A Major Realignment?

[Doom]

We won't know for decades if it is permanent, but it looks like a major realignment is happening.

Since the Great Depression, Democrats have been not only the majority but the default position in American politics. What do I mean by "default position? I mean that everyone who doesn't know anything about politics considers himself a Democrat. Everyone starts a Democrat, but eventually, some get "mugged by reality," in the word of Irving Kristol and become Republicans. But everyone starts as a Democrat (even me). An 18-year-old first-time voter who knows nothing about politics is a Democrat because the general sense is that Democrats are the "good guys" and Republicans are the "bad guys." all good people vote Democrat, only evil people don't, this is the mentality of every 18-year-old first-time voter. Democrat is the default. Democrats have long bragged about their dominance of the youth vote, I've always thought this was lame, the fact that you have the support of all the least informed, the least wise, and least experienced people is not something to brag about. It is kind of a self-own. But that is part of what it means to be the default position in American politics.

Beyond "Democrat good Republican evil," the other perception for the last century has been that Democrats are "for the working class and Republicans are for "the rich." the reality was always far more complex than that simple-minded understanding, but that has been the general perception for a century.


But things have been changing for the last few decades, basically since Reagan in 1984, and they have accelerated in the last eight years.

In 2024, Republicans have the edge nationwide in voter registration for the first time since Calvin Coolidge was president. And it is not just that Republican registration is up, Democrat registration is down, and record numbers of Democrats have been changing their registration to Republican. Few to none have been going the other way.

The new reality is that the working class, especially the black and Hispanic working class, are going Republican, labor unions are going Republican, and young people are going Republican. Asians are going Republican.

Trump won 15% of the black vote, including 25% of black men. The best of any Republican with that demographic since Nixon in 1960, he won 40% of the Hispanic vote, the highest percentage any Republican has ever achieved. He won 20% of the LGBT vote. He women's the white women's vote. He won 43% of the Jewish vote in New York (the only state with a significant Jewish population big enough to be a voting bloc). He won the Catholic vote by 14 points. These are all key Democrat constituencies that they used to get 90-95% of the vote.

And who supports Democrats? Increasingly, the Democrats are becoming the party of the rich, the ultrarich, the billionaires, the corporations, and Hollywood. It is now undeniably the case that the richer you are, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. The Democrats are now the party of the rich.


The Catholic vote is a case in point. Catholics have been a key component of the Democrat coalition since Andrew Jackson. Catholics were loyal to the Democrats for a very long time, while Democrats rewarded their loyalty by appointing Catholics to high positions, such as the Supreme Court. It is crazy just how long Catholics have dominated the Supreme Court, and it started with Andrew Jackson, who appointed Catholic Roger Tanney Chief Justice in 1835. Tanney was the author of the infamous Dredd Scott decision, so we would all like to forget that he was Catholic, but he was.

Why did Catholics support Democrats for so long?

Two main reasons

1. The traditional Democrat economic positions are much closer to Catholic social teaching than the traditional Republican economic positions. Neither lined up perfectly, but on the whole, Democrats were closer. Plus, Catholics were largely blue-collar workers and union members, which have long been Democrat constituencies.

2. The Republican party has always been the party of the evangelicals, who for a long time were fiercely anti-Catholic. Even when they didn't feel at home in the Democrats, they thought, "Better the Democrats than being those damn evangelicals who are going to call us papists, accuse of worshipping Mary and other nonsense, and try to convert us." And the fierce anti-Catholicism of James Blaine (Republican presidential nominee 1884) and cartoonist Thomas Nast (staunch Republican) didn't help. Nor did the anti-Catholic campaign against Al Smith in 1928 and John Kennedy in 1960 (not from the Republican party officially, but from evangelicals acting on their own on behalf of Republicans) do the Republican party any favors.

And as long as the main difference between the two parties was economic, Catholics would have stayed with the Democrats probably forever.

But then came the 1972 election, where the Democrats, in the now legendary words published by columnist Robert Novak (quoting Democrat senator Thomas Eagleton, who would become McGovern's first running mate) the Democrats became the party of "Acid amnesty and abortion." Nixon, in 1972, was the first Republican to get a significant portion of the Catholic vote. For the first time, social issues trumped economic ones for Catholic voters. It is a trend that will continue.

The Catholic shift to the Republicans continued under Reagan, but they shifted back in 1992 to Clinton. Since 1992, Catholics have been a swing vote, no longer loyal Democrats. But now, it appears that the Catholic vote is now majority Republican for the first time, and with every election, the Republicans get a bigger and bigger share of the Catholic vote.

Instead of being the party of the working class, Catholics now see the Democrats as the party that is hostile to their faith. The party obsessed with abortion, the party that wants to take away parental rights and "transition" their children without their knowledge. The party that is hostile to religious freedom. And the party that nominated a woman who skipped the Al Smith dinner in New York, a fundraiser for Catholic Charities that has invited every presidential nominee since 1944, Kamala Harris is only the second person to decline, the first being Walter Mondale. You wouldn't think that would be a campaign any Democrat would want to imitate. And she compounded the problem with her infamous "You're at the wrong rally" comment which many interpreted as her saying Christians have no place in the Democratic party.

The old Democrat base is increasingly Republican, not just in voting patterns but in registration as well. Will this stick? Only time will tell.

[peregrinator]

I'd be careful theorizing about realignment - Kamala Harris was probably the worst candidate ever foisted on the American public by the Dems (a bad choice for running mate in 2020) and she didn't have a strong running mate. These are things that can be fixed, the question is will they be - or will the Dems stay beholden to elites and special interests?

[anawim]

I started out politically eclectic. I was conservative on the social issues, and liberal on just about everything else. It was during Reagan's first administration, that I made a decided shift to the right. In fact at one point I was reading an editorial by William F. Buckley, Jr., and found myself agreeing with him. I used to think he was a radical. So you're right about the young being liberal, and then switching.

However, when it comes to registered voters, it's the Independents that now make the majority. Last time I read the statistics, they were 40% of registered voters (Dems were 31; Rep were 29). That is why the polls are often skewed. Pollsters only poll Independents at about 30%. So when Ind. side with the Dems, the polls are accurate. When they side with the Rep., the polls are way off.

[Doom]

I was wrong about one thing, my statistics were out of date, the new updated statistic is that Trump won 46% of the Hispanic vote, and he didn't just get white women, he got 53% of ALL women, white or any other race.

[Kage_ar]

The Hispanic vote is straightforward to understand. It is due to promised deportations. There is nothing more "dangerous" to an undocumented immigrant than a documented immigrant. In the Hispanic community, there is very much a sense of superiority demonstrated by those "with papers" over those "without papers".

The same sort of prejudice is demonstrated toward Hispanics from many in the Black community.

Voting did break down by education lines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... -election/

So many Christian and Catholic Christians were told from the pulpit/ambo that they had to vote Republican. Leaders, Priests, Bishops, and "mega-church" Pastors, fired up their congregants. Anecdotally, a member of my extended family had their marriage end over voting. Their "mega-church" Pastor and the men's groups at this congregation were very outspoken to the point where her husband told her "you cannot be a Christian if you do not vote for Trump". I know a lot of women who would not risk their marriages over voting.

The statistics don't surprise me one single bit.

I am blessed that I had options on my ballot, including the ASP candidate.

[peregrinator]

I'd be very surprised if any Catholics were told from the pulpit that they had to vote Republican.

[Kage_ar]

I have a friend in the Diocese of Orlando where it was preached in the homily. Parishioners have written to the Bishop with no response.

Waiting on confirmation from a friend in South Dakota, a friend from the Diocese of Tyler Texas and a friend in my own state (realizing that they could have misinterpreted what was said). If my pastor had not gotten a warning ahead of time, one of our Deacons would have preached that Catholics must not vote Democrat and named the party - thankfully he had "bragged" to people ahead of time about what he was planning. That Deacon DID express this in his "classes" and in the men's group. Sadly, I am the only one who was in hearing distance who found this wrong, so, no one else can verify what I heard (I come in super early in the morning and the men's group meets on the other side of the wall).

[zeno]

When dealing with such an openly anti-Catholic bigot is it really wrong to point that out? Saying don't vote for the anti-Catholic bigot is not the same as saying vote for Trump. You yourself just said you chose a third alternative.

[peregrinator]

I'd also be interested to know who the priests and bishops are that fired up their congregations to vote Trump.

I think the reality is much simpler, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz represent a wing of the Democratic Party that Catholics want nothing to do with.

[Kage_ar]

When dealing with such an openly anti-Catholic bigot is it really wrong to point that out? Saying don't vote for the anti-Catholic bigot is not the same as saying vote for Trump. You yourself just said you chose a third alternative.

I am happy there were alternatives on my ballot. I will never talk about my personal vote!

If nothing else, it is against the IRS code for a person to get up in church and say "do not vote for Democrats" or "do not vote for Trump". Naming, endorsing candidates or parties means placing your tax-exempt status at risk.

USCCB says:

https://www.usccb.org/resources/dos-and ... ion-season

https://www.usccb.org/offices/general-c ... guidelines

[peregrinator]

Yes, this is exactly what makes the reports so difficult to believe. It's not credible that a bishop would not intervene if a priest told his parishioners to vote for Trump from the pulpit.

[zeno]

The Bishops themselves issued Voting Guide so it seems clear there is something between not saying a word and an outright endorsement of a candidate that is acceptable.

[Deacon Arky]

Neither my Pastor, or myself, did any political preaching or endorsing during our homilies throughout the election season....much to the dismay of many parishioners. I think many of them wanted us to tell them who to vote for. We did put the "Catholic Guide to Voting" in the bulletin and in private conversations I always advised people to make themselves aware of the teaching of the Church on various issues and vote accordingly. When people told me that they liked neither candidate, I always said, neither do I..but there are 3rd party options or you can take the advice of Pope Francis and vote for the "least evil" candidate. This is Diocese of Little Rock.

[anawim]

Other than the standard "vote pro-life", the only issue in NY that got mentioned in church, was to vote no on a ballot initiative that gives equal rights to everyone, including minors. It passed anyway, thus paving the way for children to have a say in having birth control, abortions, and sex change procedures, whether their parents object or not.

[Riverboat]

That's what happens when people look at a headline without paying attention to the whole story. Equal rights? For EVERYONE? Well, who could be against that.

And then it becomes law, and people find out what it really means.

[zeno]

Well, we have to pass it to know what's in it...

[Riverboat]

Well, we have to pass it to know what's in it...

Your next mission should be to provide a way of giving a thumb's-up to posts. The English teacher in me approves of your political allusion.

[zeno]

[BobCatholic]

When I voted for the first time, I voted republican. This was after Reagan's two terms ended.

I remember growing up in poverty thanks to Jimmy Carter's messes. My mom was out of work a lot, due to working only temp jobs, and we were forced to rent out all the rooms in her house to make ends meet. We even had some double-ups in the room, getting extra beds, for roommates sharing single rooms.

Then Reagan got elected, and my mom got a permanent union job and things got significantly better. I remembered this when I voted.

"Morning in America" - I remember that commercial.

Biden/Harris was 1977-1980 all over again. Job market got terrible. Trump sounded a lot like Reagan.

Now if only Trump were like Reagan about anti-communism - and Pope Francis the same way. That part I'm doubting.