The Catholic crusade against Trump: “We must save democracy”

Rome. “Voters must take into account the various threats to democracy posed by the current Administration. The time has come to elect a Congress that will defend democracy.” This appeal has not been published on some clandestine website, perhaps belonging to a human rights organisation established far from the long arm of a freedom-suppressing regime. Rather, it is the pre-election editorial of the National Catholic Reporter, a prestigious liberal American Catholic magazine, which has drawn up a list of reasons why Catholics should champion a radical choice that would cripple Donald Trump and his agenda at the ballot box. The editorial sets out three main charges levelled against the current administration: the enforcement of immigration laws, the ‘reckless’ war in Iran, and the constant threats to democracy. First point: “Targeting law-abiding immigrants, arresting them for non-criminal violations of the country’s inadequate immigration laws, detaining them in inhumane prisons and deporting them to hellish prisons abroad – sometimes to countries where they have never lived – all this constitutes a disgrace for which our nation will long regret.”  A “crackdown” that is not only unjust but also “immoral, because some migrants, such as those from Haiti, are being sent back to a failed state where criminal gangs control the streets”. Temporary protected status was designed precisely for migrants from countries where conditions are so appalling. Revoking that status when the situation in the country of origin has not improved is a cruel act. The moral stain will be indelible.”

Secondly, the war against Tehran, which “does not meet the rigorous criteria of the theory of just war, the traditional framework by which Catholics assess the moral relevance of armed conflicts. Recourse to war was not a last resort. The stated objectives were vague and shifting; therefore, no one can argue that the damage caused by the war is necessarily less than that resulting from maintaining the status quo. But perhaps the most damaging aspect for an administration that prides itself on its firmness is that this war does not meet the requirement of having a reasonable prospect of success. Compared with other wars, the number of casualties in this conflict has been limited. But the damage to US foreign relations is incalculable. There is no plausible outcome to this war that would not diminish America’s moral authority and strategic influence in the world.”

It is curious that this issue also brings together Catholics on the other side of the political spectrum – those of the Vance persuasion – who have never applauded the military campaign against the Ayatollahs’ regime. Third, but certainly not least in importance, is the principle that the fate of American democracy hinges on these elections: “The recent exclusion of three major news organisations from the White House is merely the latest in a series of acts contrary to the Constitution. The attempt by individual states to interfere with the conduct of the elections also falls into this category. It troubles us to think of what the Administration might still do to challenge the will of the people in the mid-term elections”. As “Catholics and citizens of this great experiment in freedom governed by law, we can and must oppose Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy and the rule of law. Democracy does not in itself guarantee a good society. Trump has won twice. Democracy is, as Winston Churchill famously said, ‘the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried’”.

However, another development has raised concerns within the Catholic world: the decision—later disavowed by Donald Trump himself—by Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth to broadcast the execution of Nidal Hasan, scheduled for this coming December, live on television. Even First Things, the leading magazine of American conservative intellectual Catholicism, published a podcast in which the very idea was condemned, arguing that turning capital punishment into a media spectacle is nothing short of “barbarism” that “tramples on human dignity”.

These are all factors which demonstrate how the support Trump managed to secure just two years ago amongst the Catholic electorate – which has historically sided with the Democrats – is now a distant memory. Of course, not all the charges levelled at the Administration will prove decisive at the ballot box – the war against Iran might only be a factor if voters make the connection between military intervention and the price of diesel – but there is no doubt that the stance on immigration, particularly given the Church’s position, will significantly erode support amongst Latino voters. It remains to be seen, however, to what extent. And above all, to what extent support for Trump amongst the white evangelical (male) electorate will offset Hispanic disaffection. In this regard, the polls are often contradictory and should always be taken with a pinch of salt: it frequently happens that polling organisations, even the most renowned ones, fail to gauge the mood of an electorate which, in several states, has shown it can change its allegiance or, quite simply, choose not to vote. All these variables, in any case, are keeping Republican leaders awake at night.