Describe a Hughes-Cox-Davis-Hoover voter

[Wikipedia delenda est]

OP if forced to choose major-party candidates?

Explanation: Democrat, anti-racist, anti-papist.

Actually I think I'd be a Hughes-Harding-Coolidge-Smith voter (Debs in 1920 and LaFollette in 1924 if third-parties allowed). Since anti-Catholicism in the 1920s came mostly from the Klan rather than Northeasterners, I would've firmly opposed it.

Actually I had no doubts your voting preferences would be exactly like that, but you know I like to trigger you.

By the way, what kind of voter would have feared Al Smith's Catholicism only because of possible ties to Mussolini and Primo de Rivera? It sounds absurd.

A liberal intellectual voter, as I said, who paid close attention to international affairs. It may sound absurd, but at that point the Catholic Church was still a profoundly illiberal institution in bed with reactionaries and dictators across the world. It wasn't just bigoted Southerners or the Klan who feared that a Catholic in power would bring in theocracy or take orders from the Pope, but secular Northern liberals too. In that spirit the National Liberal League had supported the Blaine Amendment some 50 years earlier. Here's a passage from The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism on just that:

It does not sound absurd that the Church was some sort of illiberal institution; it sounds absurd that a Democrat would vote against Al Smith because of fear he would align the USA to Mussolini or whomever (although to be fair it also sounds absurd that so many people believed Al Smith would have been a literal Pope puppet).
The book passage is interesting. I wonder what North Carolina Yankee thinks about it.

Regarding Catholicism's innate conservatism... I sometimes joke I am a conservative leftist.

Republican anti-Catholicism was born of nativism, the established demographics rejecting the newcomers for fear that it would overturn their political hegemony.

I have talked extensively about the realignment of catholics in 1896 and again in the 1940s onwards. Indeed this could because their are innate conservative tropes about a long time established church internationally that when combined with a shift in the local politics or in this case the national politics, creates the impetus to create a Conservative alliance with them, once you get past the whole "Go Back to Ireland/Italy/Poland" phase.

The case that I have tried to make is that America's politics existed in a Liberal paradigm relative to the rest of the world in the 19th century owing to the Revolution and such forth, but within that "more liberal paradigm" America had its own left-right divide defined on economic, ethnic and religious grounds and for the longest time, Catholics were on the liberal side of that spectrum because the Protestant majority shut them out of power.

In 1896, Republicans had faced declining power in their home base counties and region for years as the decline in voting power of pious Yankees and the rise of Catholic voters imperiled their majorities there. This changed however, because Republicans were able to bottle up their nativist inclinations, and rely on protectionist economic fear mongering, as well as angst about WJB's Protestant zeal to induce Middle Class and even industrial Catholics to vote Republican.

This is not some near revelation and indeed, I have talked at length about Republicans cracking the working class vote to facilitate their hold on the industrial North and as long as Democrats remained primarily oriented with agrarian interests that prevailed in their base region and endorsed policies that could be painted as hostile to industrial jobs existing in the first place, this strategy was a winner for Republicans.

The key takeaway though, just as for Republicans in the 1960's seeing the South as a potential hotbed for a Conservative alliance, their by definition has to already be a "Conservatism" within the confines of the Republican Party. You cannot be looking out and seeing potential allies for your conservatives if you do not exist yourself.

So you’re just going to ignore the majority of my post where I quoted a passage proving that Liberal secularists were opposed to Catholicism and in lockstep with Protestant Republicans on the issue?

I was not even responding to your post there.

Well will you? I’d be interested to hear what you have to say on it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

OP if forced to choose major-party candidates?

Explanation: Democrat, anti-racist, anti-papist.

Actually I think I'd be a Hughes-Harding-Coolidge-Smith voter (Debs in 1920 and LaFollette in 1924 if third-parties allowed). Since anti-Catholicism in the 1920s came mostly from the Klan rather than Northeasterners, I would've firmly opposed it.

Actually I had no doubts your voting preferences would be exactly like that, but you know I like to trigger you.

By the way, what kind of voter would have feared Al Smith's Catholicism only because of possible ties to Mussolini and Primo de Rivera? It sounds absurd.

A liberal intellectual voter, as I said, who paid close attention to international affairs. It may sound absurd, but at that point the Catholic Church was still a profoundly illiberal institution in bed with reactionaries and dictators across the world. It wasn't just bigoted Southerners or the Klan who feared that a Catholic in power would bring in theocracy or take orders from the Pope, but secular Northern liberals too. In that spirit the National Liberal League had supported the Blaine Amendment some 50 years earlier. Here's a passage from The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism on just that:

It does not sound absurd that the Church was some sort of illiberal institution; it sounds absurd that a Democrat would vote against Al Smith because of fear he would align the USA to Mussolini or whomever (although to be fair it also sounds absurd that so many people believed Al Smith would have been a literal Pope puppet).
The book passage is interesting. I wonder what North Carolina Yankee thinks about it.

Regarding Catholicism's innate conservatism... I sometimes joke I am a conservative leftist.

Republican anti-Catholicism was born of nativism, the established demographics rejecting the newcomers for fear that it would overturn their political hegemony.

I have talked extensively about the realignment of catholics in 1896 and again in the 1940s onwards. Indeed this could because their are innate conservative tropes about a long time established church internationally that when combined with a shift in the local politics or in this case the national politics, creates the impetus to create a Conservative alliance with them, once you get past the whole "Go Back to Ireland/Italy/Poland" phase.

The case that I have tried to make is that America's politics existed in a Liberal paradigm relative to the rest of the world in the 19th century owing to the Revolution and such forth, but within that "more liberal paradigm" America had its own left-right divide defined on economic, ethnic and religious grounds and for the longest time, Catholics were on the liberal side of that spectrum because the Protestant majority shut them out of power.

In 1896, Republicans had faced declining power in their home base counties and region for years as the decline in voting power of pious Yankees and the rise of Catholic voters imperiled their majorities there. This changed however, because Republicans were able to bottle up their nativist inclinations, and rely on protectionist economic fear mongering, as well as angst about WJB's Protestant zeal to induce Middle Class and even industrial Catholics to vote Republican.

This is not some near revelation and indeed, I have talked at length about Republicans cracking the working class vote to facilitate their hold on the industrial North and as long as Democrats remained primarily oriented with agrarian interests that prevailed in their base region and endorsed policies that could be painted as hostile to industrial jobs existing in the first place, this strategy was a winner for Republicans.

The key takeaway though, just as for Republicans in the 1960's seeing the South as a potential hotbed for a Conservative alliance, their by definition has to already be a "Conservatism" within the confines of the Republican Party. You cannot be looking out and seeing potential allies for your conservatives if you do not exist yourself.

So you’re just going to ignore the majority of my post where I quoted a passage proving that Liberal secularists were opposed to Catholicism and in lockstep with Protestant Republicans on the issue?

I was not even responding to your post there.

Well will you? I’d be interested to hear what you have to say on it.

Maybe, when I am not pressed for time right before going to work.