The common good
There's been stuff all over the web about how Catholic Democrats have been voting and why, from TIME to America magazine's blog to dotCommonweal, asserting that Catholics are conservative and/or racist. I think those assertions are false.
The Pew Forum had a good rarticle on the subject here - Does Obama Have a Problem Among
Catholic Voters?/April 25, 2008
I thought I'd post a bit from an earlier article from The Pew Forum - Courting Catholics in 2008/April 3, 2008 .....
*******************
In the Democratic race, Catholics have been called one of Hillary Clinton’s most reliable constituencies. What explains her success?
She has done very well among white Catholics, particularly in Midwestern and Northeastern states. But she has also done very well among Hispanic Catholics in places like Texas and Nevada. So Catholics have indeed been a very important source of support for Sen. Clinton. Sen. Barack Obama has made a real effort to make inroads into the Catholic vote but not with a lot of success in most states.
There are a couple of different reasons Clinton may have done so well among white Catholics. Some of this could have to do with the fact that the Catholic community knows Sen. Clinton well, knows her husband – former President Clinton – and maybe doesn’t know Sen. Obama as well, with the possible exception of Catholics in Illinois.
Many white Catholics in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania have other characteristics that may lead them to vote for Hillary Clinton: Many are older, from ethnic backgrounds, are working-class people and members of labor unions – all groups that have tended to support Hillary Clinton.
There may be some religious reasons for this support as well. Roman Catholics tend to have a communal focus on politics, particularly when it comes to social welfare issues. Sen. Clinton over the years has talked about social welfare issues in a way that can appeal to those communal values of white Catholics. For example, a few years ago, Hillary Clinton wrote a book called It Takes a Village, in which she talked about how the community should come together for the welfare of children. Many conservatives criticized that book, arguing that it was collectivist, having a village rather than a family take care of children. But to many Catholics, this sounded like just the right degree of communal involvement in the welfare of children .....
***********************
The latest article at The Pew Forum is about religion and progressive politics, and one of the groups mentioned is Catholics United .....
**********************
GREEN: Chris, tell us a little bit about Catholics United for the Common Good and your take on recent events.
KORZEN: Sure, our organization is actually Catholics United, and we got our start back in 2004 with an experience very similar to what other folks in the religious community dealt with. There was at that point a very organized attempt by the Republican Party and by conservative Catholic organizations to reduce to just a handful the scope of issues that Catholics should consider when they go to vote. And they were these issues that played very well to a conservative and Republican agenda: abortion, same-sex marriage and issues like that.
We understood that our church called us to a much deeper level of political engagement. In fact, the U.S. Catholic Bishops had put out in 2003, as they do ahead of every election, a document detailing some 50 issues that folks should consider. And that included poverty and war and the death penalty. The point of it wasn’t that we can reduce our faith to just a handful of issues or any issues at all, but we have to consider the connections among them. And more importantly, what can we do as a society? How can we have a productive political conversation about how to build the common good? ......
There is a group out of the Midwest called the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. There are orders like the Sisters of Mercy, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and groups like that. Pax Christi USA and Network (a national Catholic social justice lobby based here in Washington) have been really strong allies in this. And in fact, we launched with them over the summer a project called Catholics for an End to the War in Iraq; it is primarily an online petition-type movement that is geared toward bringing more attention to that issue .......
The U.S. Catholic bishops, in their 2003 Faithful Citizenship document (the 2007 document, which is similar to the 2003 one, is available here), include this line that says, “The important question we should be asking in politics is not, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ The question is, ‘How are all of us, and especially the poor, faring?’”
And for as long as I can remember, the dominant political narrative in this country has been basically, how do we all succeed on our own and how do we free up the individual to pursue his or her own interest without concern for the broader community? And we’ve seen the erosion of government in the process and this political trajectory that’s said: You’re basically on your own.
I think the mortgage crisis and the failure of the economy in general that we’re worried about now is evidence of how that thinking hasn’t achieved what we should be trying to achieve as a society – as well as the fact that we don’t have health care. And so, we need to be shifting our political discourse and starting to ask, “What is the role of government in ensuring that people have these basic needs? How can we come together as a society and as individuals – for us not to be just citizens pursuing our own objectives, but to really work toward the broader success of everyone?” Questions like that. That is the essence of the common good ....
**************************
The Pew Forum had a good rarticle on the subject here - Does Obama Have a Problem Among
Catholic Voters?/April 25, 2008
I thought I'd post a bit from an earlier article from The Pew Forum - Courting Catholics in 2008/April 3, 2008 .....
*******************
In the Democratic race, Catholics have been called one of Hillary Clinton’s most reliable constituencies. What explains her success?
She has done very well among white Catholics, particularly in Midwestern and Northeastern states. But she has also done very well among Hispanic Catholics in places like Texas and Nevada. So Catholics have indeed been a very important source of support for Sen. Clinton. Sen. Barack Obama has made a real effort to make inroads into the Catholic vote but not with a lot of success in most states.
There are a couple of different reasons Clinton may have done so well among white Catholics. Some of this could have to do with the fact that the Catholic community knows Sen. Clinton well, knows her husband – former President Clinton – and maybe doesn’t know Sen. Obama as well, with the possible exception of Catholics in Illinois.
Many white Catholics in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania have other characteristics that may lead them to vote for Hillary Clinton: Many are older, from ethnic backgrounds, are working-class people and members of labor unions – all groups that have tended to support Hillary Clinton.
There may be some religious reasons for this support as well. Roman Catholics tend to have a communal focus on politics, particularly when it comes to social welfare issues. Sen. Clinton over the years has talked about social welfare issues in a way that can appeal to those communal values of white Catholics. For example, a few years ago, Hillary Clinton wrote a book called It Takes a Village, in which she talked about how the community should come together for the welfare of children. Many conservatives criticized that book, arguing that it was collectivist, having a village rather than a family take care of children. But to many Catholics, this sounded like just the right degree of communal involvement in the welfare of children .....
***********************
The latest article at The Pew Forum is about religion and progressive politics, and one of the groups mentioned is Catholics United .....
**********************
GREEN: Chris, tell us a little bit about Catholics United for the Common Good and your take on recent events.
KORZEN: Sure, our organization is actually Catholics United, and we got our start back in 2004 with an experience very similar to what other folks in the religious community dealt with. There was at that point a very organized attempt by the Republican Party and by conservative Catholic organizations to reduce to just a handful the scope of issues that Catholics should consider when they go to vote. And they were these issues that played very well to a conservative and Republican agenda: abortion, same-sex marriage and issues like that.
We understood that our church called us to a much deeper level of political engagement. In fact, the U.S. Catholic Bishops had put out in 2003, as they do ahead of every election, a document detailing some 50 issues that folks should consider. And that included poverty and war and the death penalty. The point of it wasn’t that we can reduce our faith to just a handful of issues or any issues at all, but we have to consider the connections among them. And more importantly, what can we do as a society? How can we have a productive political conversation about how to build the common good? ......
There is a group out of the Midwest called the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. There are orders like the Sisters of Mercy, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and groups like that. Pax Christi USA and Network (a national Catholic social justice lobby based here in Washington) have been really strong allies in this. And in fact, we launched with them over the summer a project called Catholics for an End to the War in Iraq; it is primarily an online petition-type movement that is geared toward bringing more attention to that issue .......
The U.S. Catholic bishops, in their 2003 Faithful Citizenship document (the 2007 document, which is similar to the 2003 one, is available here), include this line that says, “The important question we should be asking in politics is not, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ The question is, ‘How are all of us, and especially the poor, faring?’”
And for as long as I can remember, the dominant political narrative in this country has been basically, how do we all succeed on our own and how do we free up the individual to pursue his or her own interest without concern for the broader community? And we’ve seen the erosion of government in the process and this political trajectory that’s said: You’re basically on your own.
I think the mortgage crisis and the failure of the economy in general that we’re worried about now is evidence of how that thinking hasn’t achieved what we should be trying to achieve as a society – as well as the fact that we don’t have health care. And so, we need to be shifting our political discourse and starting to ask, “What is the role of government in ensuring that people have these basic needs? How can we come together as a society and as individuals – for us not to be just citizens pursuing our own objectives, but to really work toward the broader success of everyone?” Questions like that. That is the essence of the common good ....
**************************
posted by crystal | 1:33 PM
16 Comments:
Crystal, you may have to throw me off, but as long as the Church has only one issue--opposition to sex, hidden behind "right to life", the bishops can say all they want but some catholics can't see through the smokescreen and will follow the hate filled pomposity of Weigel, Novak, etc. The catholic hierarchy holds hands with the one issue folks. Of course, as I have pointed out on my blog the average catholic does not follow the hierarchy on that one issue, so what the bishops say has no meaning: ignored by non-catholics and a majority of catholics. What our church could do if they would have a general council on sex with lay participants. I suggest a merger of Southern Baptists and Catholics into one giant one issue religion, with the understanding that the laity don't have to pay attention to the leadership. Jack
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jack,
If I throw you off the blog, it won't be because I disagree with you views about the church, but because of the bad things you have posted about Jeff, Liam, Mike, Garpu, and Cowboy Angel, all of whom are friends I esteem greatly.
Well, it's your blog. Of course your friends are spotless. Rocks and glass houses! Jack
Jack, I'm not saying you can't come here. I'm just trying to both be upfront and find a way to live with everyone.
Crystal, I appreciate your response. Let me say with all honesty that you may have been sold a bill of goods. I do not recall saying any "bad' things about your friends until they have rudely attacked me first. But, of course, your blog should not be used to settle other peoples disputes. Jack
Crystal,
This is your second post on the topic, and we were discussing the same thing on Jeff's blog. Something seems to have caught your attention. Any idea what it is in the subject matter that intrigues you?
While I acknowledge that there does seem to be a trend of Catholics supporting Clinton, I'm still not convinced that religion is the primary, or even secondary, reason for the trend.
In Missouri, the closest contest between Obama and Clinton, Obama won the Catholic vote and Clinton won the Protestant vote. What does that mean?
I'd really like to see more detailed information on the people identifying themselves as "Catholic" in these exit polls. My guess is that other factors like age, income, education and ethnicity would do a better job of explaining why they're choosing Clinton.
There may be something to what you raised on Jeff's post, about Obama using a speech style that seems more Protestant. But I'm just not sure it's really what causes someone to vote for Clinton.
Interestingly, in a few polls I looked at, Obama was doing better among Catholics who attend Mass weekly than those who don't. What does that mean?
My sense is that the Catholic thing is a misleading trend. Overly simplified statistics telling an incomplete story. The media picks up on it, however, and it starts to generate its own inertia.
But I'm curious about your own theories on the matter.
William,
I do think it is more about money, education, age than religion, as you say - those groups (the poor, under-educated, elderly) are maybe less likely or able to take a chance than people who are insulated by money, education and youth.
Maybe Clinton seems a safer choice to them since they remember her husband's time in office when social services and the economy were better, or because she has put emphasiso on helping the working classes while Obama has distanced himself from them.
I keep writing about it probably because I feel guilty about supporting her and I'm looking for acceptable reasons to do so.
Why would you feel guilty about supporting her? You're certainly not alone in that. Your state voted for her. Millions of other people have voted for her.
she has put emphasis on helping the working classes while Obama has distanced himself from them.
You'd have to give me evidence that Obama has "distanced" himself from the working class. They aren't voting for him as much as they're voting for her, but that doesn't mean he's distanced himself from them. She wants you to believe he's distant from them, but that's just campaign rhetoric. She's a Yalie, married to one of the most powerful men in the world, a couple who've made hundreds of millions of dollars over the last few years. He grew up with a single mom on food stamps. But somehow he's the elite guy? Please.
People working a lot don't necessarily pay a lot of attention to political news. I would argue that some of her support comes from people who simple know her better. As you say, people who remember the Clintons from before.
Crystal, I support Obama but reject the effort to demonize Senator Clinton. I was throw off two blogs for even making a suggestion as to what Obama might do to help him win. Of course you are being 'terrorize' by Obama zealots. Well, at least they're trying. Why do you feel guilty for having some Clinton sympathies. I have followed every Presidential election since 1940. This one is milk toast. Innuendo is not evidence. Jack
Hey, Crystal. I am a strong Obama supporter. Alice (my wife) is an Obama zealot. She loved Bill, but now hates them both. I put this here so some wise a.. won't have to think up a reply.:) Jack
Wliilam,
The guilt - I haven't really read all I should about her and when someone as kind as Liam calls her thedevil twice :) then I start feeling guilty.
About Obama distancing himself - I'm thinking of bitter-gate. A person who was once poor does not necessarily want to allaign himself with those who still are, though of course I can't speak for Obama. But although the Clintons do have money, I can see from Bill's past record that he did indeed "feel our pain" :) - his acts spoke for him in that his presidency did well with social services. Maybe I'm just nostalgic - Bill is one of only two guys (the other was Carter) that I ever voted for who actually won.
Jack,
I probably feel guilty in part because I'm deciding who to vote for mostly by emotion. I think she'll be a better president, but I'm basing that more on feelings than facts.
Crystal, Well everyone else is. I just want Bush defeated!!!! Emotion. You bet. Jack
I can see from Bill's past record that he did indeed "feel our pain" :) - his acts spoke for him in that his presidency did well with social services.
I think differing perceptions of Bill Clinton's administration is one of the main things that separates people who support Hillary from those who do not.
You look back at Bill's administration and feel he did well with social services and cared about the poor. I look back and see a man who very purposefully moved the Democratic Party over to the right. Who sided with Republicans to shove through NAFTA over the Dems, even though he said during the primaries that he was against it. Who sided with the Republicans to finally eliminate Welfare, something even Reagan couldn't do, fighting against Dems who wanted a better transition plan. Who passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that allowed major corporations to start buying up lots of newspapers and radio and TV stations in a single locale, so now we have right-wingers like Rupert Murdoch and Clear Channel controlling large chunks of the media. Some have argued, and I think there's a legitimate argument to make, that Clinton was to the right of even Nixon in terms of economics.
So during this primary, I hear all these people complaining about losing jobs that go out of the country, but they never seem to make a connection to Bill Clinton, who was the man most responsible for that. Instead, he cares about the poor. It genuinely befuddles me.
I'm not trying to argue with you here, just pointing out what I think is behind some of the animosity on one hand towards the Clintons, and support for them on the other. And I think it's hard for each side to understand the other. Not only are the perceptions very different, but the intensity of the perceptions are strong.
You're right. I'm not as up on the facts as you - I had to go and look stuff up :)
A pege, On the Issues (scroll to the bottom of page), has info on what he did in different areas, and though he did change Welfare, he did help in other ways .... civil rights, health care. Maybe I remember him fondly because he seemed so much better than the republican he had replaced.
Post a Comment
<< Home