Would a Catholic->Protestant convert be electable in 1928?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 09, 2024, 08:14:51 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Would a Catholic->Protestant convert be electable in 1928?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Would a Catholic->Protestant convert be electable in 1928?
#1
Yes, from either party.
 
#2
Yes, but only as a Democrat.
 
#3
Yes, but only as a Republican.
 
#4
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 19

Author Topic: Would a Catholic->Protestant convert be electable in 1928?  (Read 1273 times)
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2024, 12:19:12 PM »

As a side note, I find it cringe when Anglicans try to carve out some special place for themselves as like “barely Protestant” simply because they retained a lot from Catholicism.  That line of logic is dumb; if you came out of the Reformation, you’re 110% Protestant.  You don’t see Lutherans talking that kind of BS just because they want to appear special, lol.

Difference is Lutherans were the OG Protestants who left for clear theological reasons. The only reason the Anglican Church exists separate from the Catholic Church is because Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife. It was more political than theological or "reformed."

The actual theological founders of Anglicanism made it far more Protestant than King Henry XIII would have preferred, though.  “Via Media” more accurately describes a middle way between Lutheranism and the Reformed tradition.  Anglicans affirm all the essential tenants of Protestantism, they just kept a few more sacraments.

Remember again that Henry VIII personally was a lifelong hater and opponent of Lutheranism as well as a lifelong self-identified "Catholic"; he famously wrote a widely-circulated rebuttal to Luther's 95 theses, of which the Pope's response was adulation and the bestowal of the "Defender of the Faith" title unto Henry. (Indeed, this ironically is the origin of the epithet famously used by Henry, and every subsequent English monarch save for "Bloody Mary," as the moniker corresponding to their role as supreme head of the Church of England.)

Truth be told, contrary to what many Henry VIII-haters would like to believe, there were at all somereasons apart from the sole issue of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon as to why Henry broke from Rome. That said, the position that 'Anglicanism is less "truly Protestant" than Lutheranism' is indeed more true than false, if anything.

While you could try to make this argument based on things like Anglicanism keeping more sacraments and being especially concerned with apostolic succession (though the latter also applies to Lutheran churches like the Church of Sweden), I think it's a futile exercise and exactly why you had to put "truly Protestant" in quotations.  Like, I get what you are saying, but this leads down a path where groups that stray FURTHER from the original Protestant Reformation are, like, "more Protestant" than groups that changed less??  That makes no sense to me.  A Baptist is not "more Protestant" than a Lutheran - the literal first Protestants - just because they abandoned even more of pre-Reformation tradition.  This type of logic would mean that Pentecostals are more Protestant than Baptists??  That seems bizarre.  And obviously an assertion that even more radically changed groups like the Mormons (who aren't even Protestants) are then "more Protestant" than Pentecostals would fall completely flat.

I will say that you could maybe make the claim you did for Anglicanism vs. Lutheranism and the Reformed tradition specifically (and ONLY) since they all came about from the Reformation itself.  In this case, I suppose you only look at it as Anglicanism vs. the other two traditions and how fully they embraced the ideas of the Reformation, but even then ... many brands of Anglicanism is TRULY sort of a via media between Lutheranism and Calvinism.  Either way, my original point is still this ... there aren't any serious scholars that say Anglicans aren't clearly Protestant (only perpetually online Anglicans who want to feel special and be as annoying as "ONE TRUE CHURCH" Orthodox and Catholic bros so therefore need to separate themselves from other Protestants), and this idea that it is super separate from other Protestantism is relatively modern, from what I can see. The English in the 1700s, for example, clearly saw themselves as proud Protestants, and the Episcopal Church even had "Protestant" in its original name.  Again, is Anglicanism unique within Protestantism?  Of course.  Is it decidedly more high church compared to group like the Baptists?  Definitely.  But so is Lutheranism and Presbyterianism on both accounts, even if to varying degrees.

TL;DR ... Anglicanism isn't any more unique than any other branch of Protestantism ... they're just like the kids who gave themselves their own nickname and keep repeating it.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2024, 12:20:13 PM »

I think so.

Al Smith's electability problem wasn't just that he was Catholic.

He was also Irish and Italian (people forget the Italian part!), at a time when negative stereotypes about both were prevalent.

He was also a native of New York City and proud of it, at a time when New York and Eastern cities in general were viewed negatively by the heartland and rural voters.

A Catholic to Protestant convert from, say, Illinois, wouldn't have had the baggage that Smith carried.

I mean, the ONLY Catholics at this time were immigrants ... so the bolded is only relevant if you think a German Catholic would have had an easier campaign than Smith.  And I am skeptical of that.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,704
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2024, 12:30:47 PM »

Sure.  You could literally elect an open atheist or voodoo practitioner in 1928 just by moving the stock market crash a year early if they are the Dem nominee.
Logged
LabourJersey
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,205
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2024, 07:02:29 PM »

I think so.

Al Smith's electability problem wasn't just that he was Catholic.

He was also Irish and Italian (people forget the Italian part!), at a time when negative stereotypes about both were prevalent.

He was also a native of New York City and proud of it, at a time when New York and Eastern cities in general were viewed negatively by the heartland and rural voters.

A Catholic to Protestant convert from, say, Illinois, wouldn't have had the baggage that Smith carried.

I mean, the ONLY Catholics at this time were immigrants ... so the bolded is only relevant if you think a German Catholic would have had an easier campaign than Smith.  And I am skeptical of that.

That's not necessarily true - there were a decent number of Maryland and Louisiana Catholics whose families where well-established in the US by 1928. If, say, some Catholic Governor of Maryland ran in 1928, their Catholicism would be a disadvantage but not to the degree of Al Smith's.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.245 seconds with 14 queries.