I’ve been an odd duck for most of my adult life. I am “pro-life” from a moral perspective, and view abortion as always wrong. That said, I’m a health scientist and have looked at historical records on abortion going back to the 19th century. I don’t believe that making abortion illegal will do much to stop it. I think its demand arises from our economy, where the opportunity cost for women to forego income and assume costs of pregnancy and child care has pushed many women to prioritize career. I am a creature of the left and also someone who attends mass at least weekly. I am aware of my oddity and have always felt somewhat of a lone voice in the wilderness.
Hi, Chad! I’m also a pro-life lefty who attends Mass at least weekly. But that’s more common where I live than I think it is in the USA.
A limitation of Ryan’s excellent Substack is that it interrogates only American data. (Not a criticism: that’s still a ton of data and insight, and there’s only so much he can do.) But while there are about 55 million Catholics in the USA, there are 1.4 billion in the world. Which is to say, American Catholics make up not-quite 4% of the world’s Catholics. And almost none of those other countries that home the overwhelming majority of the world’s Catholics are as hyper-individualistic and capitalist as the USA is. Almost none are as unresponsive to the needs of mothers.
So you may feel like you’re alone in your beliefs as an American Catholic, but I assure you that you are not alone in your beliefs as a Catholic.
"However, at the end of the day, I really do think that Catholics were motivated to vote for Donald Trump for the same reasons as the rest of the electorate - economic concerns."
"People at the bottom end of the economic spectrum tend to be hit hardest by inflation because they have less slack in their budget for groceries or gas. They were unmoved by this argument in 2024."
All the analysis of the Presidential election I've heard of suggests that voters who were motivated by economics were motivated by inflation. So then why this result?
A little off-topic, but do we have any data on Americans' moral beliefs about abortion? Every poll question about the subject seems to address the *legality* of abortion, but I'd like to see a poll asking people about whether they think abortion is morally acceptable, under what circumstances they think it's morally acceptable, etc.
"I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't want to impose my beliefs on others!" is a rhetorically popular position, but how accurate is it as self-description? Cynic that I am, I tend to assume that the average person who says this is actually okay with abortion, and is just too chicken to admit it. Am I being unfair? (I know how the lefties will answer, of course, but I want data!)
What humanities people care about vs what social science cares about.
Social scientists are much more interested in "what are your views on <BLANK>?"
Humanities folks are much more interested in "why do you have those beliefs about <BLANK>?"
In my opinion, it's basically impossible to get people to explain their thinking through quant methods. And it's probably not even that feasible using long form interviews, either.
>"I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't want to impose my beliefs on others!" is a rhetorically popular position, but how accurate is it as self-description?
I think you should be highly cynical when politicians say this, but less cynical when an individual says it. You can at least unpack it with them. I think most people answer moral questions purely on intuition.
It's politically a very smart thing for Democrats to say, in that it gives cover to people who have qualms about abortion on some level to at least consider not making abortion a one-issue litmus test. It also represents making some sort of effort to relate to people who have those concerns and acknowledge them as valid. That's all good rhetoric.
But it's interesting and perhaps indicative that it's now a deeply unpopular statement within the Democratic Party itself, such that Democrats moved heavily away from it and from the "safe, legal, rare" phrasing in the last several years, to a stance that's more along the lines of "If you have a problem with killing a mere clump of cells, you're a bigot and a dinosaur who wants to control women."
Some on the center-left like Yglesias have called this out as a bad idea. When Biden would go off the reservation and say things about his personal opposition to abortion, the White House apparatus was always quick to walk back his comments. Which would be a reasonable strategy when running for a Democratic primary in a safe Democrat district, but it's a head-scratcher when you're running for re-election for President of the US.
In this election in particular, I couldn't help but notice that Trump still went out of his way to ask for my vote, and Kamala's campaign -- unlike that of 2020 Biden -- very much didn't. In fact, her campaign's attitude came across to me as a certain contemptuous indifference towards receiving my vote.
It's not something the democrats can fix moving forward. They'll lose too many of their remaining voters if they make compromises towards the Catholic position, and the Catholic position, especially in the US, is solidifying towards blanket ban with limited medical exemption.
Also all people who say "I'm opposed to abortion but would never make it illegal" are just pro-choice cowards. That is literally the definition of pro-choice.
I think most women hope they never feel the need to have an abortion. It’s a sad method of birth control. But if all males past puberty got a vasectomy until they could prove they could support a family, and then have it reversed, that would solve almost all but the medical problems causing abortions. And government should stay totally out of those decisions!
And take all profit out of making birth control pills and IUDs. Make pills available at cost or free to those who can’t afford them. They’ve been around for decades. There’s no reason they aren’t cheap except for Congress’s inability ability to do much of anything productive (no pun intended).
Take a look at Mark Massa, SJ's recent book, "Catholic Fundamentalism in America," in which he looks closely at Leonard Feeney, EWTN, the Origins of the Latin Mass Movement, Crisis Magazine, the Church Militant, Rod Dreher-St. Mary's KS, Warren Carroll and Chrisendom College, etc." Per Massa, "“I define Catholic Fundamentalism as radical anti-modernism, characterized by a fear of change, pluralism, and debate.
“The rise of Catholic Fundamentalism is understandable. They offer an answer, but I think it's the wrong answer. History only moves in one direction and it's not backwards.”
Ryan, thank you for this analysis. It is super helpful and interesting. I'm curious about the impact the transgender issue played in this election. I'm in Ohio, in an area that is largely culturally Catholic now. You could not miss the negative political ads on this topic if you tried. I can only imagine how many you would have seen if you watch F*x.
Without knowing what pct of the population are Catholic, I can’t tell whether any of this is significant or not. What if the Catholic share of the population is dropping?
I’ve been an odd duck for most of my adult life. I am “pro-life” from a moral perspective, and view abortion as always wrong. That said, I’m a health scientist and have looked at historical records on abortion going back to the 19th century. I don’t believe that making abortion illegal will do much to stop it. I think its demand arises from our economy, where the opportunity cost for women to forego income and assume costs of pregnancy and child care has pushed many women to prioritize career. I am a creature of the left and also someone who attends mass at least weekly. I am aware of my oddity and have always felt somewhat of a lone voice in the wilderness.
Hi, Chad! I’m also a pro-life lefty who attends Mass at least weekly. But that’s more common where I live than I think it is in the USA.
A limitation of Ryan’s excellent Substack is that it interrogates only American data. (Not a criticism: that’s still a ton of data and insight, and there’s only so much he can do.) But while there are about 55 million Catholics in the USA, there are 1.4 billion in the world. Which is to say, American Catholics make up not-quite 4% of the world’s Catholics. And almost none of those other countries that home the overwhelming majority of the world’s Catholics are as hyper-individualistic and capitalist as the USA is. Almost none are as unresponsive to the needs of mothers.
So you may feel like you’re alone in your beliefs as an American Catholic, but I assure you that you are not alone in your beliefs as a Catholic.
I'm curious how you reconcile these two findings:
"However, at the end of the day, I really do think that Catholics were motivated to vote for Donald Trump for the same reasons as the rest of the electorate - economic concerns."
"People at the bottom end of the economic spectrum tend to be hit hardest by inflation because they have less slack in their budget for groceries or gas. They were unmoved by this argument in 2024."
All the analysis of the Presidential election I've heard of suggests that voters who were motivated by economics were motivated by inflation. So then why this result?
A little off-topic, but do we have any data on Americans' moral beliefs about abortion? Every poll question about the subject seems to address the *legality* of abortion, but I'd like to see a poll asking people about whether they think abortion is morally acceptable, under what circumstances they think it's morally acceptable, etc.
"I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't want to impose my beliefs on others!" is a rhetorically popular position, but how accurate is it as self-description? Cynic that I am, I tend to assume that the average person who says this is actually okay with abortion, and is just too chicken to admit it. Am I being unfair? (I know how the lefties will answer, of course, but I want data!)
This is a great example of:
What humanities people care about vs what social science cares about.
Social scientists are much more interested in "what are your views on <BLANK>?"
Humanities folks are much more interested in "why do you have those beliefs about <BLANK>?"
In my opinion, it's basically impossible to get people to explain their thinking through quant methods. And it's probably not even that feasible using long form interviews, either.
Tricia Bruce's study of abortion makes that plain: https://news.nd.edu/news/national-abortion-study-finds-out-of-touch-labels-knowledge-gaps-appetite-for-moral-discussion/
>"I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't want to impose my beliefs on others!" is a rhetorically popular position, but how accurate is it as self-description?
I think you should be highly cynical when politicians say this, but less cynical when an individual says it. You can at least unpack it with them. I think most people answer moral questions purely on intuition.
It's politically a very smart thing for Democrats to say, in that it gives cover to people who have qualms about abortion on some level to at least consider not making abortion a one-issue litmus test. It also represents making some sort of effort to relate to people who have those concerns and acknowledge them as valid. That's all good rhetoric.
But it's interesting and perhaps indicative that it's now a deeply unpopular statement within the Democratic Party itself, such that Democrats moved heavily away from it and from the "safe, legal, rare" phrasing in the last several years, to a stance that's more along the lines of "If you have a problem with killing a mere clump of cells, you're a bigot and a dinosaur who wants to control women."
Some on the center-left like Yglesias have called this out as a bad idea. When Biden would go off the reservation and say things about his personal opposition to abortion, the White House apparatus was always quick to walk back his comments. Which would be a reasonable strategy when running for a Democratic primary in a safe Democrat district, but it's a head-scratcher when you're running for re-election for President of the US.
In this election in particular, I couldn't help but notice that Trump still went out of his way to ask for my vote, and Kamala's campaign -- unlike that of 2020 Biden -- very much didn't. In fact, her campaign's attitude came across to me as a certain contemptuous indifference towards receiving my vote.
It's not something the democrats can fix moving forward. They'll lose too many of their remaining voters if they make compromises towards the Catholic position, and the Catholic position, especially in the US, is solidifying towards blanket ban with limited medical exemption.
Yeah this fits in with what I saw on social media from Catholics in the US.
Also all people who say "I'm opposed to abortion but would never make it illegal" are just pro-choice cowards. That is literally the definition of pro-choice.
Bro you gotta instead ask "Illegal in all cases *except for the life of the mother*. Even hard-core pro-lifers are in favor of that exception.
I think most women hope they never feel the need to have an abortion. It’s a sad method of birth control. But if all males past puberty got a vasectomy until they could prove they could support a family, and then have it reversed, that would solve almost all but the medical problems causing abortions. And government should stay totally out of those decisions!
And take all profit out of making birth control pills and IUDs. Make pills available at cost or free to those who can’t afford them. They’ve been around for decades. There’s no reason they aren’t cheap except for Congress’s inability ability to do much of anything productive (no pun intended).
Take a look at Mark Massa, SJ's recent book, "Catholic Fundamentalism in America," in which he looks closely at Leonard Feeney, EWTN, the Origins of the Latin Mass Movement, Crisis Magazine, the Church Militant, Rod Dreher-St. Mary's KS, Warren Carroll and Chrisendom College, etc." Per Massa, "“I define Catholic Fundamentalism as radical anti-modernism, characterized by a fear of change, pluralism, and debate.
“The rise of Catholic Fundamentalism is understandable. They offer an answer, but I think it's the wrong answer. History only moves in one direction and it's not backwards.”
Bad theology leads directly to bad politics.
"History only moves in one direction and it's not backwards."
Bad understandings of history (like the one expressed in the quote above) also lead to bad politics.
Ryan, thank you for this analysis. It is super helpful and interesting. I'm curious about the impact the transgender issue played in this election. I'm in Ohio, in an area that is largely culturally Catholic now. You could not miss the negative political ads on this topic if you tried. I can only imagine how many you would have seen if you watch F*x.
Without knowing what pct of the population are Catholic, I can’t tell whether any of this is significant or not. What if the Catholic share of the population is dropping?
Lucky for you, AJ. I've written about this before:
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/the-catholic-church-is-in-trouble