[Dubayoo]

Leftists typically like to say the rule of law is biased towards the ruling class which is determined by its selective interpretation of legal concepts. If vague language is in the law, then it will be situationally adapted to whatever interpretation fits the interests of wealthy clients in the moment the law is needed. Wealthy clients can throw more money at lawyers than not so wealthy clients, so they can afford lawyers spending more time to interpret the law the way they want.

Kirkland & Ellis is the world's leading law firm in gross revenue, and has extensive conservative Catholic pedigree such as Brett Kavanaugh, Phil Clement, Robert Bork, William Barr, etc...

...so if this is the case, why does the left fail so hard to address conservative Catholicism?

The answer is threefold:

One, most lawyers do not work for big name firms like Kirkland & Ellis: https://brandongaille.com/30-mind-boggl ... ographics/

In fact, the overwhelming majority of lawyers work for themselves or for firms with only a handful of associates and partners. Looking at the bigshots does not paint the big picture of what really happens among professional lawyers.

Second, there is an extensive wealth range among Catholic populations. In fact, many Catholics identify as working or lower-middle class in working blue-collar jobs or as small business entrepreneurs. This is something that goes back to the arrival of Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants over a century ago, and it's important to note America's outcasting of Catholic populations even among conservative circles as believing they'll put Rome before Washington.

Third, more Catholics identity as liberal today than conservative, so the conventional wisdom of believing conservatism = Catholicism doesn't make sense in reality. This has especially applied since 1968 when the Second Vatican Council went hand in hand with the counterculture movement...

...so yea, if the left wants to address Catholic conservatism, it needs to set its perspective straight in understanding how the real world works. It has more important priorities at hand, and should address conservative Catholicism as a secondary, not primary, opponent.

I say this especially in light of the "greaser" subculture which embraced promiscuity during the '50s and '60s before the counterculture movement even took off in working class men seducing middle class women. These working class men often came from Catholic populations, and they still do today, especially in light of how the Catholic Church has become increasingly lenient on forgiving sin. Many of these Catholics ended up voting for Trump as well, and tolerated his infidelity.

The paradox goes even further when you understand how the name comes from how the culture got its name from people becoming mechanics who got literally greasy from working with oily car and machine parts and tools. This culture was literally facilitated from the construction of public roads, especially with the military industrial complex building the interstate highway system after so many Catholic populations served in non-commissioned positions during WW2. They came home looking for work, and inhabited Levittowns subsidized by Fannie and Freddie as well (like the stereotypical Italian-American one on Long Island).

The culture was even romanticized over in books like "The Outsiders" plays like "Grease" and "West Side Story" and movie remakes of them.

[Drlee]

Wow. Actually kinda' interesting. A few comments for you to personally consider.

It does not matter but the term "greaser" does not come from mechanics. It has to do with hair styles using heavy oil or pomade popular in certain communities. So whatever.

...so yea, if the left wants to address Catholic conservatism, it needs to set its perspective straight in understanding how the real world works. It has more important priorities at hand, and should address conservative Catholicism as a secondary, not primary, opponent.

You are referring to the left. Do you mean democrats? If so let me sound like a broken record and remind you that the US Democratic Party is not "left" it is a center right party.

You also seem to be all to ready to discuss Hispanics when you are discussing American Catholicism. About 60% of American Roman Catholics (RC's) are white. Only 34% are Hispanic. So you are playing this drum louder than you probably should.

I don't know what "leftists" in America are doing. There are so few it really doesn't much matter. What democrats are doing is the math. What are the issues that might peal off American Conservative RC's? Possibly abortion and to a far lesser degree, same sex marriage. So they can discard same sex marriage because it is a settled point. It is a fact of American life and short of a constitutional amendment ending it will be the law of the land 'forever'. Abortion is something else.

Here is a question for you. How many of today's RC's do you think are really conservative? I would posit very few on issues that can be marketed. You seem to have a solution in search of a problem.

I don't know why you strayed into some nonsense about greaser culture. It no longer exists. I remember it clearly and I would recommend that you not use the term around Hispanic people of my age. It will not go well for you. As we say now, it was never really a thing anyway.

It has more important priorities at hand, and should address conservative Catholicism as a secondary, not primary, opponent.

If I were one of those democrats you seem to be confusing with leftists I would remind you of what you already said. There are not enough Catholic conservatives to worry about. Those of them who are Latino have much to dislike the Republican Party for. Namely, it anti Latino posturing. My sense is that they will ignore the abortion thing in favor of pissing on the Trump'ets.

[Dubayoo]

I'm not even thinking about Hispanics there. I'm thinking of Italian Americans who became car mechanics. Hispanics often followed in their footsteps though. Did their hair get slicked back? Yes, but that's a result of sweating from hard work as well as the oily consistency that certain groups have in their hair. It was also used to refer to people's personalities as slimy for manipulating others such as through seduction which went along with how greaser culture embraced promiscuity even before the counterculture movement and second wave feminism happened.

You know?

The "left" would include Democrats, but focuses more on progressives, social democrats, and democratic socialists who seek to revolutionize the system. Social liberals sometimes fall in this group, but not often. Their understanding of social justice is rather poor. The point of the thread was to demonstrate how poor it is from their failure to understand the real world role of Catholicism in conservatism's identity.

Hispanics are a subset of whites as well. That's why we talk about Hispanic whites versus non-Hispanic whites.

I just don't know why you're even bringing up Hispanics here. Ethnicity isn't the point. The point is understanding the deeper ideas of faith, and how the Church has many motives behind why people are faithful. The identity of those who work in leading law firms is motivated similarly to working and lower-middle class Catholics such that class warfare isn't really determined by wealth. The "ruling class" is determined by motive as proven by how many lawyers do not work in firms like Kirkland & Ellis. The Catholic identity of leading law firms does not demonstrate the general conduct of how professional lawyers work, but that conduct can be seen in the behavior of others who don't work as lawyers.

In fact, we saw this during the organized crime spree of the 70s and 80s when many descendants of greaser culture were involved with mafia families and they hired lawyers to cover their tracks.

Unless you're going to talk about Hispanic gangs that operate similarly now, please stop talking about them. Ethnicity doesn't help here.

[Drlee]

Unless you're going to talk about Hispanic gangs that operate similarly now, please stop talking about them. Ethnicity doesn't help here.

Clueless much? You like to hear yourself talk but the above is gobbledygook. You don't know your subject and you have somehow keyed to a made-up "culture".

Have fun with your thread.

[annatar1914]

Clueless much? You like to hear yourself talk but the above is gobbledygook. You don't know your subject and you have somehow keyed to a made-up "culture".

Have fun with your thread.

Oh, it's the same old story Drlee; most people on this world are ''the N-Word'' to the top tier, who exploit and yet are fearful of those below them. This guy probably has trouble with Slavs, Asians, people from Papua New Guinea, etc...

He's just dancing around his real issue-us Proles-and anointing it with a Papist menace angle to it.

[quetzalcoatl]

...I don't know what "leftists" in America are doing. There are so few it really doesn't much matter...

Quoted for truth.

I don't know of any proper leftists active in electoral politics in the contemporary US. Even Bernie and AOC would only have been considered as run-of-the-mill liberals in the New Deal era. Certainly we would never today have somebody like Henry Wallace as a VP nominee.

Sure, the DSA is growing in popularity among millennials, but they're really not what would be considered left in the UK or Europe. Most DSA members are not hard socialist/anti-capitalist, but closer to the social Democratic/ordoliberal orientation. There's been no history of left activism in US unions since the Great Depression, which has (as intended) broken the essential breeding ground for left activism.

Conservatives that consider Obama or Pelosi socialists would be laughed out of town by even the mildest social Democrat.

My understanding of Catholic conservatism is that it is primarily cultural. I don't see conservative Catholics beating the drum for libertarian free markets - that particular cultural gap is beyond unbridgeable.

The bottom line is that the new permanent underclass created by neoliberal economic policy is up for grabs. It could go hard left or hard right. My bet is hard right, given the pathetic cluelessness of US liberalism.

[One Degree]

Catholics are a diverse group and ‘conservative’ can mean a lot of different things. Many are religiously and/or socially conservative, but few are politically conservative in the US.

‘Greasers’ also has been applied to several groups for different reasons including Italians, Mexicans, and white guys in the 50’s with DAs.

[Dubayoo]

Quoted for truth.

I don't know of any proper leftists active in electoral politics in the contemporary US. Even Bernie and AOC would only have been considered as run-of-the-mill liberals in the New Deal era. Certainly we would never today have somebody like Henry Wallace as a VP nominee.

Sure, the DSA is growing in popularity among millennials, but they're really not what would be considered left in the UK or Europe. Most DSA members are not hard socialist/anti-capitalist, but closer to the social Democratic/ordoliberal orientation. There's been no history of left activism in US unions since the Great Depression, which has (as intended) broken the essential breeding ground for left activism.

Conservatives that consider Obama or Pelosi socialists would be laughed out of town by even the mildest social Democrat.

My understanding of Catholic conservatism is that it is primarily cultural. I don't see conservative Catholics beating the drum for libertarian free markets - that particular cultural gap is beyond unbridgeable.

The bottom line is that the new permanent underclass created by neoliberal economic policy is up for grabs. It could go hard left or hard right. My bet is hard right, given the pathetic cluelessness of US liberalism.

I'd say the left is more informal and grassroots oriented. There aren't many prominent leftist politicians, but there are plenty of ordinary people who identify with revolutionizing the economy.

The problem is these people presume Catholicism is the backbone of principled conservatism in defending the free market despite how that's not how things actually work. The Catholic element to conservatism is about a few select people in high positions of power situationally interpreting the law for the ulterior motives of the Catholic laity which revels in being sinners and asking to be forgiven afterwards. We don't have to talk about big issues like abortion, gay marriage, or children had out of wedlock either. The sins can be as simple as regular lies, violence, theft, negligence, harassment, etc.

Yes, there are principled Catholics, but they're not a problem. They are the exceptions to the rule and should be left alone. Principled Catholics do not rig the legal system towards a ruling class. The ones who rig the system are rhetorical wordsmiths who waste your time by making your life difficult through abuse of process.

[Drlee]

The bottom line is that the new permanent underclass created by neoliberal economic policy is up for grabs. It could go hard left or hard right. My bet is hard right, given the pathetic cluelessness of US liberalism.

I agree. I think the Trump successes in the rust belt are a glimpse of that. Trump is certainly not hard right but, for the moment, they think he is. I also agree that US liberals will fail to make any real case. The Mueller investigation will do little to expose the Kleptocracy we call government these days. The other day someone misquoted Steinbeck. Here is the real quote:

"I guess the trouble was that we didn't have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist. Maybe the Communists so closely questioned by the investigation committees were a danger to America, but the ones I knew—at least they claimed to be Communists—couldn't have disrupted a Sunday-school picnic. Besides they were too busy fighting among themselves."

In my youth there was a very real thought about the nobleness of hard work and the honor of middle class "success". Of course in my youth one could have a comfortable and financially secure life on the wages of the service economy and trades. Today, not so much. We have lost this American value to a very large extent. You almost never hear the old saw: "I don't care what you do as long as it is honorable work". Or the equally archaic "I don't care what you do as long as you are good at it". I heard these two endlessly as a youngster. And, ironically, in the light of the intervening years, we actually meant them perhaps more than just a little.

OD Speaking of Catholics: Many are religiously and/or socially conservative, but few are politically conservative in the US.

I agree with this. I also agree with quetzalcoatl that RC's, as a group, are not especially active economically one way or the other. I do not see them as a cypher in US politics. Certainly nothing like the gun lobby or the (forgive me) cracker-conservative rural white males. At best any "group" of Catholics which might be targeted would be so small as to be just political low-hanging fruit. The only time I see Catholics acting as a group would be if their was an assault on organized religion in the US. That would be a game changer.

An on that subject for a moment. Many here dismiss the power of religious people in the US as fading. It really isn't. Even though fewer people identify as religious those who still identify as religious are a huge majority. One only has to look at the republican ownership of what they have come to call the religious right (mostly fundamentalists if one flavor or another) to see how powerful this block can be. They elected Trump and maintained the Republican majority in the Senate. (Along with masterful gerrymandering playing to this group.) If the Roman Catholics and Fundamentalists are convinced that there is to be an assault on their religion there will be (no pun intended) the devil to pay. In fact, if there is a major move to the right in the US it is my opinion that this is going to be the way it happens.

The problem is these people presume Catholicism is the backbone of principled conservatism in defending the free market despite how that's not how things actually work. The Catholic element to conservatism is about a few select people in high positions of power situationally interpreting the law for the ulterior motives of the Catholic laity which revels in being sinners and asking to be forgiven afterwards. We don't have to talk about big issues like abortion, gay marriage, or children had out of wedlock either. The sins can be as simple as regular lies, violence, theft, negligence, harassment, etc.

I don't think any of this is true. I do not believe that there are very many people at all who "presume Catholicism is particularly conservative or free market. I do not see any real unity of voting based upon what the Catholic hierarchy says though it is often asserted that there is. I do not believe Catholics "revel in being sinners". 2/3 of Catholics poll in favor of same sex marriage. Less than half believe that abortion should be illegal in most cases. (Pew research 2017). This does not make them much different from the population in general and way more progressive than self-identified evangelicals.

Yes, there are principled Catholics, but they're not a problem. They are the exceptions to the rule and should be left alone. Principled Catholics do not rig the legal system towards a ruling class. The ones who rig the system are rhetorical wordsmiths who waste your time by making your life difficult through abuse of process.

Source for your drawing these outrageous conclusions?

[Victoribus Spolia]

If the Roman Catholics and Fundamentalists are convinced that there is to be an assault on their religion there will be (no pun intended) the devil to pay. In fact, if there is a major move to the right in the US it is my opinion that this is going to be the way it happens.

Truer words have never been spoken and I can tell you right now that the quickest way for this perception to be advanced is for the american establishment to continue its de facto tolerance of censorship and deplatforming of politically incorrect opinions, especially if they touch on religious views regarding things like homosexuality, abortion, and trans-rights.

If religious people feel they are no longer allowed to publicly speak on certain issues, they will consolidate their group consciousness further, and religious groups; especially Christians, tend to to thrive when they unite under the presumption of being persecuted.