There is chatter among the chattering classes about the odd datum that Hillary Clinton does particularly well against Barack Obama among Catholics. Why so? What’s the link? As there is no obvious one.
A couple of theories I have read: 1) Hispanics are a significant element of the Catholic vote, and Hispanics are inclined to see blacks as rival gangs in the hood. 2) Catholics, because of the cult of Mary and the tradition of nunhood, are more accustomed than Protestants to the idea of women in responsible roles outside the home.
Both are reasonable hypotheses; and how about possible Catholic sympathy for Clinton sticking with an adulterous partner?
But I wonder that no one else has noticed something else: that Obama’s rhetorical style has something in it of the traditional “inspirational” Protestant preacher. A grand and admirable tradition, but one more likely to resonate with Protestants. Not that Catholic are necessarily turned off by it; but cradle Protestants are more likely to be turned on.
And what about the chance that Catholics, whose ancestors generally arrived on North American shores as immigrants only this century—from places like Italy, Ireland, Poland, Mexico—are a bit short on white guilt over the issue of slavery?
If white guilt is a significant factor in Obama’s appeal, it is likely for historical reasons to be higher among Protestants than Catholics.
Indeed, these children of more recent immigrants, themselves often facing discrimination, may resent the special attention given to blacks, often, with affirmative action, at their expense. It is on their backs, after all, that the old Protestant families have assuaged their own guilt over slavery.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment