A Loyal Constituency Is Restless

SACRAMENTO â€”  The Democratic Party has a growing problem with Catholic voters. In 2000, George W. Bush nearly split the Catholic vote with Al Gore, after former President Bill Clinton had carried Catholics by 16 percentage points four years earlier. In last month’s New York City mayor’s race, Catholics overwhelmingly supported Republican Michael Bloomberg over Democrat Mark Green.

For most of the last century, Catholics were a mainstay of the Democratic Party. In 1928, Democrats nominated the first Catholic to run for president, Al Smith. The first Catholic elected president was Democrat John F. Kennedy in 1960. It was not inaccurate to tag Democrats the party for Catholics and Republicans the party for Protestants.

But sometimes Democrats seem biased against, and often contemptuous of, positions of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. This development could provide an opening for Republicans, which could be especially important in California, where the church-going Catholic electorate is increasingly Asian--especially Filipinos and Vietnamese--and Latino.

The Democrats’ problem is the result of a clash between its old Catholic constituency and its newer members, especially feminists and gay-rights activists, in the context of the cultural divide that was so evident in the 2000 election. Bush ran far ahead of the usual GOP vote in rural America and with regular church attendees; he also won among married voters and women who stay at home with children.

In California, the Democratic strain with Catholic voters goes beyond the cultural clash. The party’s strong stand on certain social issues puts it at odds with several official Catholic positions. Gov. Gray Davis, although a Catholic, has imposed a pro-abortion-rights litmus test for his judicial appointments that goes well beyond being just pro-choice. The Democratic Party strongly opposed Proposition 22, a successful measure on the 2000 ballot that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, while Catholic bishops, citing the church’s traditional teaching, supported it. The bishops also object to embryonic stem cell research, which most California Democrats support.

None of these issues alone will drive ordinary Catholic voters away from the Democratic Party. It has been several generations since the bishops could deliver the Catholic vote. But a case now making its way through the California courts raises the question whether state Democratic leaders are going beyond policy disagreements to target the religious practices of Catholic organizations.

In 1999, at the bidding of Planned Parenthood of California, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed the Women’s Contraceptive Equity Act, co-authored by Assembly Speaker Robert M. Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks) and Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough), requiring religious charities, hospitals and colleges to provide contraceptive benefits to their employees. Last July, Catholic Charities of California sued on freedom-of-religion grounds, contending that it should not be forced to provide birth-control devices if, as a religious institution, it chooses not to.

But the real political damage for Democrats may lie in church leaders’ accusations that the legislation smacks of officially endorsed bigotry against Catholics. They assert that the pope was ridiculed and the church compared to a witch’s coven as the bill moved through the Legislature. Church leaders also worry that the bill is part of a larger effort by feminist groups and their Democratic allies to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion on demand, a matter of growing public debate as the number of Catholic-owned hospitals increases in California. The issue for many Catholics is not so much the legal one of whether Catholic Charities is a business that, as such, should be treated as a secular institution. Rather, it is one of respect: Is there any room left in the Democratic Party for the traditionalist Catholic viewpoint?

David Carlin, the former Democratic majority leader of the Rhode Island Senate, doesn’t think so. In an article titled “How Can a Catholic Be a Democrat?�, Carlin complains that his party is not only pro-abortion, but also in favor of same-sex marriage, physician-assisted suicide, stem-cell research and even cloning embryos. “If you’re a Catholic,� he writes, “how can you possibly continue to be a Democrat when the Democratic Party can be relied on to support the rejection of Christian values and their replacement by un-Christian or anti-Christian values?�

Carlin’s views are probably not shared by mainstream California Catholics, but they touch a nerve. If the Democrats are viewed as cavalier toward Catholic sensibilities, they could be in for the same shock that hit Republicans after they championed anti-immigrant policies in the 1990s. The GOP not only stirred up a political backlash among pro-Democratic Latinos and Asians, it also lost its political base among these groups. In California, Catholic moral positions may be less defined among white voters--fewer people identify themselves as Irish or Italian Democrats in the way Catholic voting blocs once did--but more defined among Latinos. Although the anti-gay Proposition 22 passed among all voters, Latinos supported it by margins 10% higher than any other group.

The Catholic Church has deep ties with Latino voters. Its bishops were strong supporters of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Union. In the 1980s, Southern evangelical Christians moved away from their historic home in the Democratic Party; in recent elections, Italian and Irish Catholics seem to be doing the same thing. These national trends may not have reached California yet, but what if churchgoing Latinos and Asians begin to sense an anti-Catholic bias among California Democrats? The impact on California politics could be direct and immediate.

Republicans, to be sure, will grasp at any straw in their comeback effort in California, and the Bush administration has zealously courted Latino voters throughout the country. Twice before, in the 1960s with Ronald Reagan and in the 1970s with Proposition 13, Republicans recovered when Democrats alienated their core constituencies. In the 1960s, it was working-class voters; in the 1970s, it was middle-income homeowners. Will Democrats give Republicans a third chance by alienating Catholics?

*

Tony Quinn is co-editor of “California Target Book,� an analysis of congressional and legislative races in the state.