mrs. Clinton didn’t know how to act among ordinary Americans. It was really crazy that a big shot city slicker in a cummerbund knew more how to respect people than someone who spent a decade as the First Lady of Arkansas
 
How many crimes does Hillary need to commit before she is arrested 5,10, 15 ??? Hillary you belong in Federal Prison for all your crimes: Using an illegal server, to send classified information, erasing emails, destroying mobile devices, Bleach Biting your server, using your Secretary of State position for personal gain, taking millions from foreign oligarchs in exchange for political favors, operating a Pay-to-Play enterprise known as the “Clinton Foundation” and your failure to answer 200 phone calls to send backup to the four Americans killed in Benghazi and you saying “At this point, what difference does it make”. And your most recent crimes: selling 20% of America’s Uranium to Russia and financing the Fake Trump Dossier. Let’s not forget all your other crimes from Arkansas to the present" Trooper Gate, Whitewater, File Gate, Water Gate, Looter Gate, Foster Gate, Cattle Gate, China Gate etc. After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen. She repeated stealing furniture and other items when she left her Secretary of State position. Also, $6 Billion went missing from the State Department during her tenure. We have a Two-tier Justice System - One for Hillary and the Elites, and the other for the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
When one works in the trenches with women in crisis, it changes the perspective.

I have sat there on the phone with a young woman whose boyfriend insisted she get an abortion. Because she decided not to, he kicked her out. She was homeless, alone, afraid. I sourced a local crisis pregnancy center for her. She called, they told her that she could come by the next day and they would give her some diapers and baby clothes. She had literally no where to go that night, she called me back in tears and said “I was right, no one is here to help me” (I offered to be on a plane the next day, to raise her baby for her, everything I could think of), she went back to the boyfriend.

I changed my entire paradigm that day, Until then I assumed CPCs actually would respond in the crisis.
 
What you witnessed was sad and heart-breaking, I’m sorry you had to go through that experience.
 
Last edited:
So what exactly happened to her after that?
 
Last edited:
I think it’s easy to put two and two together and understand what happened.

I believe the point that was trying to be underscored was the fact that many families like moms in “crisis pregnancies” require substantial supports, to the point of exceeding the capacity of the pro-life movement’s work. And that there may be a need for public safety net to better accommodate families in need to support an option for life.
 
Well, to that end, you and I are in agreement.

I understand that they’re staffed by labor-of-love volunteers, but that’s not an excuse for their ignorance. CPCs need to be well-networked with homeless and domestic violence shelters, as well as many other community resources. If they’re not already, volunteers must be trained in recognizing signs of domestic violence and suicidal thoughts.

Some CPCs are quite professional and impressive. Others need a serious makeover.
 
I think each side of the political spectrum has something that aligns with Catholicism. On the left, we have better help for the poor. On the right we have opposition to abortion.
 
Conservatives also try to help put the poor. They just have different ideas on how to go about doing it.

Can we stop acting like the left has the monopoly on caring for the poor?
 
There is a hierarchy in all of God’s creation. Heaven has a hierarchy. Some Angels are more powerful than others. The mother of God is of more importance than the saints.

There is a hierarchy in the kingdom of Gods creation. We are above animals in value and worth and animals are above plants.

There is a hierarchy in the human body with the soul being first and foremost, followed by the brain and other organs.

There is a hierarchy between the virtues with love being the greatest of the 3 virtues. This isn’t to say that the others aren’t important but love takes center stage.

I believe, as John Paul 2 did and countless others that there is a hierarchy of truth. Some truths are more important than others. Not that other truths are to be excluded or ignored but that if we do not believe that some truths are more important, the whole hierarchy collapses.

Abortion is a more important issue than feeding the poor. The right to life Is the most basic right and without it, no rights even matter. This does not mean that immigration is unimportant or caring for the poor and sick are less important. As Catholics, we are to believe that God gives every child a soul and that an abortion eliminates a child, who is endowed with a soul at conception.

To me, this is what a seamless garment has to encompass. Every issue needs attention and focus but there are some issues that are of much greater importance. We cannot elevate one cause to the exclusion of another though. We have to try to deal with all of the issues. If we exclude 1, the hierarchy will fail.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top