BTW, what do people here make of the religion map? http://littlegeneva.com/images/2004map.jpg This map says that Bush got the majority of the Roman Catholic vote, yet the map shows that many of the majority-professing-R.C. states, esp. on the West Coast, and in the NE, went Kerry, apart from those in the non-coastal west, which all went Bush. What does this mean; does it mean that Kerry got most of the liberal R.C. vote (those for whom Roman Catholicism is less about attending Mass, confession, rosary, etc., and more about being Irish-Bostonian/New-Yorker, Polish-Chicagoer, French-Canadian-descent-northern-New-Englander, etc.; more of an ethnic identification) while Bush got most of the conservative R.C. vote (i.e. faithful, believing Roman Catholics), or is it more complex than that?
More complex I challenge the ethnic identification vs. conservative view. I don’t think that’s the axis. From my NYC catholic viewpoint, with some experience in the NW, I say there seem to be a large number of catholics in the NE and NW who are, indeed, mass-attending, faithful, believing, confessing, and prayerful, etc., as far as one can tell, but decidedly not sympathetic to what is labelled conservatism in the political context. At the same time, these, for lack of a better term, liberal catholics, are at one with the proposition nation it’s-less-about-ethnicity-and-more-about-merit thing. Not that they are not proud of their ancestry, etc. It’s decidedly mixed. Even within and across families and within and across time.
Nevertheless, I can’t explain the New Mexico-Arizona-Colorado-Wyoming-Montana Catholic pro-Bush result or offer a better axis other than the liberal/conservative thing.
And a combo of the 2000 and 2004 maps in my first link…
… http://blogs.salon.com/0003800/2004/11/04.html here.
BTW, what do people here make of the religion map?
http://littlegeneva.com/images/2004map.jpg This map says that Bush got the majority of the Roman Catholic vote, yet the map shows that many of the majority-professing-R.C. states, esp. on the West Coast, and in the NE, went Kerry, apart from those in the non-coastal west, which all went Bush. What does this mean; does it mean that Kerry got most of the liberal R.C. vote (those for whom Roman Catholicism is less about attending Mass, confession, rosary, etc., and more about being Irish-Bostonian/New-Yorker, Polish-Chicagoer, French-Canadian-descent-northern-New-Englander, etc.; more of an ethnic identification) while Bush got most of the conservative R.C. vote (i.e. faithful, believing Roman Catholics), or is it more complex than that?
More complex
I challenge the ethnic identification vs. conservative view. I don’t think that’s the axis. From my NYC catholic viewpoint, with some experience in the NW, I say there seem to be a large number of catholics in the NE and NW who are, indeed, mass-attending, faithful, believing, confessing, and prayerful, etc., as far as one can tell, but decidedly not sympathetic to what is labelled conservatism in the political context. At the same time, these, for lack of a better term, liberal catholics, are at one with the proposition nation it’s-less-about-ethnicity-and-more-about-merit thing. Not that they are not proud of their ancestry, etc. It’s decidedly mixed. Even within and across families and within and across time.
Nevertheless, I can’t explain the New Mexico-Arizona-Colorado-Wyoming-Montana Catholic pro-Bush result or offer a better axis other than the liberal/conservative thing.