
| Why Barack Obama Will Not Win the Catholic Vote |
| by Deal W. Hudson |
| 1/07/08 |
|
To win the White House in 2008, the Democrats have to win back the Catholic voters they lost to the GOP in 2000 and 2004. A previous Window forecast that if the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton, she would win the Catholic vote. However, with his commanding victory in the Iowa caucus, Barack Obama may be well on his way to upsetting the presumptive nominee.
But what will his prospects be for winning the necessary Catholic vote? Recent polling and expert analyses suggest that Obama will actually have a difficult time connecting with Catholic voters.
A Pew Research Center poll released last November showed Obama trailing Clinton 17 percent to 45 percent among white Catholics. Among mainline Protestants, Obama was preferred by 25 percent; black Protestants, 36 percent; and religious but unaffiliated voters, 27 percent.
It must be troubling to the Obama campaign that his level of support among white Catholics is significantly lower than among other religious voters. In fact, this was the greatest drop for any presidential candidate between his or her overall percentage and the percentage among a specific group.
These numbers did not surprise Steve Wagner, president of QEV Analytics and an expert in political polling of Catholic voters. Wagner thinks Clinton is a bigger threat to take the Catholic vote back from the GOP.
According to Wagner, Clinton's advantage is her ability to put forth "persuasive arguments on key social issues." Obama has yet to make these kinds of arguments. Rather, he attracts a "substantially frustrated constituency of people far to the left who don't feel they have representation. Catholics aren't feeling deprived."
Wagner's description of Obama's following sounds much like what I have heard from politically active Catholic liberals over the years. I asked Wagner if the Catholic left would be able to help Obama: "There just aren't many people fitting that description. Liberal Catholics are trivial as a constituency because they are so small in number."
Wagner predicts that the only religious voting group who will strongly support Obama is religiously active African-American voters. (There was concern recently that Obama was not connecting with African-American ministers, but he seems to have picked up some important support lately.)
The underlying danger of Obama for Democrats, according to Wagner, is that he is returning to the "interest-group politics" that started in the 1970s with the McGovern campaign.
A recent book by pro-life Democrat Mark Stricherz, Why the Democrats Are Blue: How Secular Liberals Hijacked the People's Party, describes the revolution in the Democratic Party brought about by the 1972 McGovern Commission, mandating that convention delegates be selected by a quota system of race and gender.
According to Stricherz, it was the white, largely ethnic Catholic who got pushed aside in the Democratic Party when the quota system was enforced. Most of these Democrats were Catholic and pro-life; they were replaced by pro-abortion feminists.
The Democratic Party, it is widely recognized, is still trying to recover from the McGovern revolution, which triggered the steady migration of Catholics into the GOP. If Wagner is right, Obama's politics will remind Catholic voters why they left the Democratic Party in the first place.
Another big problem Obama will have with Catholics, Wagner says, will be his brand of patriotism. Last October, Obama suddenly removed the America flag pin he has been wearing since the start of the campaign. He said it has become a substitute for "true patriotism" since the attacks of 9/11.
Catholics will bristle at the reminder of that incident, which will inevitably come up in a presidential campaign. As Wagner put it, "Catholics are patriotic, and the Obama campaign will contain implicit criticism of America throughout its message."
I asked Wagner whether Obama, if nominated, would be able to move toward the middle, like Senator Clinton and Governor Romney have tried to do.
"Romney had four years to remake himself, but Obama will have only four months to reinvent himself," Wagner said. "His leftish populism is not going to play in a general election."
Wagner's view of Obama stands in stark contrast to the opinion of many Democrats. No less than Ted Sorensen, a former speechwriter for John F. Kennedy, has heralded the junior senator from Illinois as JFK's heir.
Kennedy won 83% of the Catholic vote in 1960. In this respect, at least, Barack Obama will be no JFK.
Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the Morley Institute for Church and Culture. Readers have left 16 comments. Deal, Though I was young during the McGovern campaign and missed much about the details, this instructive article does much to fill in the ether of childhood memories. This analysis says to me that rather than Obama being coined as JFK's heir, the clear reality is that he is McGovern's heir apparent. From what I remember about the social realities of those days and the subsequent paradigm shift, that seems ironic. I wonder what McGovern would have said about that. Through that comment I am mindful of Clarence Thomas and the horrific racial beating he got from Democrats trying to block his appointment to the United States Supreme Court using the tools at hand. Other Catholics as well come to mind with Alito and Roberts and the obvious persecutions put on them from the left because of their proper historic grounding and education in Western Civilization and Thought. Sir William Blackstone and Chief Justice Marshall's philosophy of defense and interpretation of the Constitution holds precedence to popular moods and mores. The value of the populist interpretation makes for accidentally charming ****tail banter and a great dinner guest but can't ever be elevated to substance. Written by Teri B Catholics won't vote for Obama because of a lapel pin? That seems a little extreme. This is a free country. The idea that, from now on, every single politician is required to wear a flag lapel pin at all times, or otherwise they are unpatriotic seems a little silly. There are more important issues. Written by Pete What troubles me more is Obama, as a state senator, voting to refuse medical care to babies that survived abortions. Link is http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U00P7O0&show_article=1 Written by Duane I just got an e-mail that was supposed to be about Obama, but the link took me back to a week-old column about Huckabee. BTW: I am horrified (because I know it's true) that Hillary could win the Catholic vote. I don't consider anyone who would vote for Hillary to be a practicing Catholic, because doing so betokens a level of complacency about abortion that is inconsistent with the Catholic Faith. While it is tragic that there is ANY pro-abortion party in the U.S., it was also tragic that there was a pro-slavery party (Democrats), a pro-socialism party (Democrats), a fiat-money party (Democrats), etc. This business about how the Democrats were "the people's party" and went wrong only on abortion--baloney. They were always the party of violence and theft. Written by Fr. AG I just placed this comment on the story about Hillary as well. I've got to wonder, why this would even be a possibility! What is it, that would prevent Catholics from stumping for, and voting for Ambassador Alan Keyes? He is, if I am not mistaken, Catholic... has perhaps the most stringent pro-family, pro-life platform of anyone running for office. I am mystified that Catholics cannot seem to grasp the footholds that God has placed for our feet. Hillary or Obama would be little short of voting for the Anti-Christ himself. In fact, the idea that Catholics should fear the GOP at all just about makes me sick to my stomach, wondering why this unlikely phenomenon has even occurred. Written by Phil from the Middle Phil, Alan Keyes is politically dead. What he did in the Illinois Senate race showed that he is not a viable candidate for anything. Written by jpii rox Deal, it is apparent you are carrying the water for the Democratic Party visa vis Hillary. Perhaps you need to read Fr.AG's post and take it to heart. I would also like you to explain what a "liberal Catholic" is and what exactly is the "Catholic left?" How does that work? I don't know but when 87% of white voters vote for a white candidate it is racism. What do you call it when 87% of Catholic voters vote for a Catholic? Alan Keyes was thrown into the Illinois Senate race near the end as a despiration measure by the state's GOP. Any honest onlooker should recognize the circumstance as opposed to the candidate for that outcome. Keyes is not a viable candidate, soley because those who should recognize his qualifications, and his Christ-Centered, pro-life, pro-family world view, are failing to grasp and respond to their responsibilities. Ambassador Keyes would be a viable candidate today if Catholics were voting in line with their faith, rather than just following the sheep in front of them. In fact, he still could be a viable candidate if this changed today. Give that some thought, when Hillary or Obama or Giulliani hand your tax dollars to the butchers at Planned Parenthood. Written by Phil in the Middle Obama's chief campaign architect, hailed by the left, is a vicious anti-Catholic. His name is Marshall Ganz. He was the architect of an attempted coup of the Church in order to change Catholic doctrine via Voice of the Faithful. (Deal has written about him in an earlier column.) He used the teachings of Saul Alinsky and the common political tool of shock doctrine in attacking Catholics and mobilizing people against them. Now he works for Obama who needs the Catholic vote. That is like using Yassir Arafat to bring in the Jewish vote. Ain't going to work. Written by Jay Robertson The issue real issue why Obama should not receive the Roman Catholic vote is very simple is his stance on abortion. He is 100% for it with a rating by NARAL of 100% for the last few years. How can any person who truly calls himself faithful vote for him or Hillary? Have we not heard the words of John Paul II or Mother Teresa? Unfortunately, many (but not all) will be swayed by the style over substance: his speaking ability and his smile. 2000 years later and people still miss the point. Judge ye yourself and dare not cast the first stone, for you would be dead before dawn. You take one issue to decide your vote?? Get an education and realize there is more to being president than abortions. As sad as abortions are, you need to think of things like the economy, George Bush's war (killing people with feelings and emotions -like 6 year old girls and boys), and rights of our citizens. Abortions are horrible, but ignorance is far worse. God bless you all. Written by ProdTom Mr. Obama doesn't match many judeo-christian beliefs. He is very far left. Here are some facts: He isn't pro Israel, he voted for a law for pro abortion (abortion after birth), and of course his church going as having Reverend Wright as pastor for 20 yrs! That is enough for any Christian believing person not to vote for Mr. Obama. That is only three facts and there are many more..I don't have any hardcore facts about his patriotism, but he hasn't proved anything to say he is pro american yet. Don't let his smooth talking fool you. Read his policies and his books.You'll find out he doesn't match. To: Prod Tom: You forgot why this war started and why we're fighting over there? Think about it? I hope americans wake up and vote for the most ethical moral choice, instead of worrying just about ourselves (economy), and if we're still the great nation that we've been in the past we can overcome. Written by cam None of the candidates are prolife. But with Obama having the Muslim background, he is certainly the biggest risk. 10 years ago we drove with Impeach Hilary bumper stickers, how quickly we all forget. Not that McCain is any better. Its just ashame that there are no good candidates with repsect any more. I am a devout Catholic who voted for Ralph Nader during the past two elections and plan to do so again. He is taking contributions ONLY from individuals not corporations and lobbyists. Among other things, he is for single-payer Canadian-style health insurance, a living wage, getting the corporations out of government, a true peace in the Middle East, and bringing Bush to justice for violating the constitution by starting the current war. With Nader as president, people will not be kidnapped by the U. S. government, transported to another country and imprisoned for years without trials. Ralph Nader will make both government and business accountable for their actions as he has been doing as a private citizen for the past 40 years. As a person of conscience, I have no choice but to vote Ralph Nader. His honesty, integrity and self-sacrifice in the pursuit of justice are inspiring. Dont worry that hes 74. He has kept up a hectic schedule for over 40 years and his parents lived well into their 90s!!!! In 1955 Ralph Nader received an AB magna cum laude from the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs Princeton University, with a major in East Asian studies, which afforded him the opportunity to study Chinese and Russian. In 1958, he received a LLB with distinction from Harvard Law School. He speaks 5 languages. His contributions to this country and the world have been enormous. He was instrumental in passing the following legislation: Clean Air Act Clean Water Act Consumer credit disclosure law Consumer Product Safety Act Co-Op Bank Bill Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Freedom of Information Act Funeral home cost disclosure law Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency Medical Devices safety Mine Health and Safety Act Mobile home safety National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act Nuclear power safety Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) Pension protection law Safe Water Drinking Act Tire safety & grading disclosure law Whistleblower Protection Act Wholesome Meat Act Wholesome Poultry Product Act The following biographical info is from votenader.org Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, author, and has been named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 Most Influential Americans in the Twentieth Century. For over four decades Ralph Nader has exposed problems and organized millions of citizens into more than 100 public interest groups to advocate for solutions. His efforts have helped to create a framework of laws, regulatory agencies, and federal standards that have improved the quality of life for two generations of Americans. His groups were instrumental in enacting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. In the past decade, Nader has dedicated himself to putting people back in charge of Americas democracy, launching three major presidential campaigns. Because of Ralph Nader we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breath better air, drink cleaner water, and work in safer environments. The Early Years Ralph Nader was born in Winsted, Connecticut on February 27, 1934, to Rose and Nathra Nader, immigrants from Lebanon. Ralphs family owned and operated the Highland Arms, a restaurant and gathering place for members of their small community. Nader and his three siblings grew up in an environment where current events and politics were discussed both around the dinner table and with customers at the family restaurant. There, it was said, for a nickel you would get a cup of coffee and ten minutes of politics. Written by Anita Bologna I consider myself a "recovering catholic". I was raised by European Roman Catholic immigrants. I went through all of my rights of passage. When I was old enough the figure it out, I removed myself from the church. I am a non-denominational Christian. I wholeheartedly believe in Christ and his teachings - NOT the teachings of the Catholic church, which directly contradict the Bible. Once I studied the Bible as an adult, I realized that there is little biblical basis to what Catholicism teaches. As a matter of fact, reading the Bible was NEVER a prerequisite for any of my formal Catholic teachings. A priest told us what prayers to say and when, and we heard a few selected verses each week at mass. The teachings of Christ were always sort of supressed, like he was too radical (or leftist) and far removed from the old fire and brimstone God. I have such stronger faith, greater morals, and better understanding of the Bible since removing myself from the catholic church. I voted for Obama - he has lived his life as the better Christian than McCain and/or Palin and their families. I mean, abortion isn't the only issue here. Isn't adultery, lying, cheating, stealing and addiction all sins? And the war in Iraq is the worst sin I have seen committed in my lifetime. Obama hasn't been associated with any of these many other sins. So, even if you were to vote for the lesser of two evils, you'd still be voting Obama (if that was your rationale). Written by Kim Garrett |








