The Catholic Thing
For Democrats, It’s 1972 Print E-mail
By Mark Stricherz   
Saturday, 03 December 2011

As recently as two years ago, the conventional wisdom was that the Democratic Party planned to make peace with religious and cultural conservatives. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, a liberal Catholic, wrote: “(o)ne of (Obama’s) important promises was to end the cultural and religious wars that have disfigured American politics for four decades.”

Like Andrew Sullivan, who wrote an influential cover story for The Atlantic about the same subject, Dionne stopped short of predicting that President Obama would do so. Yet both Sullivan and Dionne portrayed Obama as a likely healer, an executive who would seek common ground on controversial social issues, such as abortion.

Obama’s first years in office seemed to fulfill the meliorists’ hopes. At his commencement speech at Notre Dame in May 2009, Obama struck a conciliatory note:

Let us reduce the number of women seeking abortions. Let’s reduce the unintended pregnancies. . . .Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.

Obama was not the only Democrat whose rhetoric on cultural issues claimed to be centrist. Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania was elected senator in 2006 as an avowed pro-life Democrat. All of the party’s major 2008 presidential candidates – Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Obama – declared their opposition to gay marriage.

But for Democrats, it’s not 2008 anymore. It’s 1972 – the year that cultural liberals became associated in the public mind with the Democratic Party. Celebrities such as Warren Beatty, Shirley MacLaine, and Gloria Steinem worked the floors and backrooms of the party’s national convention in Miami Beach to get George McGovern nominated.

While Republicans love to portray Democrats as hostage to cultural elites and young radicals, Democrats are giving headaches to two of their socially moderate constituencies, progressive Catholics and evangelicals. Dionne, for example, complained recently that the party’s pro-choice supporters were “undercut(ting)” progressive Catholics because they insist that religious institutions should not be exempt from the contraception mandate.

Dionne has reason to complain, and not just because of the HHS requirement. In the past eleven months, the administration has: rejected the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ bid for the human trafficking contract, despite that the USCCB scored “significantly higher” than competitors. And the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which declares a state does not have to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state, will no longer be defended in federal courts.

Why have Democrats dropped moderation? The answer is that the Democratic Party is like nothing so much as a professional baseball team that is adjusting course before the trade deadline. Its front office is playing the rookies instead of the vets, and it has new minority owners attempting to seize an historic opportunity to win it all.

The front office in the Democratic Party, so to speak, is its presidential strategists, such as Obama’s chief lieutenant, David Axelrod, and longtime pollster Stanley Greenberg. Both have implied or said outright that Obama’s best path to re-election is to appeal to college-educated whites rather.

“There are a lot of ways for us to get to 270, and it’s not just the traditional map,” Axelrod told The New York Times. Axelrod’s comment was decoded in a follow-up story last month. “(W)e battled to get them back,” Greenberg said of appeals to working-class white voters: “They were sizeable in number and central to the base of the Democratic Party. . . (W)e didn’t know that we would never get them back, that they were alienated and dislodged.” Greenberg added that he is, “much more interested in the affluent suburban voters than the former Reagan Democrats.”

While working-class whites are no longer a redoubt of cultural conservatism, they are considerably more conservative about abortion than college-educated whites. Witness an April 2010 Gallup poll that asked respondents if abortion should be legal under any circumstance: 31 percent of college graduates agreed, 26 percent of those with some college, and 18 percent of those with a high-school degree.

Little wonder, then, that the Obama administration rejected the human-trafficking contract and, at least so far, has ignored religious institutions on the contraception mandate. The Obama White House decided it needs the votes, money, and support of pro-choice Democrats more than the progressive Catholics and evangelicals.

The new minority owners in the Democratic Party are gay donors, such as Obama’s campaign finance director, Rufus Gifford, and the White House social secretary, Jeremy Bernard. Gifford and Bernard are just two of the fifteen gay men who sit on Obama’s finance committee, according to Politico.

While polls show that the public is divided on whether homosexuals should be granted the right to marry, thirty states have banned gay nuptials and a Democrat, President Bill Clinton, signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act into law. Legalizing gay marriage in all fifty states would be nothing short of radical – more radical, for example, than the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade that invalidated the handful of state laws that banned abortion altogether. Radical, but it would represent a staggering victory for gay donors if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA.

It’s little wonder, too, that the Obama administration has dropped its defense of DOMA. It wants the money, votes, and activism of gays.

Not all Democratic administrations are the same, of course. One can imagine a Hillary Clinton administration reaching out to working-class whites and religious progressives more than Obama will in 2012.

This would also mean dropping the pretence that a Democratic administration would prefer to call a truce in the culture war than simply win it altogether.

The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.    

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (7)Add Comment
written by MikeS, December 03, 2011
The Democrats have come clean, they despise the religious beliefs of the majority of the American people. The Republicans still at the very least pretend to respect traditional Christian views.

We are witnessing a very clear example of the two elites capable of running an advanced capitalist society, the holders of intellectual and financial capital, vying for enough mass popular support to take control of the state.

The Republican party is a rightist coalition of financial Capital (Wall street, banks etc) and Labor, or at least those portions of labor employed in the private sector, which forms the majority of workers. This coalition, the Marxist nightmare, isn't supposed to happen, which is why Europeans have such a hard time understanding American politics. The Republicans at least publicly defer to the beliefs of the average American worker.

The Democratic party is a leftist coalition of intellectual Capital (Professors and other intellectuals) and state employed Labor (public unions) plus the "outsiders", (racial/ethnic minorities, assorted other fringe groups like feminists and homosexuals and European political commentators). Thus their platform is a heterogeneous hodgepodge of "progressive" special pleading, with something for every individual special interest group in this fragmented constituency.

This election will reflect the increased polarization of American society between the mainstream of the American tradition and the united radical offscourings. However much we may dislike or distrust the Republiucan candidate it is clear that Mr. Obama will be the greater evil.
written by Manfred, December 03, 2011
Thank you for a well researched and well laid out article, Mr. Stricherz. In my opinion you have captured all the salient points of the current discussion. Now that the battle lines are so clearly drawn, the Church MUST exercise Its right and obligation to excommunicate all those "Catholics" who insist in opposing It on the subjects of abortion and aberrosexual "marriage". Why? Because only then will the Catholic in the street (who is no longer in the pew)realize this matter is very, very serious and vote in support of his Church's positions, no matter how tenuous his relationship with It is at this time.
written by John Whaley, December 03, 2011
Our social and economic situation calls for a change of leadership. Not only are we spending our way to oblivion but our spending is misappropriated.
written by Joseph Anthony, December 03, 2011
Consciencegate has been a God-send for those who think the Obama administration is leading us seriously down the wrong the track. I know of Catholics who would want to vote for Obama and would try to justify voting for him despite how wrong he is on moral issues, but I think every one of them can be convinced to not vote for him based off of the decision on conscience rights. Obama set himself up as the enemy of Catholics in general by doing that. It's an enormously stupid thing to do.

Of course, from a non-political position, these are terrible things for Catholics. I have horrible visions of a future where Catholics must be perpetually breaking the law to practice our faith flashing before my eyes.
written by Louis Smith, December 04, 2011
Nice article except that the Supreme Court didn't just invalidata a handfull of state lawsrestricting abortion - it invalidated all state laws.
written by John S, December 04, 2011
Excellent article. Be warned, however: Whatever the outcome of this election, even if the Obama candidacy goes up in flames, the cultural war is far from over, and it's outcome is far from assured. Much prayer and fasting will be necessary, and much suffering for the Church will ensue before the tide is turned, I'm afraid.
written by Steve, December 04, 2011
In reply to Mike S.; What does it mean to label the Republican Party as a rightist coalition.? It means absolutely nothing. Both parties try to assemble constituencies. Wall St., banks and the wealthy have favored the Democrats over Republicans in the last two elections.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


Other Articles By This Author