Democrats, Judaism & Togo.

NO LITMUS TEST 

Mark Stricherz's article on Catholics and the Democratic Party ("Goodbye, Catholics," November 4) was both fascinating and instructive, but I believe his analysis of where the Democratic Party stands today is too simplistic. As a prolife Catholic Democratic congressman, I can say with conviction and firsthand experience that it is inaccurate to state that the Democratic Party "imposes a litmus test on the abortion issue." The author gives the example of Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey, who was denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic Convention. However, times have changed since then. Indeed, current Democratic leaders recruited Bob Casey's son, who is prolife, and cleared the primary field for him to run for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania. The latest polls put Bob Casey Jr. 18 points ahead of Rick Santorum in a state in which the electorate is 35 percent Catholic. As further evidence, I am leading a group of prolife Democratic members of Congress in drafting the 95-10 Initiative, a comprehensive proposal of more than a dozen policy programs that, when funded, will attempt to reduce the number of abortions in America by 95 percent over the next ten years.

The Democratic Party is inclusive of prolife candidates, officeholders, and voters. Catholics are welcome in the Democratic Party and the party is fortunate to have their support. I would encourage Mr. Stricherz to take a closer look at the Democratic Party as it is today.

TIM RYAN 

Washington, D.C.

The writer represents Ohio's seventeenth district.

CATHOLICS & THE DEMOCRATS

Mark Stricherz's analysis of the defection of Catholics from the Democratic Party is wanting in several areas. Stricherz's article seems to suggest that Catholics would still be players in the party if the reforms of the McGovern Commission had not been adopted. Yet it could be argued that Catholics have had more opportunity to influence the party under the rules first implemented in 1972--rules that opened the party to all views. Sadly, for the last thirty years Catholics have remained mostly passive in shaping party policy.

Under the current rules, the Democratic Party is as inclusive as any nationwide organization can be, beginning at the neighborhood precinct "conventions" held every presidential election year. By and large Catholics have simply failed to compete in this process, instead moving to the Republican camp. The only Catholics who have remained active in the party are labor leaders, a fact that Stricherz seems to dismiss. The kitchen-table issues--the right to unionize and to a living wage, health care for all, quality education, workplace safety--are still being promoted by these leaders. Though their numbers have diminished dramatically in recent years, unions have endorsed and funded the campaigns of many local, state, and congressional Democratic candidates. However, studies show that many of the Catholic union rank and file, like many American Catholics, are swayed by the wedge issues skillfully played by the GOP: guns, gays, and abortion.

Catholic Democratic leaders need to reach out to their brothers and sisters in the pews and let them know they have the power to reshape the priorities of the party of Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. The Democrats have rules that, for the politically skilled Catholic, can be used to protect the common good.

JIM WAYNE

Louisville, Ky.

The writer is a representative in the Kentucky Legislature.

FRIEND OF THE SAUDIS

Mark Stricherz's focus on Fred Dutton as one of the chief architects of the "new politics" of the Democratic Party is well taken. Yet the portrait of Dutton himself is radically incomplete. Yes, he was a lover of cigars and fine wines, but what the article doesn't mention is that Dutton bought those items thanks to his work as the chief flack for Saudi Arabia in the United States. Looking at Dutton's life after his service with Robert Kennedy, you could well argue that from undermining the Democratic Party to advancing Wahhabi interests in Washington, few non-officeholders did more damage to the United States over the past thirty years.

FRED SIEGEL 

New York, N.Y.

PROPHETS OF DOOM

Ever since the first election of President Richard Nixon, observers of the American political process have proclaimed ex cathedra that Catholics are leaving the Democratic Party. Daniel Finn ("Hello, Catholics," November 4) and Mark Stricherz are only the most recent prophets of doom. They are wrong, as have been all previous "experts." The least they could do would be to consult the relevant social-science literature, most notably the work of my colleagues Clem Brooks and Jeff Manza.

Studying presidential elections since 1952, they found that, taking into account all pertinent variables, especially the swing of the general population in a given election, there have been only two major religious realignments in the past half century: the movement of religiously liberal Protestants to the Democratic Party and religiously conservative Protestants to the Republican Party. The pertinent comparison is the difference in a given election between the proportion of Catholics voting for the Democratic candidate and the proportion of white Protestants voting Democratic. The difference is usually between 15 and 20 percentage points.

Stricherz is quite correct in one respect. The McGovernites, not being able to count votes, thought they could win without Catholics. Hence, they tossed George Meany and Richard Daley out of the convention. They were buried in the 1972 election, not only by Catholics but by everyone else--though not disproportionately by Catholics--given the shift in the whole electorate.

Finally, values was not the decisive issue in the 2004 general election, as both articles seem to suggest; national security was. John Kerry lost because he was not able to provide a convincing alternative to the Bush administration's national security policy. (Neither do Democrats today, who seem to think they can win in 2006 and 2008 because the president is so unpopular.) The decisive demographic group in Kerry's loss was not a religious group but a gender group. The gender gap vanished, not because women changed their minds about abortion or homosexuality or because of prolife propaganda or because of Catholic bishops, but because they were afraid of the jihadists.

(REV.) ANDREW GREELEY 

Chicago, Ill.

MARK STRICHERZ RESPONDS:

I should have specified that the Democratic Party imposes a litmus test on the abortion issue for Democrats seeking a national constituency: presidential candidates, Supreme Court nominees, and leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Former congressman Tim Roemer said that he lost his bid for DNC chair last December because of his prolife stance.

Jim Wayne is right to criticize Catholics for passively accepting the party's stance on cultural issues. But the rest of his analysis errs. First, the soft quotas for women and young people were meant not to "open the party to all views" but to recruit people with antiwar views. Second, the party's current rules are hardly "inclusionary." Besides effectively excluding national prolife Democrats, they mandate quotas for women and minorities as delegates. Third, prolife Catholic voters usually do value kitchen-table issues, but give a higher priority to protecting unborn human life.

I disagree with Fr. Andrew Greeley. Catholics have indeed moved away from the Democrats, though not so much as to be a Republican constituency. Between 1952 and 1968, Catholics voted for the Democratic presidential nominee by an average of 16 percentage points greater than the percentage of all voters who voted for the Democrat. In other words, Catholics were a strong Democratic constituency. But between 1976 and 2004, Catholics voted for the Democratic presidential nominee by an average of only 2 percentage points greater than the overall Democratic vote. In 1988, Catholics gave 47 percent of their votes to Dukakis, 2 percentage points more than his overall vote percentage (45 percent). If Dukakis had gotten the old margin of victory among Catholic voters, he'd have won.

As for last year's election, Greeley's assertion that national security was the decisive issue is contradicted by Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg. He claimed that Catholic prolife Democrats "pulled back from Kerry."