The reason why Catholics dominate the American State is because...

The reason why Catholics dominate the American State is because American Protestants are Anti-Statist & prefer to organize society through the Church (ie: the voluntary associations of people)-- Catholics fundamentally disregard the separation of Church & State.

Protestants in America believe in "State Atheism" -- & this means limiting the powers of the State with regard to its extension over the powers of the Church-- for Protestants in America "Church" is not one thing (as for Catholics-- "The Church") -- "Church" is the Community.

The majority of Americans are Protestants-- about 50% -- compared to the 20% which are Catholic. If you split those Protestants by whether or not their denomination claims continuity with the Catholic Church (ie: Episcopalians, Anglicans, Lutheran "High Church Protestants") the majority are still "Protestant" in the Low Church form-- the "Nondenominational Christians" -- the Mormons -- the Unitarians, the Baptists, Methodists, Quakers etc.

Here's Defense One describing that the American "Far Right" (Right Libertarians) are "Anti-Statist" -- "Anti-Statist" rhetoric was used against the Soviet Union which is why Evangelicals supported Anti-Communism as "Anti-Statism"-- but with the collapse of the USSR, the shift in the American State is toward a reification of the State as the source of Liberties, the Guarantor of Liberties against "the masses"-- this is the "Anti-Populism" found in the more "institutional" forms of Christianity which reify "professional mediation" in the form of some sort of clericalism & bureaucratic management.

defenseone.com/ideas/2021/01/…

"Anti-Populism" is described by itself as "The Defense of Minorities" -- that's why "Minority Defense" & "Protecting the Rights of Minorities against the Majority" has become the central facet of the new institutional civic mythology. It's why "Left Anarchists" vote for Biden while "Right Anarchists" vote for Trump.

If you notice-- the MAGA Right Libertarian "Anti Statists" are never seeking to "impose" a way of life by executive fiat-- they are trying to "impose" their own freedom *from* being imposed upon by executive fiat. This is one thing the "Elitist Post-Liberal" Right hate about MAGA people, their lack of interest in "taking power in the State" -- this is why you find the "Far Right Supreme Court Justices" to be Catholic Conservatives & not Evangelical Protestants. Evangelical Protestants have no interest whatsoever in taking positions in the State, because they want to abolish the State!

Even the "White Nationalists" do not propose anything but the the legality of "free association" which includes the right to organize "non-catholic" or "non-universal" institutions-- the right to refuse entry to people-- which is premised on the other side as "curtailing minority rights to entry into majoritarian institutions" -- that is, they describe this as not an "imposition onto minorities" but a restoration of the freedom of association which the civil rights act eliminated in the name of "Civil Society" -- they point to the hypocrisy of allowing "free association" of minorities to exclude "majorities" from, say, "Historically Black Universities" &c while disallowing the existence of these things in other contexts. They do not generally premise (except the "White Supremacists") some state imposition of a universal criteria in these respects. That's only found in the "White Supremacist" wing, & the "White Supremacists" are usually opposed to the "White Nationalists" for this very "cowardice" in not aiming to seize control over the State & wield it in some form of social engineering / eugenics program. Most of the so-called "White Nationalists" are ultimately Right Libertarians within majority white communities that would, therefore, in producing a Communitarian/Localist organization be "excluding" people outside of their community, in the same way that the Amish "exclude" the non-amish, & the same way that Orthodox Jewish towns "exclude" those who are not Orthodox Jews. They describe the issue in terms of "forced integration" -- ie: a forced "catholicity" or "universalism" which does not allow for difference. The "White Supremacists" are rather closer to understanding "White" not as the contingent "default" of the majority of Americans by nature of their mixed European heritage, but as an aspirational ideal, the way "Roman" functioned in Rome or "Aryan" in Nazi Germany-- there are "Honorary Whites" for White Supremacists, but for "white nationalists" there's immutable differences that are not hierarchical, but social-- ie: they do not want to "govern over other races" but to be "left alone to govern themselves" -- in general, the white nationalists get along with black nationalists & "nationalists" of various ethnic backgrounds because they all agree to "govern themselves in their own communities" & not to produce a Catholic/Universal set of values to govern over each other. To the "White Supremacist" -- the white nationalist is the same as the black nationalist, lacking that "Aryan/Roman/White" spirit of domination over other peoples/nations. Of course, these generalizations do not cover every particularity or quirk in these discourses, but in general the "White Nationalist" is coded as "Low Church" while the "White Supremacist" is coded as "High Church" -- I think this is one of those splits in the American Right which is not understood very well, even from members of the American Right, because it's really a difference of class. "White Supremacists" care about the demography of Harvard & Yale &c of "Elite Institutions of Civil Society". "White Nationalists" tend toward "producing their own civic institutions" rather than "marching through the institutions."

I think both White Nationalism & White Supremacy are backwards positions -- but I think that their differences explicate a deeper tension in American politics across other fronts. There are also the "Black/Minority Separatists" or "Black/Minority Nationalists" as opposed to the "Black/Minority Supremacists" -- found in the other side of the discourse, & these differences tend to unfold in the same manner, & tend to reproduce themselves culturally in odd cross-over events. Kanye West is a Black Nationalist, but not a Black Supremacist-- because of his Black Panther heritage-- & he emphasizes the need not for "representation in the Catholic/Universal institutions" -- but for autonomous Black Institutions-- Kanye doesn't want "to be accepted into the fold of Civic Society" but to produce an autonomous institution of civic society. Kanye wants "Black Banks" -- not for Banks to celebrate BLM & institute diversity quotas. That's why he's flirted with symbols of "White Nationalism" while describing "White Supremacy" as the domination of Civic Society (which he's increasingly identified as "Jewish Supremacy") etc.

This is the tension of American Civilization-- what the "identity of America" ought to be-- how it could possibly "homogenize" or "represent" the diversity of peoples that it has always contained. Should it simply have "diversity quotas"? Or should the State "not take a position" & allow the people to represent themselves freely? Is it *really* America if some "extreme separatist group" isn't allowed their freedom of association & freedom of religious expression by means of producing their own community? Is it really America if "everywhere is for everyone"? Is it really American Tolerance if it does not tolerate intolerance?

I think that America is unique in that the American identity is not something one is "born with" -- but something one "achieves for oneself" -- whether that means crossing the Atlantic in the Mayflower or establishing a Chinatown in California. To be American is to be Self-Governing & Civically Engaged in one's community of choice. To be American is to have faith in the People as a whole to organize their own affairs within their own voluntary associations. To be American is not to federally impose a unitary vision as to what "being an American" entails too. It's a very difficult thing problem to solve, but I have faith that the American people would solve it better amongst themselves than by means of state power.

This is why people say "AMERICA" when they do feel independent & sovereign-- it's not when they're "submitting or merging or integrating" into some pre-established norm-- but they are "representing themselves" & that is the essence of America.