Describe a Hughes-Cox-Davis-Hoover voter

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I'm thinking maybe a prohibitionist Democrat from a border state like Kentucky or Tennessee.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Another idea: a Northern liberal intellectual who was strongly interventionist and in favor of both entering World War I and joining the League of Nations, as well as being deeply distrustful of political Catholicism due to its links to Italian fascism and Spanish authoritarianism.

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.

[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:

The membership of this movement, largely well-to-do and well educated, came from the old Puritan regions in New England and from the areas of the Puritan diaspora in the upper Middle West, and they had important friends in Congress and even the White House. (President Ulysses S. Grant had made separation part of the Republican agenda.) The Liberals, or "total separationists," as I will call them to distinguish them from the earlier anti-Catholics, were in some respects heterogeneous. Some were atheists, some were Jews, others called themselves agnostics, and still others experimented with various forms of non-Christian "spiritualism" in vogue at the time. None of them saw any reason the United States should have any connection with Christianity, and they girded themselves to battle for "the absolute separation of church and state."

Liberals, then, rejected Christianity--but not Protestant religiosity.

[...]

At first glance, it is startling to see an unapolgetically anti-Christian movement flourish in a nation whose traditions and public institutions were steeped in Protestant Christianity. Yet a closer look would show that the Liberals were really located at the far end of a Protestant continuum [...] Even the Liberals, who disliked all forms of Christianity, could easily agree with the often-voiced Protestant view that Catholics did not think for themselves but took orders from a foreign power. In the campaign to pass the Blaine Amendment, Liberals formed a close working relationship with many pious Protestants. They were able to achieve this kind of working ecumenism because there was a broad Protestant consensus, at least in the North.

Also, somewhat tangentially I remember reading that in 1896 Mark Hanna courted Catholic voters as a winnable bloc for McKinley against the pietist Bryan because he saw the Catholic Church as a global force for conservatism. Furthermore that greatest of classical liberals, William Ewart Gladstone, strongly opposed Catholicism because of its innate conservatism.

[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?

[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.