Reading Time: 23 minutes

by William Deatherage, Executive Director

Before I begin this admittedly intense reflection, I would like to make three disclaimers.

First of all, I cherish my Democratic friends. They are some of the most passionate, caring, and heartwarming people I have ever met. In my four years as an undergraduate, I spent more time with my university’s College Democrats than I did with its College Republicans. I even played “Socialist Santa Clause” at their Christmas Party. My Democratic friends have given me many fond memories, so this opinion piece is by no means a critique of any person’s character. Catholic social teaching readily affirms the right to authentically follow one’s conscience. My respect for the many wonderful Democrats in my life will never diminish.

Second, I will never make the case that you cannot be Catholic and vote Democratic. Such arguments are fruitless and antithetical to our Faith, for no one can know the state of one’s soul but God the Father. Anyone who suggests that all Catholic Democrats should be excommunicated is likely just a provocateur. I believe in the power of excommunication as an extreme measure that should only be applied in dire circumstances. Rather than callously speculate about the state of anyone’s soul, I will instead make the case for why I, a single Catholic out of billions, think that a Democratic America would not be optimal for our Church. On that note, I am not claiming that the future of the Church lays with any political institution. Republicanism certainly has its flaws (though I personally plan on voting Republican in November), and while the eternal truths of Catholicism have no party, it is highly unlikely that both parties are equidistant from Catholic social teaching at this precise moment. One of these options must provide the Church with a greater chance of flourishing, and I will argue that a Democratic America is not such an option.

Finally, this commentary in no way, shape, or form represents the opinions of Clarifying Catholicism or any organization I work for. I warmly welcome all dissenting opinions in the comments section, as well as counter-points submitted through our Contact Us page. Clarifying Catholicism features several fantastic Democratic writers, and I have invited them to make Catholic cases for the platform that they believe in.

Given these three disclaimers, I will proceed to argue that the Democratic Party has lost its way and that Catholics should consider leaving it for alternative political organizations.

10) Imprudent Handling of COVID

When plucking out weeds, it is important to avoid ripping out all of the flowers or there will be no garden left.

Prudence is the preeminent virtue. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church “It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. […] With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.” (CCC 1806). It is evident that there are no clear-cut solutions to any complex ethical dilemma, and while the Catechism associates prudence with positive action, my cynical political inclinations lead me to consider the prime virtue as our guide in making the least-worst decisions. Imagine that you slip and fall into a knife. Instinctively, you would likely want to pull it out. However, this would cause intense bleeding that would jeopardize the rest of the body. Neither option is particularly pleasant, but one is certainly more prudent than the other.

I believe that the Democratic responses to the COVID Crisis have created dozens of more problems. We are now not only faced with a disease that does not seem to disappear with quarantines (see graphs from our European neighbors), but with massive unemployment, economic collapse, educational corrosion, and a mental health crisis. Furthermore, a less reported impact of COVID restrictions is widespread starvation across impoverished countries. At first, the frightening nature of a virus that spread rapidly with a seemingly high death rate may have warranted such drastic responses. But since then, the death rate and hospitalization rates have fallen significantly, despite upticks in cases. Young people, who do not seem to spread it to old people significantly (see graph here that was mysteriously replaced with this misleading statistic on the CDC website), are hardly harmed by the virus itself. The argument that national shutdowns can eradicate this disease has, in my opinion, been largely debunked by the European nations that are in worse condition than they were during the peak of the first wave. Furthermore, since COVID’s mid-Summer peak, we have learned much more about the disease’s nature, as well as how its worst effects can be mitigated, prevented, and even treated without shutting down all of society. Responding to the disease the same way we did in May would be foolish.

A co-worker of mine once summarized the difference between how the American and the Chinese governments approach problems: Americans think two years ahead at most, whereas the Chinese think decades in advance. Hardly anyone is saying the virus does not exist, rather the debate is on how to handle it. We cannot solve problems by creating bigger ones, and I would argue that our vastly improved understanding of the virus gives us more flexibility regarding prudent and innovative ways we can keep vulnerable populations safe without recklessly endangering the future of our economy and our children. Make no mistake: COVID is real, it can be lethal, but we must address it prudently. The debate should not be between full-scale shutdowns and total normalcy; both options risk too many lives in the long-term. A nation without an economy, education, or proper mental health hardly seems worth saving, and it is my conviction that Republican States have done a far better job at considering ways of balancing safety with long-term sustainability.

Unfortunately, it is no secret that politicians can benefit from a weakened nation. Before the pandemic, I read a rather disturbing article that implied that many Democrats have an interest in seeing the economy fail. “Never waste a good crisis” is a mantra often repeated by left-leaning politicians, and the fact that Vice President Biden proudly boasts about our poor economy, which I credit to poor fiscal management by Democratic governors, makes me nervous. To me, it is no coincidence that the party that is okay with keeping businesses shut down while the government takes care of us is the same party associated with…

9) Big Government and Socialism

The Catholic Church does not endorse extreme capitalism. Pope Francis has wisely identified capitalism’s fair share of drawbacks. That said, given the choice between capitalism and socialism, I perceive the former as far more compatible with Catholic social teaching. Any moral government must have two goods in mind: the good of the nation (or common good) and the good of the person (human dignity). Socialism neglects both goods because it gives too much power to a single institution and it fails to give the individual what they are owed.

Regarding the common good, the Catholic Church traditionally teaches that if tasks can be delegated to local levels of authority, they should be. Generally, massive bureaucracies are not only difficult to govern, but their tasks are better managed by competing private institutions. Socialism essentially creates one megacorporation, the government, that has a monopoly on all goods and services. Giving one institution too much power almost always ends in either corruption or incompetence, and when the single provider of essential services fails, it is catastrophic for everybody. It is never wise to put all eggs in one basket, which is precisely what socialism tends to do. Additionally, nationalized industries lack competition for quality products and fair prices, high taxes discourage innovation, minimum wages lead to unemployment and inflation, and dense regulations squander small businesses. I fear that several Democratic States are moving in socialistic directions, whereas Republican States are becoming increasingly popular economic destinations (see here as well) because of their lack of regulation, lower taxes, and lower costs of living (Side Note: Democratic cities also have, by far, the highest wealth gaps in the country).

The impacts of socialism and big government are not simply economic, though. Socialism also deprives consumers of making ethical choices. In a capitalist society, if I disagree with my health care provider’s stance on abortion or contraception, I can take my business elsewhere. Additionally, a centralized public school system practically monopolizes both academic and moral education (there are also far more Democrats than Republicans teaching in high schools), whereas private schools foster marketplaces of diverse ideas. This year, over one hundred private schools have closed because of COVID 19. Given the Democratic Party’s opposition to school choice, I would not be surprised if the reopening of private schools rank low on some Democratic leaders’ priority lists.

The virtue of justice is concerned with giving every person what they are owed, and the Church recognizes that not all actions are of equal worth. Because of specialized labor, it is only just that more intensive jobs, such as surgeons, earn more money than others. When I studied in Rome, I asked a taxi driver why he worked in his position for forty years. He told me that the union benefits were so good that there was no reason to seek anything else. We should never be satisfied with work that does not bring out our unique talents.

From Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaigns to Representative Ocasio Cortez’s increasing influence, I am concerned that the Democratic party is moving in a far-left direction. As Democratic Senator Joe Markey says, “It’s time to ask what your country can do for you” but such an attitude will only make Americans more dependent on the government for education, employment, and moral guidance. Again, the Democratic Party’s quest for bigger government makes me nervous during a pandemic. There is a reason that one party is eager to open up while the other is not, and I believe that is because they are rapidly diverging in outlook regarding the size and role of government.

Political theorist John Rawls once wrote that an ideal government is one that you can envision your worst enemy being elected into. As a Catholic, there is nothing more terrifying than an extraordinarily powerful government that becomes…

8) Anti-Religious

“If I am elected I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the [Supreme Court’s 2014] Hobby Lobby ruling: providing an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious missions” This was Vice President Joe Biden’s response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Little Sisters of the Poor are exempt from providing birth control through their health care services. I have already mentioned how socialist governments often take moral stances on the services they provide, and it just so happens that the same party that leans towards big government and socialism, the same one that wants to centralize health care and education, supports contraception, sexual experimentation, euthanasia, censorship, and abortion.

When local businesses are sued over their religious convictions, I take it as an attack on our freedoms of conscience that should extend far beyond religion. When leaked e-mails from the Hillary Clinton campaign reveal a conspiracy to undermine Christian doctrine, I take it as an assault against the Church’s independence from secular institutions.

According to Pew Research Center, far more Republicans than Democrats think that religion does more good than harm for society, that religion strengthens morality in society, that religion brings people closer together, and that religion’s loss of influence in American life is a bad thing. Since the legalization of same sex marriage, reportedly dozens of Christian adoption agencies have been shut down for opposing same-sex adoption. Beto O’Rourke (who considers himself Catholic) has floated the idea of stripping tax-exempt statuses from churches that oppose certain practices like gay marriage.

The Democratic Party’s failure to respect religious conscience is perhaps no better reflected than in its discriminatory behavior against churches throughout the COVID crisis. While many casinos, bars, and marijuana shops are open for business, while rioters crowd our streets and tear down religious monuments, we cannot gather to worship and receive Christ’s living body (see Bishop Cordileone’s speech).

From releasing symbolic resolutions that misunderstand growing spiritual movements, to fostering relationships with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, it seems that the Democratic Party has little regard for any religion unless it can benefit their platform. Granted, Republicans commit a similar crime, but its more libertarian attitude towards religious pluralism avoids the Democratic quest to shape a monolithic ethical landscape. And when a religion speaks out against the Democratic Party, it can expect plenty of…           

7) Censorship               

A recent study from the Knight Foundation reveals that Democrats are far more likely to support internet censorship than Republicans are. Americans also generally perceive that censorship benefits liberals and hurts religious causes, and while Republicans believe that internet companies should control their own content, Democrats tend to think that the government should regulate it instead. This not only encroaches on our freedom of speech, but it violates the rights of private enterprises, which seems consistent with the Democratic Party’s big government and socialist directions.

A survey run by the CATO Institute indicates that 62 percent of Americans have political views they are afraid of voicing. When asked whether or not “The political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive,” 77 percent of Republicans responded in the affirmative, whereas only 52 percent of Democrats did, indicating that while both parties feel compelled to hide their opinions, far more Republicans do than their counterparts. I believe that the greatest asset of the United States is its protections on free speech, and I do not trust the party of big government to regulate the opinions I express or the content I view.

Censorship is not limited to media, though. According to the same CATO survey, 50 percent of strong liberals support firing Trump donors from their jobs, while only 36 percent of strong conservatives support firing Biden’s. This is alarming, as it suggests that not only might Catholics be censored for their opinions but they might lose their livelihoods for them as well. These studies not only show that conservatives are afraid of being punished for their speech, but that many liberals are more than willing to punish them.

Modern far-leftism’s embrace of censorship and desire to centralize education causes me to fear that the Democratic Party’s flirtation with big government has blossomed into an affair with micromanaging how we think. I am wary that we are being lured into a total dependence on a government that want to teach us what think and how we talk. It seems rather coincidental that the same party that shuts down businesses for religious convictions also wants to shut down our conversations.

Interestingly, censorship is a prime example of an issue that has (in my opinion) switched political parties. It was not too long ago when Evangelicalism was synonymous with moral development in the United States. Ten years ago, I likely would have leaned Democratic regarding censorship, but I cannot say the same today.

I am also concerned that throughout the COVID crisis, plenty of doctors have been censored by tech companies that overwhelmingly support Democratic initiatives. The modern scientific method was designed to thrive on the freedom of expression. It is ironic that the same secular movement that condemned the Church for its treatment of Galileo is encouraging similar behavior on an unprecedented scale. Because of this, I no longer associate the Democratic Party of being the party of science, rather I find it quite…

6) Anti Scientific

The censorship of scientists who buck modern narratives is nothing new. Since the sexual revolution, the Democratic Party has largely embraced a mindset that labels tradition as oppressive and considers deviation from it as “progress.” Ironically, the sacred texts of modern liberalism often have little empirical backing. From Sigmund Freud’s unempirical approaches to psychology, to Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sexthat illogically reduces gender and sexuality to social constructs, to John Money’s horrific experiments on transgender children,“progressivism” has its fair share of scientific blunders.

Here are some snippets of empirical science that the left would rather ignore: Transitioning between sexes often ends horrifically, women do not usually find great satisfaction in competing with men in the workforce (and they often do more household work regardless of employment status), and homosexual adoption might yield delayed onset depression among young adults. All of these studies are ignored as the traditional family and sexuality are totally discarded.  Yes, we must love and accept all people, regardless of who they are or what they do, but support does not equate behavioral encouragement. Meeting people where they are is far different than encouraging sexual experimentation, suggesting transgender procedures for children, telling girls to treat their bodies like meat, and instructing boys on how to use condoms. There is little empirical evidence that there is any freedom in sexual liberation.

Moving into a more relevant issue, I believe that evidence of widespread systemic racism in America is inconclusive at best. Everybody loves a dramatic anecdote, but defunding the police makes no sense when a statistical majority of them are doing their jobs well. Furthermore, most modern racial theories use the same flawed premises of Freudian psychology that could determine I have a subconscious bias against fat people because I dreamt about a fat person last night. One synthesis of 17 surveys even concluded that modern Americans actually show bias in favor of African Americans. Mysteriously, none of those surveys had been referenced by any academic publication until this synthesis was published, likely for reasons I will detail in my next paragraph. But the left’s suspect accusations of systemic racism in modern America are not near as shocking as the African American History Museum’s suggestions that objective thinking, hard work, and the nuclear family are all inventions of White culture. As a Mexican American, the claim that my culture lacks critical thought, is lazy, and doesn’t believe in the traditional family sounds more like a theory peddled by the Ku Klux Klan than the Smithsonian.

Academia is blatantly skewed left, and while there is plenty of evidence suggesting discrimination by both conservative and liberal professors against students who disagree with them, the former’s dwindling presence in the university means that conservative students will be targeted more than their liberal peers. It also means that anytime a conservative challenges a liberal narrative, they are more likely to be labeled a pseudoscientist, which has become quite common throughout COVID. Considering that the party which denies basic gender theory has a stronghold over academia and education and advocates for censoring (or firing) opposition, it is no wonder that conservatives are skeptical of scientists right now. Of course, I would never advocate for purely conservative academia; a free society necessitates both liberals and conservatives researching, debating, and teaching. As you could probably guess, though, I believe that the impacts of extreme leftism in academia are nowhere near as prevalent than in…

5) The Assault on the Family

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?” […]
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

In 1969, this ritualistic chant inaugurated meetings held at acclaimed feminist (and self-proclaimed Marxist) Kate Millett’s house, as her group plotted ways to advance a new wave of feminism.

The destruction of the American family may not have begun as a Democratic project, but it seems to have evolved into one. Former Democratic Presidential Candidate George McGovern’s consolidation of the hippy movement into the mainstream Democratic voter base may have quickened the moral demise of family values in his party. Since then, the same liberal base that populates academia and our education system has been associated with sexual “liberation” and experimentation.

When it comes to promoting healthy family structure, the Democratic Party misses the mark by a longshot. By almost every measure of success, one man and one woman who abstain from sex until marriage and stay married excel. Their children have better grades and mental health, and their families are more financially stable and suffer less abuse. Couple this style of marriage with regular religious worship and you come up with a great model for success.

I am a firm believer that a return to the traditional family cannot be accomplished politically but instead requires a cultural shift. Personally, I am not in favor of overturning same sex marriage laws because the greatest problems plaguing marriage are cultural, not legal. Admittedly, the fact that Republicans will let me write about the traditional family without fear of censorship or retribution is quite appealing to me. It seems that anytime a Catholic stands up for their opinion, they risk their platform, job, and even safety. On these grounds alone, I already reward Republicans for allowing me to express my convictions.

But which party generally has family values that more closely align with Catholicism’s model? Take an issue like cohabitation, for example. Its negative effects have been well documented, not just in the United States but throughout the world. Though a hefty 41 percent (and 41percent too many) of Republicans think that cohabitating couples can raise children just as well as married couples can, 73 percent of Democrats agree. Though most Americans have shifted to more liberal views of sex, Republicans seem far easier to reform than Democrats. Republican marriages are happier than their counterparts, and the dwindling birth replacement rate of the latter, often accredited to contraception and abortion, has caused great concern in the movement.

The family is the bedrock of society. It is the cornerstone of education, especially regarding moral teaching. I believe that the left’s ideas regarding the family, free speech, academia, and empirical science have contributed to an outlook that it is the government’s, not the family’s, job to raise kids. All dissenters to this mentality are publicly shamed, probably because there is so much…

4) Media Corruption

On October 11, 1991, Senator Joe Biden, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas to respond to sexual assault allegations from a former employee of his, Anita Hill. Her claims severely lacked evidence, yet Democratic Senators insisted on dragging the justice through an intense interrogation regardless. Many spectators considered the Clarence Thomas hearings as a low-point in partisan politics, but almost 30 years later, history repeated itself.

In 2018, Supreme Court Justice Nominee Brett Kavanaugh was also accused of sexual misconduct by a woman who had little evidence to corroborate her claims. Media outlets pounced on the opportunity to sacrifice Kavanaugh’s good name to save the court from another conservative justice. The hashtag “believe women” soon trended, (which was ironically abandoned when Joe Biden was accused of sexual misconduct). Kavanaugh prevailed, but I recall feeling quite shaken at the time. Being an intern in Congress, I constantly asked myself why I would ever want to work in politics if anyone, regardless of evidence, can destroy my career. The entire Kavanaugh scandal not only undermined our national tradition of innocence until proven guilty, but I think that it may have discredited the “believe women” movement altogether. In my opinion, sexual assault claims are less believable now since the precedent of “no evidence required” has been set.

Why was the media so enthusiastic about destroying Justice Kavanaugh, though? The answers may lie in the 2016 WikiLeaks e-mails, which revealed an intimate relationship between the Democratic National Committee and several media outlets. Additionally, some estimates claim that Democrats benefit from as much as 96 percent of all donations from journalists. Though the Democratic Party and the mainstream media may not be formally connected, their messages often uncannily align.

Following the Kavanaugh hearings, I thought that the media’s antics could not get any lower. Then, at the March for Life of 2019, the world came together to destroy a Catholic teenage boy’s life because a video showed him wearing a Make America Great Again hat, directing a smug look at a Native American who banged a drum in his face. Within minutes of the footage going viral, accusations of racism were lobbed at the teen, Nicholas Sandmann. Nathan Phillips, the Native American, claimed in several interviews that Sandmann and his friends shouted racist slurs at him and taunted his group. Within hours, though, extended footage exonerated Sandmann and exposed Phillips as a liar. This was just another attempt of the leftist media to intimidate conservatives, this time by targeting children.

These are far from the only instances of the Leftist media leaping at the chance of defaming conservatives. There was the time an African American girl falsely accused some White schoolmates of cutting her hair and calling her racist slurs. There was the Jussie Smollett case in which the media immediately believed the actor’s suspect claims that he was assaulted by Trump supporters. Recently, when African American NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace claimed to find a noose in his garage, it turned out to just be a rope. Apparently, self-defense is a symbol of White supremacy now; from the Missouri couple defending their home against trespassers, to the police officer who returned fire during an albeit tragic and misguided drug raid, to a 17 year old boy defending himself from rioters who likely would have killed him, it seems that matters of life and death are not even safe from media scrutiny.

The media’s enthusiasm to tear down conservatives is suspicious until you recall that most journalists donate to Democrats and that the Democratic Party has a bit of a scientific problem: When you bury legitimate perspectives and data under labels of “racism,” “sexism,” and “homophobia,” it can be quite difficult to produce quality analyses. If Democratic-controlled academia cannot be trusted to provide accurate studies, then it is absurd to trust the Democratic-controlled media to present said studies well. The conservative media is hardly angelic, but it certainly would be refreshing to have more balance in our news cycle. Worst of all, misinformation can often lead to…

3) Civil Unrest

I began this article by stating that to weed a garden you need to be careful that the flowers are not uprooted. There is no doubt that racism exists. Every culture suffers from biases. However, to accuse the entire police force (and nation, for that matter) of participating in systemic racism would require an immense amount of evidence that does not seem to exist. Keep in mind that while the left accuses conservatives of stereotyping minorities, Democrats are somehow allowed to stereotype police as racist based on anecdotal, not even empirical, evidence.

Like the Covington Catholic situation, the media enjoyed making several assumptions about an out-of-context clip. This time, footage showed a police officer kneeling on the neck of a black man, George Floyd, for minutes until he died. Immediately, the media not only concluded that the officer must have acted out of racism, but it determined that this he was somehow representative of the entire police force. Of course, video was eventually released showing Floyd resisting arrest, and while the officer’s use of force was indeed excessive (and warranting punishment), there were no indications of his actions being racially motivated. Despite a substantial amount of empirical evidence that there is no systemic racism in the police force, the media and Democrats have practically vilified the brave men and women who protect us.

For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that law enforcement does, indeed, have a race problem. What would be the best way of handling it? Burning down public courthouses, destroying homes and businesses (often owned by minorities), and defunding and disbanding the only semblance of law and order between inner city families and gangs does not sound like a great plan. Since the dawn of this new normalization of violence, (which apparently does not contribute to COVID cases), cities have been hit with massive bills from damage, crime waves have rocked many urban centers (see also), homicides have spiked across several cities, and police are retiring en masse.

It is worth noting that several churches have been set on fire and religious statues have been torn down because of these riots. Furthermore, Black Lives Matter’s tenants openly contradict Church teaching on the family, its founders describe themselves as “trained Marxists,” and its supporters advocate for tearing down statues of Christ. Finally, and quite eerily, many publications have predicted a period of “heightened violence” if Biden loses the election. Clearly, something far more sinister is transpiring under the guise of social justice. I must stress, however, that most Democrats likely have good intentions and believe that the causes they represent will serve the greater good. As I stated at the beginning of this essay, I credit many of the party’s failures to an imprudence that haunts all of us.

The outcome of all of this? Perhaps most ironically, minorities seem to actually favor police presence in their communities and are actually considering voting for Trump. I would not blame them, citing the Democratic Party’s utter…

2) Failure to Help Minorities

As the son of a Mexican immigrant, I hold politicians who claim to represent my culture and its interests to high expectations. Unfortunately, I can confidently report that I have never seen a political party wear my culture like some badge of honor like the Democrats have while doing so little for us. For decades, Latino and African American communities have lived in poor conditions, usually designated to inner cities. I do not see Asians, Middle Easterners, or other traditionally disenfranchised cultures struggling near as much as Latinos and African Americans do. Even Irish and Italian Catholics who faced historical oppression now compose a sizable portion of the middle class. Is race really the key issue here, or could it be that a combination of poor economic planning (especially in urban centers) and the destruction of the family has severely limited progress within these communities?

Why do people come to the United States? The key word, I think, is opportunity. Many people brave incredible perils to come here for an environment that is fostered by our free markets. As I said before, the right for just compensation is a matter of human dignity. In fact, many of our immigrants fled from socialist countries whose governments were either so corrupt by power or are so incompetent that their citizens’ creative capabilities were stifled. Minorities do not come to the United States for free money; they come here for work. This is why I believe that Donald Trump (who also plans on declaring the Ku Klux Klan a terrorist organization) has done more for Latino and African American communities than any president in recent history. You can give a man food or you can teach him to fish. A life wasted on welfare checks while driving taxis hardly makes use of our God-given talents and abilities. Of course, success requires risk, and the risk of financial failure is necessitated in a capitalist society. But God made us for risk. It is in our blood to fail and get back up by the grace of God, not by the grace of the government. There is a time and a place for welfare, but only as a mechanism to eventually achieve independence.

Inner cities have elected the same party officials for decades, and little has changed. If anything, conditions have worsened thanks to leftism’s insistence that the nuclear family is a White oppressive construct. In reality, the amount of irreparable damage caused by broken families in the African American community is staggering. It is estimated that a meager 17 percent of African American children live with their biological parents, and many studies indicate that Black children who grow up in intact households fare far better than those in broken families. Welfare and government programs are not the keys to prosperity; employment and strong families are.

In the late 1800s, Republicans branded themselves as the party that freed the slaves. Following the Civil War, though, the GOP virtually abandoned African Americans to conditions that were arguably worse than Antebellum. While African Americans descended into poverty and suffering, Republicans still touted themselves as the party of freedom. Eventually, a President named Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave African Americans something Republicans had only promised: change. Like it or not, but FDR’s New Deal brought about substantive change to many minority communities. And although his positions on Civil Rights were questionable, his actions spoke louder than his words.

Insanity is defined as trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The Democratic Party has controlled the African American and Latino vote for over half a century. With little results to show, Vice President Joe Biden declaration that “You ain’t black” if you vote Republican epitomizes the overconfidence of Democrats that might cost them crucial voting blocks in the future. The Democratic Party misunderstand the needs of minorities. Immigrants came here for opportunity. They did not come to America for a broken welfare system, socialism, censorship, lawlessness, gang violence, broken families, and the greatest genocide our world has ever known, called…

1) Abortion

Indulge in this admittedly hyperbolic perspective for a moment: Would you vote for Hitler if he had efficient environmental policy? Would you cheer Chairman Mao if he promised you free health care? Would you defend Stalin if he was a radical egalitarian? Interestingly, all three of these leaders did stand behind said policies. They also censored their political opponents, banned hate speech, discriminated against religious groups, were all socialists, and accomplished their goals through manipulating crises to their advantage and citing pseudo-scientific studies. But none of these three could have dreamt of killing as many people as abortion, a Democratic backed practice, has. I must stress the hyperbolic nature of this statement. Obviously, no Democrat has ever been a Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, but the evils that have come from abortion cannot be understated, and I cannot fault single issue voters for voting based on abortion alone.

What makes a thing a thing? Aristotle argued that there are four ways of defining something: material, efficient, formal, and final. Material cause refers to an object’s composition; the chair is made of wood. Efficient cause refers to that which brought the object into existence; the chair is made by people. Formal cause is the abstract structure of an object; the chair is preceded by the blueprint of a chair. Final cause is the object’s natural compulsion or behavior; the chair is meant to be sat in. While material cause possesses a few metaphysical problems, it can be argued that the material cause of a baby is its unique genetic composition. Its efficient cause is obviously its parents. Its formal cause is the natural design of the human species. Its final cause is to mature into an adult. All of these causes come together at one key moment: conception (read more here). Abortion kills human beings, and it has killed more human beings than any genocide ever has.

Of course, once more scientists acknowledged that life does begin at conception, pro-abortion arguments shifted to address babies conceived through rape and incest. This argument, however, failed to realized that less than 1 percent of all abortions are accredited to rape and incest. Furthermore, this notion somehow assumed that the murder of another human being would somehow rectify an already awful situation. Thus, the pro-abortion argument shifted yet again to “it would be better for the child to have never lived.” This was, once again, incredibly illogical. The adoption pool is quite large and even a child with a 1 percent chance of having a good life is a thousand times better than one with a 0 percent chance.

The abortion project has never been a noble one. From its horrifying origins as a eugenicist’s twisted fantasy of eradicating the African race from the planet to a modern industry that profits from selling body parts, the pro-abortion cause has always been one of greed and utter disregard for the sanctity of life.

Consider for a moment my concerns as a Catholic: My rights to protest this injustice will likely be suppressed. Perhaps I may be fired at some point because I believe in a scientific fact that my employers refuse to consider. My children will be educated to embrace abortion, and my taxes will likely pay for someone else’s abortion. The wolf of injustice most often prowls when it is disguised in the sheep’s clothing of justice itself. The Soviets probably never thought they did anything wrong. Slave owners in the South probably thought African Americans were better off serving them. Most Americans likely thought that the confiscation of Native American land was totally justified. The road to Hell is filled with good intentions. It is remarkably easy to convince a large group of people that something is okay even when common sense says otherwise. Perhaps this is why I began this analysis with our poor response to COVID. I pray that centuries from now abortion will be featured with the Holocaust as one of the most disturbing practices that humanity ever allowed, and it is for this reason alone, disregarding everything else on this list, that many Catholics will never vote Democrat.

Conclusion

Have you ever gotten lost driving around a familiar part of town? What starts off as a regular errand evolves into a quest for a shortcut, a desire to find a better way. When you start to get lost, though, you enter a state of denial. Perhaps you tell yourself “Yes! I recognize that building!” or “I know this road.” But the longer you travel without a map, the more you veer into unfamiliar territory. But a certain stubbornness holds us back from the nagging reality that we are lost. This is the case with the Democratic Party. It is not evil; it is lost. I guarantee that nearly every Democrat I have ever met has good intentions for their party and their nation. The same could be said for Republicans, though as I said, it is my firm conviction that the GOP is far more salvageable than its liberal cousin. Admittedly, when it comes to issues like environmentalism and the death penalty, I lean more Democratic. Who knows? Maybe in twenty years I will be a full-fledged Democrat because while Church teaching stays the same, political parties change.

At any rate, the purpose of this article was not to assert an objective fact but to provide a single perspective out of billions. I warmly invite people to object or even direct their emotions at this article. I could, very well, be wrong. My opinion is not superior to anyone else’s, and the chances of me being mislead are just as high as anyone else’s. And if this article ends up in a textbook about straw-manning or hyperbolic analysis, then it will have still served a greater purpose. That said, my conviction about the Democratic Party of the year 2020 is firm.

For me, to vote Democratic means to keep the pot shop open and the Churches closed. To vote Democratic means to contribute my taxes to birth control and abortion. To vote Democratic means to surrender moral authority to the state, not to God. To vote Democratic means to risk being fired or sued for standing up for my beliefs. To vote Democratic means to exchange logic and reason for political correctness and emotivism. To vote Democratic means to deprive another African American kid of the mother and father they deserve. To vote Democratic means to bow to corporate media elites who can ruin lives regardless of facts. To vote Democratic means to shout “Pigs in a blanket! Fry em like bacon!” at an anti-police rally while a Hispanic kid is shot two blocks away. To vote Democratic means to trap the vulnerable in systems of dependence and deprive them of the work they came to this country for. Perhaps above all, for me, to vote Democratic is to comply with the greatest genocide our world has ever seen. The Democratic Party does not care about me as a Catholic. It does not care about me as a Hispanic, an American citizen, an academic, or a moral human being. It is time for Catholics to walk away from the Democratic Party.