Michael Gerson, former Bush speechwriter turned op-ed columnist for The Washington Post and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes on the growing and potentially fatal rift between Catholics and the Obama led Democrat Party.
After discussing the Notre Dame scandal and offering silly support for Notre Dame saying that “If you cannot honor the man, then honor the office. If you cannot honor the office, then one more democratic bond has been severed,” Gerson writes about the growing disaffection among Catholics for Obama.
But the controversy surrounding the Notre Dame invitation highlights growing strains in an important political relationship. In the last election, while evangelical Christians generally remained loyal to the Republican nominee, Catholics decisively shifted their votes toward Obama. In 2004, George W. Bush won the Catholic vote by five percentage points. Obama carried it by nine points in 2008. A number of Catholic thinkers set out a “pro-life, pro-Obama” position — disagreeing with Obama’s pro-choice views but trusting in his moderate instincts and conciliatory temperament.
So far, Obama has done little to justify this faith. His initial actions on life issues — funding overseas abortion providers, removing restrictions from federally funded medical experimentation on human embryos, revisiting conscience protections for pro-life health-care professionals — have ranged from conventional to radical. And this may be one reason Obama’s support among Catholics has eroded. According to the Pew Research Center, the percentage of Americans who disapprove of Obama’s job performance increased by nine points from February to March. Among Catholics as a whole, his disapproval rating jumped 14 points. And among white, non-Hispanic Catholics, the figure doubled — from 20 percent to 41 percent.
Catholics are having second thoughts, but it could get much worse. If the president and Congress are not careful on several issues, these concerns could open a major rift between the Catholic Church and the Democratic Party.
He lists the following issues as potential deal breakers for pro-Democrat Catholics.
- Removing the right of conscience for Christian health care workers.
- Reversing the Hyde amendment and thus using Medicaid dollars to pay for abortion.
- Covering abortion in Obama’s new Gov’t run universal(ly bad) health care plan.
It is an interesting theory and I wish it were true, but I think that it is not. Obama’s falling numbers among Catholics, notably among white, non-Hispanic Catholics probably has more to to with concern over out-of-control spending than abortion or the right of conscience.
The bottom line is that those Catholics who performed mental gymnastics to justify support of Obama are few and far between. The vast majority of “Catholics” who support Obama and the Democrat party just do not care about these issues. If they did, they would not have voted for him in the first place. If the economy turns around so will Obama’s numbers among Catholics, unfortunately.
The only thing that can cause a rift between Catholics and the Democrat party is nominal Catholic opposition to tyrannical socialism. On this point, there still may be hope.
April 1, 2009 at 4:29 pm
One resents politicians stereotyping all Catholics as “the Catholic vote.” Catholicism is the biggest tent of all, as wide as the universe, but the diversity of Catholics, under the grace of God, is marvellous. A New Yorker who takes the subway from his apartment to his job at the foundry lives a life quite different from my rural one — different food, different music, different concepts of space and art — but I hope and believe we both share the core truths / Truth the Church teaches, one of which is the absolute sacredness of human life.
April 1, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Obama did not win the Catholic vote. In fact, he did not receive a single vote from Catholic. He did, however, win over the apostate vote by a crushing margin.
~cmpt
April 1, 2009 at 6:50 pm
It is an interesting theory and I wish it were true, but I think that it is not.
Quite right. I don’t hear any loud expressions of regret on the part of Catholic Obama supporters. They aren’t surprised at his anti-life politics. They haven’t made any resolutions about withdrawing his support if he does this or that pro-abortion thing.
As you and I and many others wrote all last year, they all knew Obama’s pro-abortion positions, and they voted for them. They were content then, and, absent surprises on this front, they are content now.
April 1, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Over at the America blog, Michael Sean Winters is whining that our bishops are disrespecting President Obama because they refer to him as “pro-abortion” when he is really “pro-choice.” Over half the Catholics in this country think that actually makes sense.
April 1, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Christopher Michael, what you said was brilliant and I wish every one of our clergy would explain that as well! My parish pastor has made it abundantly clear, at least I understood it!
I did my best to point out to my “Catholic” friends, what they were doing by voting for this man. They chose instead to be “hip” and vote for “change”.
Ron, wait till they hear what a guest on the Catholic Network said-that he is not pro-abortion or pro choice- but that he is PRO DEATH!
April 1, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Before the election, I had many discussions with pro-Obama Catholics who argued adamantly that they were voting for him in light of his policies to improve the circumstances that lead women to have abortions (The Kmiec argument). They claimed that he wasn’t leading us to socialism, (or worse, that socialism is a good, even Christian, goal) and that they just couldn’t stomach voting for the Republican party, which, if we are honest, haven’t always lived up to their pro-life promises. I don’t know what it’s going to take, though, for those people to realize that Obama is using them (and Notre Dame) far more than they ever could have made the case that Republicans used pro-lifers.
April 1, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Piffle. The same Catholics who opposed Obama before the election oppose him now. The same ones who supported him support him now. What is “growing”?
“The only thing that can cause a rift between Catholics and the Democrat party is nominal Catholic opposition to tyrannical socialism.”
Patrick, the same liberal Catholics who voted for Obama are all in favor of socialism. You know that.
“What I say to you, I say to all: Watch.” (Mk 13:37)
April 1, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I agree with you; as long as they feel their wallet is full, they will support Barry. This is especially the case with many Catholic Charities types who are still all a flutter that Obama’s budget passed the “Poverty Audit”.
April 2, 2009 at 2:14 am
Patrick,
That is exactly what I thought when I read that article. I wish it were true, too. But it isn’t.
Having gone through the mental and moral acrobatics to vote him into office in the first place, those Catholics now must go to even further lengths to defend their decision in order to justify themselves.
April 2, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I think there were a lot of Catholics who didn’t perform any mental gymnastics to justify supporting Obama, or any mental work at all. But there were many who let themselves be fooled by those who did perform such mental gymnastics. I.e., they heard something along the lines of “Doug Kmiec, a widely respected Catholic professor and noted pro-Life advocate, has endorsed Obama and said there is nothing in Catholic doctrine that interferes with voting for him.”, and that was enough to salve their consciences and allowed them to pull the lever for the man.
April 2, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Piffle. The same Catholics who opposed Obama before the election oppose him now. The same ones who supported him support him now. What is “growing”?
Seemingly, even less. Only 28% oppose him now. From election day, it would seem Obama has picked up Catholic support.
Gerson is a good conservative strategist (and a devout Christian; you can be both). He deeply wants to move the conversation off Notre Dame where, fairly or unfairly, the President’s critics are being seen as disrespectful, ugly, unpatriotic and hate-filled. Gerson wants to get the conversation back to policy.
In the Punic Wars, one of the generals observed that the way to win the battle is to pick the battlefield. Gerson understands this.
April 2, 2009 at 8:56 pm
A good book that broaches this subject is called “Can a Catholic be a Democrat,” By David Carlin (on Amazon).
I read it (along with scores of other books)as part of my discernment as to wether or not I wanted to cross the Tiber. Seeing politicians like the Kennedys, who claim to be Catholic, but being the most pro-abortion pols around gave me great pause…
I hope that someday, some way, cultural Catholics will break those bonds of robotically voting (going back to the Catholic Ghetto days) in anybody with a “D” next to their name.
April 3, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Don’t assume that every Catholic who is (or remains) a registered Democrat actually votes that way. The great Fr. Richard Neuhaus, who was on the front lines of the Civil Rights movement, stayed a Democrat until the very end, although he occasionally mentioned that he rarely votes that way these days.
I have been a registered Democrat since I was 18 and I come from a long line of working class Catholics (Boston Irish on one side and Rust Belt mill workers and coal miners on the other. I am completely fed up with my party and have voted Republican in the last several presidential elections, mainly because of the critical life issues. And I support the Democrats for Life. If any change comes to the Democrats (and I’m not optimistic of course), it will come from within.
Also, many of my Catholic Democrat family members voted for Obama hoping for the best but more than a few are seeing the light now, especially because of the radical moves Obama has made on the life issues in just a couple of short months (with more to come). Don’t assume that the economy drives everything for Catholic Democrats. Many were bamboozled by President Christ Superstar during campaign.
Gerson may be on to something. If the so-called “values voters” delivered the election to Bush in 2004, there could be a similar replay in 2012. Last fall, 2008, was an unusual set of circumstances, with the financial crisis explosion in Sept./Oct. as the main factor in the outcome of the election.