David QuinnCatholics faced a tough choice in the US election, writes David Quinn
Catholicism is a universal creed, that is, it seeks to unite all people in the worship of Jesus Christ. It is a huge religion, to be found to a greater or less extent in practically all parts of the world. Irish Catholics share their faith with the Catholics of Germany, Italy, Nigeria, the United States, all parts of Latin America, the Philippines.
Catholicism crosses the class divide as well. A factory worker, depending on the country, is as likely to be a Mass-goer as his boss.
Partly as a consequence of its universal creed, the Catholic Church also has a vision of the common good, which seeks to unite in a morally acceptable compromise, the interests and needs of every group in society.
The recent American election was enormously divisive. Donald Trump did not pretend to be a unifier. On the contrary, he was setting some Americans, chiefly the old White majority, against almost everyone else.
Hillary Clinton pretended to run as a unifier, just like Barack Obama did. But she wasn’t that. In fact, her policies, the policies of her fellow Democrats, and the policies of the Republican party, along with the pervasive and chronic liberal bias of most of the American media, helped to pave the way for Trump.
Free trade
Both the Republicans and the Democrats back globalisation. Both parties support mostly unrestrictive free trade and the outsourcing of American jobs to other parts of the world where wages are lower.
The Democrats are all for mass immigration, and the Republicans only slightly less so (although it varies from candidate to candidate).
This has meant huge numbers of unskilled workers have come into America, competing for jobs with unskilled American workers and lowering their wages further still.
The Democrats were for a long time the champion of the blue collar American voter but to all intents and purposes that stopped a long time ago. Instead the Democrats have concentrated on feminism (including, obviously, abortion), gay and transsexual rights, and ethnic minority rights. In other words, identity politics.
To add insult to injury, the Democrats, plus their innumerable allies in the American media, entertainment industry and academia poured scorn and contempt on anyone who didn’t and doesn’t go along with identity politics.
Those who oppose abortion are accused of ‘hating’ women. Those who believe in marriage as by definition a conjugal union between men and women ‘hate’ gay people. Those opposed to more or less unrestricted immigration are ‘racists’. Almost no allowance is made for the fact that while some people opposed to these things might indeed be bigots, most are not.
Nor does it occur to those who constantly hurl the insult ‘bigot’ at everyone they disagree with, that they might be the bigots instead. To reduce everyone you oppose to the status of a ‘bigot’, and then to give yourself permission to hate them as a result, surely qualifies as bigotry.
In response to all this, Donald Trump managed to harness a new form of identity politics which is partly White identity politics, but is also working class identity politics. Poor whites, feeling abandoned by both parties, voted for him in droves.
They were sick of seeing their factories closing down, or competing with migrants for ever lower-paid jobs. They were also heartily sick of being condescended to by the liberal elite, especially by the liberal media.
Notably, by the way, 80% of white Evangelical Christians voted for Trump despite the fact that he seems to have no religious faith to speak of and despite the fact that his attitude to women is basically that of Playboy magazine.
Contempt
One pundit explains that Evangelicals voted for Trump as an act of self-defence. Barack Obama showed nothing but contempt for their values throughout his eight years in office and they feared Hillary Clinton would do the same. Also, many Evangelicals are rural and/or working class, Trump’s voter base.
What about Catholics?Just under half of Catholics voted for Clinton, but I don’t know how many Mass-going Catholics voted for her.
Many Catholics were deeply conflicted during this election. They didn’t like either candidate because neither candidate did a good job representing the Catholic view of the common good.
What is that view? Briefly, that we must look after the interests of the poor, look after the right to life, promote the marriage of man and woman as the best model of family life, and look after the environment.
Clinton thinks she was ticking box number one, but she wasn’t really. In respect of items two and three, she has bent herself to opposing both of them. Only in respect of item four did she tick the box.
Trump, strangely, ticked box number one, although the American poor first, not the migrant poor. He says he is pro-life, but that is only opportunism in my view. He is for gay marriage and definitely does not favour environment-friendly policies. Then there is his highly divisive rhetoric.
So, Catholics had a very tough choice deciding who to vote for. It came down in many cases to either abstaining or choosing the lesser of two evils.
If the Church is to have more political influence going forward, and it ought to want this since politics at its best is about the just ordering of society, then it needs to start by educating Catholics themselves about the common good.
That’s doesn’t seem to happen as much as it should in America and certainly doesn’t happen here. T
his can and must change for the simple reason that the teaching on the common good has so much to offer to society and without spreading this teaching the Catholic Church cannot hope to have any real political influence going into the future.
A proper understanding of the common good will produce better politics and a better society.