First -
Some Thoughts on the Catholic Vote
Bill Donohue comments on the Catholic vote:
Catholics are a quarter of the electorate, and they voted for Obama over Romney by the same margin as the total electorate, 50%-48%. Contrary to what many pundits are saying, this suggests that the bishops’ campaign for religious liberty, waged against the Health and Human Services mandate, actually paid off: Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote in 2008 to McCain’s 45%.
Some commentators talk about the Catholic vote as if it were monolithic, and others say it doesn’t exist. It would be more accurate to say there are four Catholic votes: practicing and non-practicing; white and Latino.
Among practicing Catholics, Obama received 42% to Romney’s 57%; among non-practicing Catholics, Obama picked up 56% while Romney got 42%.
White Catholics gave Obama 40% of their votes while Romney earned 59%; Latino Catholics gave Obama 71% of their votes while Romney earned 27%.
From previous survey research published by the Pew Forum, we know that practicing Latino Catholics are less likely to support the Democrats than are non-practicing Latinos.
What this shows is that the more practicing a Catholic is, of any ethnic background, the less likely he is to support the more secular of the candidates.
Finally, there is a serious question whether non-practicing Catholics should be considered Catholic. By way of analogy, if someone tells a pollster that he is a vegetarian, but has long since abandoned a veggie-only diet, would it make empirical sense to count him as a vegetarian? Self-identity is an interesting psychological concept, but it is not necessarily an accurate reflection of a person’s biography.
And on taking advice from your opponent ...
Beware Advice from Foes
In the wake of the election, practicing Catholics and Protestants of a traditional orientation have been inundated with advice from their liberal brethren. The advice generally goes like this: to win future elections, conservative Christians need to moderate their views on abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and other issues. In other words, they need to move left so that the liberal agenda can be fulfilled without resistance.
No serious Catholic or Protestant can ever accept the abortion-rights agenda. Moreover, there is less reason to do so now than ever before: more Americans consider themselves to be pro-life than at any time since Roe. This does not mean, however, that pro-life candidates who are manifestly stupid should be nominated.
No serious Catholic or Protestant can ever sanction gay marriage. To do so is not only a breach of Christian teaching, it is a recipe for social instability. This issue remains divisive, but it is worth recalling that until millions of out-of-state dollars were poured into a few state initiatives, the pro-traditional marriage side was 32-0 in state elections.
Immigration is different. On April 20, 2006, I wrote, “The position that the Democrats have staked out on this issue is something many Americans, myself included, feel is superior to that of the Republicans.” For starters, Republicans should cease silly talk about deporting 11 million people and start talking about realistic pathways to citizenship (while simultaneously securing our borders). The American people may not have invited immigrants to come here illegally, but they, along with both the Republicans and the Democrats, have found it very convenient to look the other way while millions did. This ambivalence must end, and it must be reflected in new legislation.
Finally, the religious liberty campaign sponsored by the bishops must go forward. Our foes would like to see it end, which is all the more reason why it must succeed.