Steven Waldman suggests I take another look at my argument that Obama will not do well among Catholics if he is the nominee in November. If, as I argue, Obama turns off socially conservative Catholics, in part, because of his abortion extremism then Clinton should have the same problem. Fair enough, good question.
It’s important to remember that the present battle between Clinton and Obama is for Catholic Democrats. These are Catholic voters who have resisted the steady migration of Catholics out of the Democratic Party into the GOP. The life issues and their symbolism, mentioned in my last post, are going to play an even bigger role in the general election. Either Obama or Clinton will be facing those Catholics who have made the move, however tentatively, to the GOP.
Given that Clinton, as Waldman says, is just as pro-abortion as Obama what makes her more appealing to Catholic voters and thus a more formidable foe to John McCain in November? (I agree with Waldman that the Catholic nun argument is laughable.)
Part of the answer is that Hillary inherits much of the Catholic goodwill bestowed upon her husband who for two presidential elections brought Catholic voters back toward the Democratic Party. Notice the interview on Beliefnet with former Vatican Ambassador Ray Flynn. Flynn’s vote for Hillary Clinton in the Massachusetts Primary made national news, in part because he had snubbed the candidacy of John Kerry. Flynn’s interview is revealing; it reveals the attraction ethnic Catholics like Amb. Flynn have for the Clintons in spite of their pro-abortion stance. Note especially that Flynn underscores Hillary Clinton’s support for traditional marriage, a very touchy point among Catholic voters. This comment from Flynn summarizes Clinton’s appeal to Catholic voters: “On the issues that are really important to Catholics—health care, children, and families—Clinton has a long record of experience.”
This approach won Bill Clinton 44% of the Catholic vote in 1992, but was qualified by the fact that in 1992 Perot won 21% of Catholics. George H. W. Bush got a paltry 35%. Three million Catholics switched parties in 1992 creating the swing vote that all presidential candidates have aimed at ever since. In 1996, Dole would repeat most of Bush’s mistakes and receive only 37% of Catholic voting, though he did much better among religiously active Catholics. Clinton took 54% and Perot 7% in 1996.
Both as a campaigner and as president, Bill Clinton had an effective Catholic strategy, as Waldman mentions. He targeted “Reagan Democrats” in areas hit by economic troubles. He reframed the social justice approach as a family issue. Just as important, Clinton courted Catholic voters. He couldn’t win hardcore social conservatives, but he surrounded himself with popular Catholic politicians like Irish Flynn and the Italian Cuomo who still had appeal among ethnic Catholics.
I completely agree with Waldman that Obama’s only hope is to build some kind of bridge to social conservatives. I made that suggestion in an unsolicited memo I wrote to the Obama campaign. I suggested if he can’t find common ground with pro-life, pro-family Catholic voters he should, at least, show respect for their position. He could also talk about the contribution of Catholic social service institutions and the principle of subsidiarity they represent. I specifically suggested he announce support for continued funding of the White House faith-based initiative. Now THAT would get some attention!
Finally, as Waldman notes, Steve Wagner and I did underestimate Obama’s appeal to “the small religious sect called Protestants.” This, I think, is due to our lack of appreciation of Obama’s basic appeal, a set of qualities which the Wright controversy has seriously tarnished. Obama’s attractiveness, in my opinion, is not merely his call for “change” but for a change of tone in American politics. Americans are tired of polemics, although we are invariably drawn to them in the age of 24-hour cable news and blogs. Obama’s freshness, his affability, his promises of bringing people together, all had great magnetism at the beginning of his campaign. I disagree with those who advise him to “go negative” — it makes him sound too much like the pastor whose sermons he heard for twenty years.
There’s a reason Oprah Winfrey helped to ignite his campaign; she has tremendous and well-deserved respect around the country. Oprah needs to replace Rev. Wright as the person the public most associates with Barack Obama.