Conservative Catholics Have Always Been in Play
Douglas Belkin's story in Thursday's Wall Street Journal proclaims that "Conservative Catholics May Be in Play" in November's presidential election. For a mainstream media that long ago bought into the far right's wistful notion that churchgoing Catholics subscribe first and foremost to a narrow conservative agenda, this may seem like a shocker headline. But for those of us who work in the Catholic trenches, it's nothing short of old news. Republicans and Democrats alike take note: Catholics - conservative or otherwise - have always been in play.
In 2004, even as smug Republicans bragged about the coalescence of a new base of "values voters," the numbers were telling a different story. In a poll conducted by Zogby International, the Catholic peace group Pax Christi USA, and others in November 2004, 62% of Catholic respondents named either poverty or greed and materialism as the greatest moral crises facing the United States. Only 31% chose abortion or same-sex marriage. Moreover, the Iraq War topped the list of moral concerns that most affected voters' decisions at the booth. A 2006 poll commissioned by Faith in Public Life and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good found similar results.
In all fairness to Belkin, the statistics cited here don't take into consideration the respondents' church attendance or political leanings. But they do paint a very different picture of the Catholic electorate than the conventional wisdom might lead us to believe: however concerned about issues like abortion and same-sex marriage Catholic voters may be, these matters are part of a larger package of moral concerns that bear directly on the common good.
Contrary to popular belief, Bush didn't win Catholics in 2004 because of his positions on life and marriage. He won because of the Kerry campaign's inability to articulate a coherent message to Catholic swing voters, and because of an astoundingly sophisticated media and grassroots operation on the part of the Republican Party and allied "Catholic" organizations. As the party worked the phones and the doors, Catholic League president Donohue peppered Kerry with holier-than-thou invective (a cursory look at the Catholic League's 2004 press release headlines dispels any lingering doubt that the organization has become a front for the GOP), and an obscure group called Catholic Answers somehow found the money to distribute millions voting guides and full page USA Today ads advancing the manufactured theological notion that five "non-negotiable issues" trumped all the others at the polls.
The issues? Abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, human cloning, and euthanasia. Never mind war, poverty, the death penalty, or that whole loving your neighbor thing. Of course, none of these groups have any formal authority to speak on behalf of the Church institution - which, by the way, refused to endorse the right's message. But - with the help of a small handful of renegade or perhaps unsuspecting bishops - these partisan operatives nonetheless managed to fool a sizable bloc of Catholics into thinking that a vote for Kerry meant certain eternal damnation.
Belkin is right in his assertion that things are different now. Both Clinton and Obama have invested heavily in effective strategies to reach Catholics and other people of faith. And the argument that faithful Catholics could in good conscience only back Bush now seems a bit silly given the widespread belief that his presidency was nothing short of a catastrophic moral failure.
This latter fact confirms what many Catholics already understood: that anyone who knows their Gospel knows that the "every man for himself" agenda at the core of the neoconservative plan is generally irreconcilable with an authentic Christian worldview - even for "conservative" or churchgoing Catholics. It's because of this that the Catholic vote is - as it always been - entirely up for grabs.
Follow Chris Korzen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chriskorzen
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
2. Euthanasia. Suicide has never needed enabling legislation. It remains a natural right of all humans. There is no lack of tall buildings, guns and rope. The problem with Oregon style laws is in letting physicians abet suicide. Advocates naively presume that physicians (who are generally incompetent in managing pain and end-of-life problems) will make wise choices about whose suicidal desires are "justified" and whose are not. Changing a physicians' role will corrupt the integrity of the profession, undermining ethical imperatives against harming patients, making them gatekeepers instead of obstacles to suicide. Moreover, with our ridiculous health care system it's no stretch to see physician directed suicide becoming an obligation, further discriminating against vulnerable populations, leading to unconsented, unsought euthanasia.
3. Abortion. This is an easy one despite the unalterably polarized debate. It simply makes no sense to regulate a woman for the benefit of a part of her body (the contents of her uterus). We can all agree that a fetus is a human being AND agree that its rights do not emerge until it does. In addition the utilitarian arguments for abortion are compelling: the rate of abortion doesn't change whether legal or not, but the death rate of young women from abortion related complications climbs dramatically where it is illegal. Moreover, it is the right wing fundamentalist churches that are the real problem, not the Catholic church, which appears prepared to co-exist with legal abortion in favor of more important issues.
Issues that allegedly divide the left from Catholicism: Embryo research, euthanasia, and abortion.
1. Embryo research. (Nobody objects to research on stem cells of other origins). Whether using "discarded" or "cloned" embryos it is troubling to destroy proto-humans for someone else's benefit. A utilitarian argument requires strong evidence that alternative sources have been exhausted. No such evidence is forthcoming. Airy assertions of the "promise" of stem cell research conflate adult derived stem cells with a highly speculative endeavor the benefits of which lie decades in the future--if ever. I.e., besides the moral issues the science is shaky.
Secondly, creating scalable, mass-produced "regenerative" (cellular) therapies requires huge numbers of human eggs. Frozen IVF embryos are a dubious source of viable cells and lead to complicated questions of ownership and financial benefit from downstream commercial enterprises. Collecting eggs will require exposing young, fertile women to substantial medical risks--and the potential exhaustion of their fertility--with hyper-ovulation. Numerous progressive feminist groups have objected to this aspect of ESC research.
Thirdly, the potential dangers of embryo derived cellular therapies have been downplayed. Injecting millions of live embryonic cells into a research subject exposes that individual to inestimable risks. A single cell can degenerate into a malignancy; a defective cell can incorporate into germinal tissue; graft vs. host disease may ensue, etc. (In California the advocates of the Stem Cell initiative exempted the CIRM from federal rules of human subjects protections--I wonder why?)
The Catholic church is against war, abortion, and the death penalty. On two of these issues the progressive left aligns well, leaving abortion as the only wedge issue the Repugs can exploit. It has taken the Democratic Party far too long to figure this out. Moreover, the social gospel aligns with progressive values. How then to welcome Catholics into the fold? Start by playing clips of pastor Haggee 24/7. Beyond this facetious suggestion we need to find ways of truly respecting differences among those that share core values.
A think we have taken a gratuitously rigid position on "life" questions: euthanasia, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research. As a Protestant, far left progressive I have no problem acknowledging that human life begins with conception. It's scientifically valid, but my opinion doesn't automatically repeal Roe v. Wade or prohibit embryo research. Au contraire, it simply means that compelling reasons can trump a blanket prohibition on human experimentation or ending pregnancy. (I'll present them another time). Instead of shrill, polarized "deaf monologues" we should embrace our disagreements respectfully while working common ground in matters of war, peace, and justice.
I am a practicing Catholic, have been my entire 54 years, but I make my decisions in my life, both morale and philosophical, based on my beliefs and experiences. I believe in the fundamentals of my faith, humanity, sacrifice, sympathy, etc. and use those to guide my life. I also believe from those perspectives on a primarily progressive Democratic agenda. I cannot make a decision for someone else on something like abortion and would not want to, although I would be willing to talk with the person, but fundamentally from a personal viewpoint abhor it. I do think there should be some limits as to how late in the pregnancy it was allowed, but don't feel I should make the decision for someone else,particularly a woman when I am a man. I also was for allowing Shiavo to die in that case. And I find Bush's conservative compassion and religious come comeuppance disgusting. Tell some destitute woman she cannot have an abortion and then leave her in the lurch after. At a minimum he should provide government support for something like that. You can certainly take for granted though that after seeing what Cheney (Bush) has done with this government that I voted for Kerry last time and will vote for Obama this time. The church lends me morale guidance but I look at the big picture and use my faith for guidance only, not for absolute direction. Take a look at deep seated evangelists who follow their leaders mindlessly.
Having watched the Catholic priest at Obama's church I guess conservative Catholics will be in play again.
"He won because of the Kerry campaign's inability to articulate a coherent message to Catholic swing voters"--this is the most insightful comment anyone has currently made about any election and any party and any voting bloc on this site. The problem is not the message; the problem is the messenger! The Democratic Party is responsible for choosing the most effective methodology for arguing its platform. So far, that method has failed. To use an overabused genre this primary season--the sporting metaphor--the Democratic Party has relied too much on celebrity players and not enough on the rest of the team. May it learn in time....
It is time everyone abandon these catagories that allow us to become a "House divided" and consider the one metric that counts.
That being "What will the America we leave our children stand for?"
At the moment, the answer is rather grim, on the world stage we are a beligerent superpower who will start wars based on flawed intelligence, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents and destroying the lives of millions more, we are the primary source of pollution and the major impediment to addressing global warming, we rufuse to even address our differences with others unless they first bow to our will.
Domestically, we deny basic healthcare to our children, import lethal products for them to play with, we allow corporations to opt out of retirement programs and give CEO's multimillion dollar bonuses for actions that cut the throats of their employees, we have stratified our wealth more dramatically than any time since the "Robber Barons" of the 19th century, we imprison more of our population than any other Nation on earth, and we have economic surplus into multi-trillion dollar debt.
This is what the America we have built stands for! Is that all your children deserve?
Will Catholics, or Christians, let all this evil stand to stop Gay rights and abortion?
I think not, I think they are better people, I think it is time we all become Patriots first and give each other back the right to be different, the right to be free!
Maybe I'm mistaken but at this point in time, Obama hasn't been winning the white vote since the Rev. Wright thing came out in March.
2 Exceptions: VT (who wants to sucede) and OR (who any wish would sucede)
Why is it that anti-Obamites can't spell?
"2 Exceptions: VT (who wants to sucede) and OR (who any wish would sucede)"
How like a Republican to object when white folks aren't poorly educated bigots.
"But - with the help of a small handful of renegade or perhaps unsuspecting bishops - these partisan operatives nonetheless managed to fool a sizable bloc of Catholics into thinking that a vote for Kerry meant certain eternal damnation."
I'm a fomer Catholic and I have been highly critical of the Church for many things, including its stance on abortion, gay marriage, and its cover-up of the pederasty that took place for years. However, this statement is insulting. It sounds like Catholics are easily duped. Most of my family is still Catholic, and while I dsagree with them on many issues, they are NOT stupid, easily led, or frightened with the threat of eternal damnation. Why do I think this? Just one example is the fact that between 80% to 90% of American Catholics ignore the Church's ban on "artificial" birth control. The reason Kerry didn't get the Catholic vote in 2004 was the same reason he didn't get votes from a lot of other groups, i.e., he ran a crappy campaign. If you truly think that Catholic votes are in play, how about not insulting them by perpetuating the old stereotype that they are blind followers, doing whatever the Pope or their priest tells them to do. There is no better way to turn an American Catholic away from your cause than to do that.
I guess we are poor, uneducated, and bitter and the majority .I'm poor and proud to be American.
There isn't anything conservative about the so-called conservatives.
I strongly object to your use of their definition.
Look: "Conservative Christians" are by definition Christians who hate the teachings of Christ. These are sadly conflicted and/or hypocritical beings and wasting time trying to win them over is ultimately a waste of time for liberals.
Instead hope that real Christians win them over to Christianity. Better odds.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
