August 08, 2004
Will The Kerry Campaign Implode Over Religion?
Support for a U.S. Supreme Court case seeking to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance forced the Democrat’s new director for religious outreach support to resign after only 13 days on the job.
The Washington Times reports:
"I feel it is no longer possible for me to do my job effectively," Mrs. Peterson said in a statement released yesterday by the DNC.
"I do not want my support of this case to serve as a distraction or ammunition for Republicans and their allies," she said. "I continue to believe, as do leading faith leaders across this country, that John Kerry should be the next president of the United States and that John Kerry's values of opportunity, family and responsibility are America's values."
Demonstrating how out of touch the DNC is when it comes to religious voters, the hiring of Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson was announced on July 23, by Terry McAuliffe as a Democratic effort to wrest religious voters away from President Bush.
Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson is the second Democratic official to resign under pressure from the New York-based Catholic League:
The Kerry campaign's hiring of Mara Vanderslice as a religious adviser also blew up in June after the Catholic League cited her past association with radical political groups. The campaign has since silenced Miss Vanderslice.
[. . .]
"I don't think the Democrats or the Kerry campaign quite know what to do with religion," said John Green, a political science professor at the University of Akron who does extensive polling on religion and politics. "There is a certain fear on the part of the Democrats that if they talk too much about religion, they will alienate a portion of their base.
The Catholic League's statement about Rev. Petereson's resignation contains this:
Why are Kerry and the DNC imploding on religion? Because too many of the elites running the show are devout secularists who put a premium on freedom from religion. Their idea of religious liberty is banning nativity scenes on public property. Their idea of diversity is censoring ‘under God’ from the Pledge.
A perception that the Kerry campaign, or the Democratic party, favor freedom from religion, not freedom of religion, could be enough to turn a very close presidential election. This is especially so if that perception is held and spread by a "Catholic" organization such as the Catholic League.
The nation's 66 million Catholics represent about 23 percent of American voters. When Kennedy was elected in 1960, he received 75 percent of the Catholic vote and Nixon got 75 percent of the protestant vote. In 2000 the Catholic voters were split 49 to 47 percent between Gore and Bush.
According to Reuters, when Kennedy ran there was a concern whether he was too Catholic. Today Kerry must show that he is Catholic enough. Kerry faces controversy over whether he should be allowed receive communion because of his pro-choice position. That issue has even caused Kerry to be charged with heresy. Kerry's stance on gay marriage also causes him difficulty with church going voters.
Kerry can't count on a huge percentage of Catholic support just because he is Catholic. The Christian Science Monitor reports that the religious split in American politics today is not between Catholics and Protestants, but between those "who attend services frequently and those who go seldom or not at all." President Bush holds an advantage among Catholics who attend regularly and Kerry is favored by those who only attend regularly. The Los Angeles Times reports that regular churchgoers broke for Bush over Al Gore by a 2-to-1 ratio in the 2000 election.
President Bush is campaigning hard for the catholic vote. He has had three audiences with the Pope, and last week spoke at the Knights of Columbus convention.
The Kerry campaign is also trying to win over the church going voters. According to the Los Angeles Times, the Kerry campaign has an ambitious effort to reach people of faith:
Through values-laden language, grass-roots organizing and Kerry's increased discussion of his faith, the Democrats are trying to show that the party's presidential ticket reflects religious principles, pointing to their platform on healthcare, poverty and the environment.
The Kerry campaign — which has three staff members assigned as liaisons to various denominations — is aiming to create "People of Faith for Kerry" groups in every state.
[. . .]
To that end, Kerry's campaign has started a "friend-to-friend" writing campaign among religious backers. And it is marketing bumper stickers, signs and T-shirts with messages such as "Christians for Kerry" and "Muslims for Kerry." Last month, the campaign began running a Spanish-language television commercial emphasizing Kerry's Catholic faith.
Some of these efforts are too blatant and are inconsistent with Kerry's statement in his acceptance speech that he doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve. Kerry needs to spend less time discussing his religiosity. Voters of faith are looking for leaders who share their values and vote for their issues.
The Kerry campaign can't afford to alienate Catholic or religious service attending voters. The campaign can't afford to appear to support taking "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance nor can it afford to appear to be in favor of Freedom from religion as suggested by the Catholic League.
Posted by Dan Spencer at August 8, 2004 04:35 PMIt’s another aspect of the contradictions Kerry has to balance in order to get elected. He dare not embody the real positions and ideology of his party because they are too far left. Yet the balance he tries to stike are inconsistant.
It seems that in every issue Kerry has to nuance and juggle opposing views simultaneously. Does this seem like a stable platform?
Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 8, 2004 05:51 PMWith the host of resignations from the Bush Administration in the last 3 years, I don’t think this story has any feet, let alone legs. Now it is heard on the street that even Tom Ridge is through. But, resignations don’t resonate. Even if they are rats jumping a sinking ship. (Colorful metaphor, don’t you think?)
Posted by: David R Remer at August 8, 2004 06:28 PMTo answer the question posed in the title, no. This election goes far beyond religious beliefs.
This one is not going to be decided on abortion or gay marriage. It’s about America’s security, financial well-being, and standing in the world.
This one is not going to be decided on abortion or gay marriage. It’s about America’s security, financial well-being, and standing in the world.
In other words Bush is going to win.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 9, 2004 12:15 AMThis is a good issue Dan, I’m always pleaseantly surprised by your posts.
I looked for more info on this subject and found this slate article about some of the dynamics of this in the Kerry Campaign.
So far Kerry’s campaign seems to be adopting this bewildering approach. Because of attacks from conservative Catholics, they are now shying away from discussing his conflict with the church. “The mood now is to shut up about it,” Father Robert Drinan, the former congressman from Massachusetts who advises Kerry, told the Washington Times. And that fear apparently has spread to discussion of religion in general. As one Kerry aide told the Times, “Every time something with religious language got sent up the flagpole, it got sent back down, stripped of religious language.”Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 9, 2004 12:38 AMWhy? Perhaps they’ve come to believe the misleading punditry about the religion gap. Well, heck, they may figure, if there aren’t any religious people in our party, no need to talk about that stuff.
More likely, the Kerry campaign suffers from the fact that while most Democrats are religious, many liberal Democratic activists are not. Perhaps the real problem with the paucity of African-Americans at senior levels of the Kerry campaign is not that he doesn’t understand racial language but that—forgive the gross stereotyping—the white aides tend to be more tone deaf about religion than the black ones. -Slate
It’s about America’s security, financial well-being, and standing in the world.Exactly. And that’s why Bush is going to lose. Big time. FWIW, I think that it’s becoming pretty clear that a lot of Bush supporters are starting to see that GWB is likely to lose but that very few of them have yet grasped how big of a loss it’s going to be. Probably by more than a hundred Electoral votes. Posted by: Erik Kosberg at August 9, 2004 01:16 AM
I’ve been predicting a big win for Kerry for quite a while. The polls are starting to move that way, too. Here’s the latest Carpetbagger Report.
http://www.thecarpet(remove me)baggerreport.com/archives/002285.html
Erik and AP:
Aren’t you two of the many who predicted a landslide for Al Gore? If Kerry is peaking now, it may be a bit early. I’ve predicted a Bush victory for a while now, but I will also say that there will be a lot of emphasis on the next monthly jobs report. Could have a HUGE impact on how the public sees the economy, which of course is more important than what the economy truly is.
David:
I havent researched it yet, but I suspect that research will show that it isnt unusual to see Cabinet positions turn over, especially if an incumbent is re-elected. I’d be interested to see if the number of potential turn-overs for Bush differs to any degree of statistical significance from that of prior administrations.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 9, 2004 03:33 PMDavid:
In a rare burst of NON-procrastination, I researched the numbers on Cabinet position turn-over (I will admit to procrastinating OTHER most likely more important things while I did this).
In the past 8 presidencies, there have been an average of 26 Cabinet members per administration, with just under an average of 4 Cabinet positions that remained unchanged throughout the Presidential term. (Of the 8 Presidencies, 3 were two term. I excluded Kennedy’s term due to his death—it seemed way out of whack with all the other presidencies, though)
Bush currently has had 17 Cabinet level officials, though to be fair, he also has one more position as well. If you look at the two term Presidencies (Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton), they had 31, 33 and 29 positions, respectively, and only Clinton had more than one position stay the same for all 8 years.
So, all in all, I think its a bit much to use the term “rats jumping a sinking ship”, however colorful that phrase might be. I think its really more the norm.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 9, 2004 04:00 PMAren’t you two of the many who predicted a landslide for Al Gore?FWIW (about 42 Tukish Lira at current exchange rates), I thought that Gore would win a close race (and he did after all win the popular vote nationally but lose Florida in a close 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court) but, no, I didn’t predict a landslide in 2000.
If Kerry is peaking now…That’s a mighty big IF.
Posted by: Erik Kosberg at August 9, 2004 07:25 PM
I didn’t predict a landslide in 2000, either.
I will also say that there will be a lot of emphasis on the next monthly jobs report.
We’ve got that covered, joe. If it’s good, we claim the economy is “unstable”. :)
Touche’ AP. And it is just getting more and more unstable as the Iraq quagmire continues and the national debt rises each and every year of Bush’s term. The American people wished for a Do Something Congress with a President of the same party. Well, they got it. And now they are clamoring for change…
Fickle lot. :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 10, 2004 01:12 AMA.P.
Your comment, while humorous, would have struck me as very funny were it not for the truth behind it. Democrats surely will find any cloud behind every silver lining.
David:
I’ll take your relative silence on my enormous amount of research as a tacit acceptance of my usual correct opinion. JK.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 10, 2004 09:58 AMjoe, despite the smiley, I’m totally serious. Our economy is pretty wonky right now.
Reagan dealt with a similar bad economy by admitting that supply-side economics is one of those ideas that looks good on paper, but doesn’t work in real life. Like Communism. So he rolled back his tax cuts (for the middle class mostly, anyhow).
You guys are always saying that the Reagan and Bush Sr. tax hikes are what gave Clinton the good times. Why doesn’t your boy in the White House give Kerry the same break?
