AH Challenge: More Liberal USA

One obvious way would be a better reconstruction, resulting in a better educated South and less racism.
 
Now, back on topic.

Could large-scale Catholic settlement in the early US weaken the Puritan impulse?

In my Afrikaner TL, I've got a longer-lasting Commonwealth regime in England exiling over 100,000 Irish Catholics to the North American colonies, which undercuts Puritan influence somewhat. Butterflies from this include no Prohibition or War on Drugs, plus stronger Greens and Libertarians.

Does this sound plausible?
 
Now, back on topic.

Could large-scale Catholic settlement in the early US weaken the Puritan impulse?

In my Afrikaner TL, I've got a longer-lasting Commonwealth regime in England exiling over 100,000 Irish Catholics to the North American colonies, which undercuts Puritan influence somewhat. Butterflies from this include no Prohibition or War on Drugs, plus stronger Greens and Libertarians.

Does this sound plausible?

I find the argument about Puritan influence kind of odd.

Baptists, after all, aren't descended from Puritan settlers, and the Northeast is not a bastion of conservatism.

It also does not strike me that say, Argentina or Mexico are more tolerant than America.
 
It also does not strike me that say, Argentina or Mexico are more tolerant than America.

Well they aren't really first-world countries, so that's a bit of a false analogy. Although that does touch on the nubbin of the matter, in a way.

I don't have any particular objection to a higher proportion of Catholics having an effect on America's political outlook, since European Catholic countries have always (generally) placed a high regard on 'social' aspects of policy, which stems in part from early papal doctrine regarding the subject, which was corporatist and stressed aspects of community.

Of course, simple demographics doesn't exclusively address this. To make it convincing, you'd have to take the demographic influene into a genuine political/philosophical one. But on the whole, I can buy it.
 
I find the argument about Puritan influence kind of odd.

Baptists, after all, aren't descended from Puritan settlers, and the Northeast is not a bastion of conservatism.

It also does not strike me that say, Argentina or Mexico are more tolerant than America.

Actually, American Baptists ARE ideological descendants of the Puritans. The first American Baptist IIRC was a Puritan minister who concluded infant baptism was unbiblical and asked another minister to baptize him.

I think Roger Williams, who supported religious tolerance, was Baptist, while Jefferson was heavily supported by "evangelicals" (Baptists and Methodists) persecuted by state-backed Anglican and Calvinist churches.

The intolerance of Baptists is more recent and greatly exaggerated (and this comes from somebody who finds low church fundamentalists Protestants annoying).

Plus these aren't just any Catholics, these are Irish Catholics who've been on the receiving end of Protestant oppression in Ireland and, for a time, in the New World. They might be more liberal than their coreligionists in Mexico or Argentina.
 
Well they aren't really first-world countries, so that's a bit of a false analogy. Although that does touch on the nubbin of the matter, in a way.

Mmm.

Argentina especially received tons of immigration in the 19th century, just like America, from European nations. It's not clear to me what wealth has to do with.

(As another example of an illiberal Catholic nation, I present Poland, which is more conservative than America)
 
How illiberal ARE Mexico, Argentina, and Poland?

I know Poland has outlawed (or at least restricted) abortion, but I thought Mexico was semi-socialist for most of its history and that none of those countries have got Banned Books Lists and the like.
 
How illiberal ARE Mexico, Argentina, and Poland?

I know Poland has outlawed (or at least restricted) abortion, but I thought Mexico was semi-socialist for most of its history and that none of those countries have got Banned Books Lists and the like.

The comment on banned books is kinda misleading, ain't it?

The more I think about it, the more it's not clear to me what, exactly, people are talking about.

The impession I get is a more European America; I'm not sure what banned books implies, but certainly they're socially conservative.

Mexico's experience with "semi-socialism" is probably more attrituable to the Civil War in the early 1900s and the typical nationalism of the developing world.

I'm kind of surprised that you buy into the idea that religion is the key to changing America's political culture, though.
 
Even though the US gov't is secular, religious people can vote and thus influence gov't policy.

Therefore, a different religious pattern might influence the political system.

As far as banned books, when I think of "illiberal" (in the sense of being restrictive or reactionary, not in the sense of being something other than a left-winger) and "Catholic," I think of the Index of Prohibited Books, the Inquisition, that sort of thing.

(of course, upon further reflection, there can be smaller scale problems--one article in Counterpunch claimed that rapists in Mexico can avoid being jailed if they marry the victim, which if true is certainly a Very Bad Thing)

The impression I'm getting is of a more European America too--that's what happens in my Afrikaner TL (at least in the social sphere--owing to earlier and larger-scale exploitation of African gold mines, the supply of gold expands and stays expanding enough to make the gold standard viable for decades longer than OTL).
 
Oh, my wife pointed out another reason for AA's demise here in Austin: the station's signal was very weak.

Faeelin says skeptically:
I'm kind of surprised that you buy into the idea that religion is the key to changing America's political culture, though.
*A* key, not *the* key.

Well, what reason would you give for Bush being against abortion and stem cell research?
 
Oh, my wife pointed out another reason for AA's demise here in Austin: the station's signal was very weak.

*A* key, not *the* key.

Well, what reason would you give for Bush being against abortion and stem cell research?

My point is that since there are plenty of catholics who also are against abortion and stem cell research (and not just in America), this seems like a red herring.
 
If this is true, why does Ann Coulter get more airtime than Noam Chomsky?


I hope this isn't a serious question.
Ann Coulter is more entertaining than Noam Chomsky.
Now, I'll agree with you that the focus on celebrity news is atrocious. But that includes reporting on their political views, when that's not their area of expertise. I mean, that's like paying attention to a linguist's political views.

Air America failed because it was paying stations to carry its programming, when normally stations pay to carry programming. It makes it hard to make money when you reverse the normal economic model.

On the broader subject of media bias, what's normally cited is the presentation of the news. Basing a headline on the one negative piece of economic news in an otherwise positive report. Putting allegations on Page 1, exoneration on Page 34. More specific problems including running fake news stories and photographs (such as from the Middle East) and publishing sensational news before verifying it. Some Web sites print examples of different treatment of stories on Republican and Democratic politicians, such as "Here's a story of a politican caught doing something bad. Through the first ten paragraphs, there's no mention of the politician's political party. Can you guess what it is?"

(Who knows, maybe there are left-wing sites doing the same work!)
 
Air America failed because it was paying stations to carry its programming, when normally stations pay to carry programming. It makes it hard to make money when you reverse the normal economic model.

That was NBC's model when it started out on radio.
 
It's not clear to me what wealth has to do with.

Uhm, because economically developed countries are essentially more socially developed than their disadvanataged counterparts? You can't say that Argentina proves that a top-ranking first-world Catholic country is likely to be socially backwards, because Argentina isn't a top-ranking first-world country. The same applies to Poland.
 
Uhm, because economically developed countries are essentially more socially developed than their disadvanataged counterparts? You can't say that Argentina proves that a top-ranking first-world Catholic country is likely to be socially backwards, because Argentina isn't a top-ranking first-world country. The same applies to Poland.

Now you're cherry picking.

Is France more liberal than America? Sure.

So is Protestant Norway.

And the Calvinist Netherlands.

And Britain, which has a hodge pog of faiths. (And Jedi).
 
Now you're cherry picking.

Well, to continue with the fruit theme: you're comparing apples and oranges. You can't say that Argentina proves that a Catholic USA would be more backward, anymore than I can use Apartheid SA to suggest that a protestant Poland would be more backward.
 

HueyLong

Banned
By 21st century standards. One of the worst things of historians, and the worst problem with history, is that they are only looked at thru the eyes of the contemporary mindset. In a few years time a different school of thought will arise and throw off the school of thought before it. Its cyclical and, until recently, no interpretation remained constant for more than 30 years.

Those that were liberal 40 years ago and sometimes considered considered conservative today - such as John F. Kennedy. The border between the two is constantly in motion.

Hypocrisy (going back on a position when one's self-interest comes in) is an objective standard, you have to admit.
 
How about nuclear war, albeit limited enough so that a good portion of the population can survive? Government intervention and control is quite justifiable, and people will remember how the government saved them after the war...
 
Top