Courting Catholics.

RAYMOND Flynn, U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, recently wrote to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops asserting Pope John Paul II's support for the Clinton Administration's welfare policies. The President himself will be visiting Northern Ireland before the year is out. These Democrats are responding to a political development that has escaped most Republicans: the Catholic vote is now up for grabs, and neither party can win the White House without it. In Republican circles, where the important evangelical vote is much discussed, little attention has been paid to the fact that last fall, for the first time in history, a majority of Catholics voted for Republican congressional candidates. Representing up to 30 per cent of the national vote, Catholics historically have been a key part of the Democrats' base. But Jimmy Carter in 1976 was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of their support. Only 43 per cent of Catholics voted for Bill Clinton. However, this disaffection has not carried over to local elections -- until now. In 1992, 57 per cent of Catholics supported Democratic congressional candidates. But in 1994, 52 per cent supported the GOP, a rate higher than the national average. William B. Prendergast, who is completing a book, Catholics and the Republican Party, 1854 - 1992, believes the swing last November is particularly significant because it happened in an off year, and therefore cannot be attributed to an attractive candidate at the top of the ticket, like Eisenhower in 1956, or Reagan in 1984. Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio points out that Clinton's initially favorable rating among Catholics began evaporating as he increasingly appeared to be an old-fashioned liberal rather than a new-fangled Democrat. Fabrizio notes that on both cultural and economic issues, Catholics identify themselves as conservative rather than liberal by a 2 to 1 margin. Fabrizio's partner, John McLaughlin, notes another factor in Clinton's sinking approval rating: Paula Jones. Last November Catholic women defected to Republican congressional candidates, the monogamy gap apparently trumping the gender gap. In 1988, the Democrats finally abandoned even the pretense of caring about Catholic sensibilities when boilerplate language praising parochial schools and recognizing deep moral divisions on the abortion issue were dropped from the party platform. The Administration's alienation from Catholics has been noted by no less an authority than its own Vatican ambassador. A year ago Ray Flynn, who is now invoking the Pope in his caustic partisan remarks against the Republicans, was blasting his fellow Democrats for anti-Catholic bigotry. In a letter to the President, Flynn wrote that he was ``embarrassed'' by the ``ugly anti-Catholic bias that is shown by prominent members of Congress and the Administration.'' Still, Flynn will reportedly resign his post to head up ``Catholics to Re-elect Clinton,'' in which post he will work to convince his co-religionists that an Administration that supports taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, opposes school choice, and appointed Catholic-basher Joycelyn Elders as surgeon general deserves their support. The alienation of Catholic voters could get worse just when poor Ray Flynn hopes to make it better. The UN Conference on Women this fall in Peking promises to be a repeat of last year's gathering in Cairo, which showcased the anti-Catholicism of the international Left, with Administration representatives on prominent display. Despite these obstacles, however, if Republicans remain largely apathetic toward the Catholic vote, it is not at all certain that the Democrats will be unsuccessful. Prendergast points out that the Catholic shift in November ``was not due to any strenuous effort on the part of Republicans.'' He recalls that Catholics did abandon George Bush in 1992: Ross Perot got 20 per cent of the Catholic vote, and Prendergast doubts that Perot's share has become strongly bound to the GOP. This is underscored when one considers what a striking rejection of both Clinton and Bush the Perot Catholic vote represents: Catholics have historically supported third-party challenges at a far lower rate than non-Catholics. The fact that the House Republican caucus has itself become more Catholic is also little remarked upon. Indeed, one observer wonders if Newt Gingrich realizes that the class of freshmen who put him in the Speaker's chair is disproportionately Catholic. Catholics now account for 24 per cent of the House Republican caucus, more than double the figure of 25 years ago. Willfully Deaf Democrats IN THE summer of 1976, Adam Walinsky, who had been one of Bobby Kennedy's legislative aides, wrote an impassioned memo pleading with Jimmy Carter to make a special appeal to ethnic Catholics. He worried that the party was going to make the same mistake it had with McGovern in 1972, when special-interest coalitions aligned against the remnants of the Al Smith party. ``No sensible person,'' Walinsky told Carter, ``could adopt the liberal positions on [quotas, crime, welfare, etc.]; these positions must be adopted solely to get votes.'' When asked this year what attention was paid to his warning, he laughs, ``I don't think Carter ever stopped saying 'Eye-talian.''' Where Walinsky once saw Democratic doom, two Irish-American veterans of Maryland precinct politics now see Republican opportunity. In a memo circulating in Washington, Joe Barrett and Bob Tobin detail the change in Catholics' voting patterns and highlight the issues and political language important to them. They warn that despite the welcome mat put out by Ronald Reagan, these voters still view the GOP with suspicion. Barrett points to the GOP's history as a party dominated by upper-class Protestants. His succinct advice? ``Stop sending Buffy into South Philadelphia to sell your candidates.'' Looking at the '96 Republican field, Barrett thinks Bob Dole has some natural advantages, including his military record. Barrett reports that Dole's condemnation of the anti-Catholic movie Priest a few weeks ago was noticed by Catholic Democrats who are angry about anti-Catholicism. Pat Buchanan's campaign aides see the Catholic vote as critical to his efforts and believe that he has a message on both economic and cultural issues that resonates with Catholics. However, one pro-life lobbyist notes, ``Although Pat is one of the nicest men in politics, his public tone might be a problem, because Catholics are not an angry vote. It is important to stress compassion to this 'Judge Not' vote.'' In general, Republican campaign operatives don't appear to be doing very much yet to follow the advice of Prendergast, Barrett, Tobin, et al. Little attention has been paid to marketing positions attractive to evangelical voters in ways that would also appeal to Catholics. Adam Walinsky reminds Republicans that ethnic Catholics are not reflexively anti-government. Reforms must highlight how they are intended to help people. Even the criticism of federal law enforcement could be heard differently by a Catholic audience if perceived as an unfair attack on the overwhelmingly Catholic FBI. But heightened awareness of Catholic sensibilities could translate into Catholic support for virtually the entire Republican agenda. Millions of Catholic voters are looking for a political home. If Republicans convince them they've found it within the GOP, a permanent political realignment will have taken place.