Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics Can Save the Democrats

by Michael Sean Winters

In 1960, Democrats and Catholics united to elect John F. Kennedy, America's first Catholic president. As we approach the 2008 presidential election, the Democratic party is struggling to secure Catholic votes. For most of the twentieth-century, however, the Catholic vote was solidly Democratic. In Left at the Altar , Michael Sean Winters chronicles the rise and fall of this vital alliance, and offers compelling arguments for its revival. For the Democrats, the stakes could not be The explosive growth of the Latino population will make the Catholic vote decisive in the twenty-first century. The stakes are high for Catholics, In their defection to the Republican party, Catholics have drifted from their traditional advocacy of core values including peace and social justice.

Genres: Religion, Christianity

256 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

Reviews

[Andrew Figueiredo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great read on the Democrats' struggle with Catholic voters.

Winters discusses how through John Ryan, Catholic Social Teaching helped build the New Deal, especially the National Recovery Administration. He moves on to criticize John F. Kennedy's Houston speech, in which he called his religion a private matter separate from his politics. While recognizing the political reasoning behind this pivot, Winters criticizes JFK's commitment to faith and claims that this laid the groundwork for Democrats to be branded as aloof when it comes to religion. He backs this up by delving into the abortion debates of the 1970s, showing how despite their efforts, Catholics, including bishops, were unable to prevent the Democratic Party from fully embracing the pro-choice mantle instead of taking a more nuanced position. Winters also discusses how Reagan provided a religious framework to absorb many Catholic Democratic votes and contrasts this with Bill Clinton's use of a "New Covenant", which did not pre-empt him from blocking Governor Bob Casey from speaking at the convention. He also notes how Al Gore and John Kerry both failed to highlight their faith.

Winters concludes that Democrats would do well to frame their policies in truly moral terms, incorporating an agenda into the party based on Catholic Social Thought and specifically the tenets of common good, human dignity, and just war theory. His platform proposals were in line many of the Church's teachings, but also recognized political reality.

Overall, Michael Winters makes a compelling case for Democrats to improve their outreach to the Catholic community. His history of the Democratic Party and Catholics could be a bit more fleshed out, and at times I think it overstates John Ryan's role in the New Deal. As a Catholic, this was a great read, although I think it's not necessarily the best work I've read on religious voters and Democrats. It does complement "Reclaiming Hope" and "Why the Democrats are Blue" quite well, though!

[Brett · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first section is an adequate history of the Catholic electorate and New Deal public policy, but the book suffers from a blinkered view the political shifts of the 60s and 70s that fragmented the Catholic vote. The author’s insistence on attributing liberal policies to “East Coast” intellectuals’ anti-Catholicism and isolating the supposed split between Democrats and Catholics exclusively to abortion demonstrates a less than honest approach to the topic. The author continually posits that leftists abandoned morality when they championed pro-choice policies, but only softly hints at other moral issues outside abortion.

By the end, we see that the author is simply trying to have his cake and eat it, too.

But the biggest flaw in this book, for me, is that it was published in 2008 and makes no mention of the child sexual abuse scandals that rocked Catholics around the world while trying to argue it was American political leaders who lost their way. Certainly, Winters does a good job showing us how the Church might bring a kind of moral authority to Democratic politics, but he takes the very selective and convenient approach to his work that he disdains in the cafeteria Catholics he views as responsible for the split.

[Rita · Rating 4 out of 5]

Winters analysis of the draw of the Democratic Party for Catholics concentrates upon the moral tenets of caring for the common good. He emphasizes the concern with that which drove the New Deal under FDR. He traces the turn from an involvement with the common good to the individualism and concern with single issues that defined liberalism in the late part of the 20tieth century. He suggests that a turn from this to the common good will benefit the Democrat party and bring Catholics back to this party.

[ltcomdata · Rating 2 out of 5]

A thoughtful and well-researched historical book on why the Catholic faithful, as a whole, are no longer Democrats. The long and the short of it is this: Democrats excised religion from their party, beginning, ironically, with John F. Kennedy --- the Catholic candidate.

The book takes a historical approach, beginning in the late 1920's when the Democratic approach to country's economic good lined up with the Catholic theology of the common good. Thus was born an alliance of politics and Catholic values that encouraged many Catholic men to vote for the Democratic party.

Then came the cultural revolution, in which the Democrats wholeheartedly embraced the new radical ideas of sexual liberation --- and with them abortion. Needless to say, these developments within the Democratic party run counter to official Catholic teaching.

At the same time, John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, was busy trying to get himself elected as the first Catholic president. But Mr. Kennedy was not really a good Catholic man, and he rather wished not to emphasize his faith either because he didn't think the country would elect anyone holding the Catholic faith. After all, deep anti-Catholic biases existed among most American (Protestant) Christians at the time. So he concocted a speech in which he essentially argued that religion had no place in public American politics, and that he would not allow his faith to influence him should he become president. This is the line that most Democratic candidates for president have followed since, and which lost Mr. Kerry the Catholic vote --- and thus the election --- in 2004, according to the book.

The author engages the speech of Mr. Kennedy the candidate with thoughtful and eloquent arguments involving Catholic motivation for Catholic values and the distinction between means and ends. His conclusion (as well as the consensus of the majority of Catholic intellectuals who examine the speech) is that Mr. Kennedy was deeply miss-characterizing the requirements that the Catholic faith makes of the faithful. That, in fact, a part-time or compartmentalized Catholic person is not a good Catholic person. That, in fact, being Catholic (or Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim for that matter) is a state of being that permeates the whole person, at all times, in all actions. That, in fact, if a good Catholic candidate wants to argue for the common good, said Catholic candidate cannot ignore Catholic values nor the policy consequences of those values: it is not as if the common good is different for Catholic people but not for others.

At the end of the book the author gives advice to the Democratic party on how to attract more Catholic voters and start winning elections again. Some of the advice is pretty dated already (despite the fact that the book was published just in 2008), such as not to push for gay marriage.

Interestingly enough, despite the fact that the author mentions how abortion drove many Catholic faithful away from the Democratic party, and despite the fact that the author clearly encourages Democrats to embrace human dignity, nonetheless his advice in regards to abortion is to emphasize it less, and focus instead of limiting unwanted pregnancies and providing needed help to pregnant mothers, while "challenging" the Catholic culture to focus their efforts on the same goals instead of seeking a whole-sale ban of it. One wonders if the author himself understands the meaning of human dignity. Yes, the author comes against the Democratic party embracing eugenic principles when it comes to the new technologies of genetic engineering (as they once embraced the eugenic tendencies of improving the race in America). But then the author turns around and boldly proclaims that stem cell research aims only to heal --- and encourages Democrats merely to be "cautious" in the difficult "ethical terrain" in which embryos might be human and alive, but have none of the attributes of personhood. One gets the impression that he author is only paying lip service to the dignity of those human embryos. In other words, there is no clear call from this author for Democrats to fully embrace human dignity --- as difficult as that might be. Expediency and electability are his concerns, and not the ending of wholesale slaughter that starts with abortion and end in embryonic stem cell research. And where are his deeply thoughtful and pointedly insightful arguments of means vs. ends with which he criticized Mr. Kennedy's speech? His advice to Democrats on the issue of human dignity seems more like a call to hide the garbage under the bed instead of cleaning house.

Yes, there is other advice that the author gives Democrats which would ingratiate Catholic voters who might ignore the abortion issue. Advice on such topics as healthcare, environmental protection, education, caring for one another, and just war has much appeal from the Catholic perspective. However, these issues, as important as they may be, will never win over Catholic voters wholesale while the trains continue to run East when it comes to abortion with the blessing of the Democratic Party.

[Tracy · Rating 2 out of 5]

This wasn't as good as it should or could have been. Where, for example, is all of George W. Bush's presdency?

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thought provoking assessment of how the Democratic Party of the United States stopped being the party of American Catholics, why that matters and how that might change.

[Argum · Rating 5 out of 5]

quite insightful and thought provoking. interesting as history and as guide going forward.