Michael Gerson thinks Obama's "Catholic strategy" is in shambles. I think he's wrong.

Ignatius Press Blog: Insight Scoop ^ | November 18, 2011 | Carl Olson

[Mrs. Don-o]

Michael Gerson thinks Obama's "Catholic strategy" is in shambles. I think he's wrong.

In fact, I think that from the perspective of President Obama and his most ardent supporters (that is, those who will vote for him no matter how bad the economy is), this administration's "Catholic strategy" has been quite successful.

Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, writes the following in a November 16th column for The Washington Post:

In 2009, Notre Dame University set off months of intra-Catholic controversy by inviting a champion of abortion rights to deliver its commencement address. When the day arrived, President Obama skillfully deflated the tension. He extended a “presumption of good faith” to his anti-abortion opponents. Then he promised Catholics that their anti-abortion convictions would be respected by his administration.

Catholics, eager for reassurance from a leader whom 54 percent had supported, were duly reassured. But Obama's statement had the awkward subordinate clauses of a contentious speechwriting process. Qualifications and code words produced a pledge that pledged little.

Now the conscience protections of Catholics are under assault, particularly by the Department of Health and Human Services. And Obama's Catholic strategy is in shambles.

Gerson assumes, rather understandably, that a first-term President who received the majority of the "Catholic" vote should be interested in maintaining that support in order to be re-elected. Which is why Gerson, after recounting some of the recent conflicts between the HHS and the USCCB over conscience clauses and related matters, concludes:

It is also politically incomprehensible. Obama's Catholic outreach is being revealed as a transparent ploy a year before he faces re-election. A portion of the Democratic coalition, including civil libertarians and abortion-rights activists, has decided to attack and marginalize Catholic leaders and institutions. And HHS is actively siding against Catholic organizations.

How will the White House respond? More specifically, how will the Catholic chief of staff and America's first Catholic vice president respond? They gave up their own adherence to Catholic teaching on abortion long ago. But are they really prepared to betray their coreligionists who still hold these beliefs?

Sebelius is becoming a political embarrassment at an inconvenient time. It will be significantly harder for Obama to repeat his appeal to Catholic voters while a part of his administration is at war with Catholic leaders and Catholic belief

Some on the left, such as TIME's Amy Sullivan (whose loathing of Catholicism is not a secret), have downplayed Gerson's concerns, saying that the Obama administration has simply been the victim of various officials "bungling policy decisions and basic communications strategy". But I think that bungling and bias (or bigotry, as the case might be) are not only compatible, they are often smitten lovers skipping through the insular meadows of political hubris.

Arrogance has a way of blinding us to our weaknesses and faults, as well as causing us to disdain the positions of others and to be dismissive of their positions without taking them seriously. Need I point out that the Obama administration has earned a reputation for arrogance and hubris that is impressive, even at a time when such faults are common to the point of being taken for granted within the realm of politics?

Over against Gerson's puzzlement, here is what I think has happened and is happening:

• A young and fast-rising politician who had demonstrated few obvious ideological loyalties, with the notable exception of consistent homage paid to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the god of "choice", ran for the Presidency. (For instance, in Sen. Obama's 2007 speech to PP: "I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito...")

• Candidate Obama recognized that, first, he needed to get a significant portion of the Catholic vote and that, secondly, the Catholic Church is the most visible opponent of abortion in the United States. But he also recognized that a majority of Catholics do not actually adhere to the Church's teaching that the most fundamental of human rights is "the right to life, from conception to its natural end..."

• Although not a Catholic, he saw he could take up and tweak the playbook employed so successfully by the late Ted Kennedy and other "pro-choice Catholics", who use the language of "social justice" and "choice" and "freedoms" and "privacy" to deflect from his core stances, which added up to the most pro-abortion platform ever held by a presidential candidate.

• In addiition to facing a weak opponent and being able to feed off deep frustrations with the out-going President, he was able to cast himself as a moderate and balanced candidate who, miraculously, was above the fray of competing, extremist positions; in fact, this rhetorical appeal to moral superiority became a constant feature of his campaign and presidency. As Gerson notes, assurances were given, but the words and the actions (as Gerson also observes) were not in synch; on the contrary, the rhetoric was cover for actions that are overtly pro-abortion and anti-life.

• Candidate Obama used and employed Catholics who, for whatever reason, bought into the image and posturing of his campaign. Douglas Kmiec, who assured Catholics that Obama was almost as Catholic as the Pope, and Fr. Thomas Reese, who gave cover to Pres. Obama prior the 2009 visit to Notre Dame, come to mind. (Toss in the entire staff of National "Catholic" Reporter for good measure.)

• Candidate Obama knew—and this is essential—that he could not and would not win over serious, practicing, orthodox Catholics, but he also didn't care, because he knew the majority of Catholics in the U.S. are not serious, practicing, orthodox Catholics.

• He also knew that if he had enough "Catholics" singing his praises, he could pass himself off as "Catholic friendly"—even a close and abiding friend of the Catholic Church. He surely saw this method work with Senator Kennedy, who continued, even after death, to be lauded as a great Catholic politician despite stomping constantly on Catholic teaching with an impunity, recklessness, and arrogance that is as breathtaking as it is scandalous.

• Put simply, I believe that a key part of candidate Obama's "Catholic strategy" was to appeal to those Catholics who either doubt or deny the Church's teaching on life issues. And, frankly, it was a smart political strategy. It worked. It certainly helped that Sen. McCain was not an attractive option to many Catholics (both "liberal" and "conservative"), but it would have a been a good strategy regardless.

• Since taking office, Pres. Obama has aggressively pursued the few issues that he was consistent on prior to his election, including (or even especially) abortion "rights". He has purposelessly purposefully chosen pro-abortion Catholics such as Kathleen Sebelius (who one pundit tried to pawn off as a "pro-choice pro-lifer"), because it provides cover for his direct attack on life; that is, his direct attack on Catholic beliefs and teachings. Nancy Pelosi and Sebelius, in particular, have proven to be instrumental in this destructive work.

In other words, the actual, long-term "Catholic strategy" of this administration is to undermine and dismantle the witness and work of the Catholic Church, which works on the behalf of protecting life from the moment of conception to the grave. Pres. Obama has proven time and time agaoin that he is committed to a pro-abortion agenda that will not and cannot pay respects to those who believe life begins at conception, that it is sacred, and that abortion is a "moral evil" and a "criminal practice" (CCC, 2271-4).

There is no middle ground. Unfortunately, the disciples of death have always understood this, even while many of those who are disciples of life have been slow to admit this stark truth.

Finally, Gerson, like so many others, mistakenly talks about the "Catholic vote" as if it were some sort of monolithic, cohesive entity. It is not. The majority of Catholics are not guided by Church teaching, at least not in a consistent and demonstrable manner; they vote, in general and at best, like liberal Protestants. Many of them vote just like their pseudo-sophisticated, neo-pagan neighbors. Gerson wonders how it is that Vice-President Biden and other Catholics in the Obama administration might actually "betray their coreligionists" by siding against the USCCB on these issues of conscience clauses and so forth.

The naivity of the question is, well, embarrassing. Let's be blunt: if a man is willing to sell the lives of the unborn for political gain, why would he hesitate to sell out the "coreligionists" whose beliefs he obviously rejects? Or, in more eschatological terms: if a man is willing to sell his soul for earthly power, why would he give a damn about the judgment of heaven? The Catholic strategy of the current administration, I submit, is not in shambles, but is simply out in the open. It is politically comprehensible exactly because it has, so far, been politically successful.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Michael Gerson says that Obama is blowing his Catholic electoral stratgy. Olsen says no, Obamae's gotten -- and is continuing to get - exactly what he wants.

Class, discuss.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your thoughts?

[DJ MacWoW]

Did You Know?

The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarters Expenses?

Now That You Do, Donate And Keep FR Running

[don-o]

Name that tune

He got a sweet gift of gab, he got a harmonious tongue
He knows every song of love that ever has been sung
Good intentions can be evil
Both hands can be full of grease
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace

[jmaroneps37]

I ran field operations for Catholics Against Kerry. We reversed the slide of Catholics toward Democrats by bring our co-religionists the truth about Obama. Since the media will can people like Frances Kissling and her pro abortion group Catholics for Choice and anyone who ever walked past a Catholic Church to lie about how Catholics will vote it will be hard to get the truth, but actual adherent Catholics did NOT vote for Obama and I don’t believe they will this time either.

The Notre Dame speech will come back to haunt him as will his infanticide past and his insistence that Catholic hospitals commit abortions in order to get federal funds. I’m with Gerson. BTW where is that ash hole Kmiec or however you spell his name? Rememberr he told us Obama held Catholic values?

[Friendofgeorge]

My thoughts....Anybody that votes Democrat in any way shape or form, is not only NOT pro life, but is simply NOT Christian.

To vote Democrat in any way shape or form would mean that a person supported infanticide,gay marriage and removal of GOD/Jesus/Bible/prayer from the public square/classroom.

To vote Democrat in any way shape or form would mean that a person supported the removal of Christian crosses from Veteran`s cemeteries, embryonic stem cell research,and yes it would even mean they supported a Cross of Jesus in a glass of urine as being a art form.The latter is a view supported by Justice Ginsburg.

BTW moderate Republicans will have to answer for these views as well. They would love to vote for such things, they just happen to vote Republican for fiscal reasons.

Anybody that truly had The Spirit of Christ within them, could not/would not vote or support such things.

Most Democrats that attend these Liberal Churches have convinced themselves completely that this is just politics and God will surely overlook it.

The arguments have been made,there are no excuses, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for infanticide,anti Christian values and all the trimmings.

This is the view I hold, and it`s unshakable.

[jwalsh07]

Liberals will vote for the prince. Conservatives and anybody with half a brain will not. There will be more Kmiecs just as there have always been judas goats. Some sheep may follow but mostly not. I would hope there are Catholics who voted for this clown the first time who will have no part of him this time but those who switch will not be doing it based on the Church, they will do it based on their plunging net worth and empty pockets.

[GatorGirl]

Unfortunately far too many Catholics are married to the Democratic party and won’t listen to facts or reason.

They don’t deserve to call themselves Catholic (c.f. Pelosi, the Kennedys, etc...) but they do. The Church needs to get tough with them but it won’t.

Zero knows he will get plenty of so-called “Catholic” votes regardless of what he does. Anyone who votes for Zero is an idiot, no matter what the religion.

[Cicero]

I think that last time around, Obama’s extreme anti-life views were hidden from most of the electorate. The media made a point of hiding them, and of course Juan McCain completely blew it. He barely touched on the issue.

Obama voted three times against the Infants Born Alive protection act. His Chicago “church” owned a hospital that practiced abortion, and threw several babies out on the roof to die.

But who knew it? Only those of us who followed the news more closely. It certainly didn’t get on the evening TV shows, nor was it ever really mentioned in the “debates.”

I suppose some Catholic voters are still ignorant. And there are always the non-church-going dissidents. But I doubt whether Obama will do as well among Catholic voters as he did last time. Especially if the bishops and pastors speak out.

[italianquaker]

This is simple, mr obama is out and out the most pro abortion occupant ever in the wh.

He has not tried to hide it like 2008. If abortion matters to someone than they will not vote for mr obama. If they vote for him their not catholic anyway

[NYer]

Ping!

[Rashputin]

I think he is getting exactly what he's wanted all along. If Catholics are stupid and gullible enough to put the noose around their own necks, so much the better. It means that Barry and his fascist friends don't have to use so many resources tearing down the Catholic Church and therefore have more resources to use tearing down something else.

[Rashputin]

"But I doubt whether Obama will do as well among Catholic voters as he did last time."

So? He's already done so much damage it'll take a decade to unravel it all if it can even all be unraveled. That's one really expensive lesson for the gullible Catholics who voted for the guy in spite of his defying the Church. It would have been far better for everyone involved if Catholics had listened to the Church and simply refused to vote for someone who openly advocates the same eugenics policies that Hitler applied.

People who pretend to know more than Church that Christ started aren't Catholics who have strayed, they're Protestants and like all other Protestants they consider themselves infallible across the board, not just in the narrow way the Church states that the Pope is infallible. They should all leave the Catholic Church and join the herd that doesn't even pretend to believe in anything other than their own understanding.

The fact is, those who voted for Obama in 2008 need to go ahead and admit that they're no longer Catholic. That or admit that they can't make moral decisions pleasing to Christ on their own and return His Church begging for forgiveness every step of the way.

JMHO

[bjcoop]

What kind of “Catholic”s are they? I bet if you polled churchgoing Catholics the results would have been much different as they always are.

[Rashputin]

"What kind of “Catholic”s are they?"

Why, they're solid "Spirit of Vatican II" Protestant Catholics who look to their own understanding for answers in all matters of faith and morality.

I agree, had they asked Catholics who did more than check the the box that has "Catholic" beside it on a questionnaire, they'd have gotten a much different result. The problem is, those folks have had sufficient influence in enough quarters to weaken the Catholic Church and true Catholics.

Charity, Mercy, long suffering, these are things I understand, suicide I don't understand. Many Church leaders in this country have long seen the Church in the US as as something set apart that is free to commit suicide and become just another secular self-gratification system. Why such a drive to suicide has been left to run its course I don't know, but it has run its course and the Church in this country before long be far stronger than it was prior to the Protestantization that so many Bishops and Priests indulged in using "The Spirit of Vatican II" as their smokescreen.

[markomalley]

Barry's strategy is a continuation of the Democrat party's strategy: the ultimate destruction of the Church:

Hence, by a new species of impiety, unheard of even among the heathen nations, states have been constituted without any count at all of God or of the order established by him; it has been given out that public authority neither derives its principles, nor its majesty, nor its power of governing from God, but rather from the multitude, which, thinking itself absolved from all divine sanction, bows only to such laws as it shall have made at its own will. The supernatural truths of faith having been assailed and cast out as though hostile to reason, the very Author and Redeemer of the human race has been slowly and little by little banished from the universities, the Iyceums and gymnasia -- in a word, from every public institution. In fine, the rewards and punishments of a future and eternal life having been handed over to oblivion, the ardent desire of happiness has been limited to the bounds of the present. Such doctrines as these having been scattered far and wide, so great a license of thought and action having sprung up on all sides, it is no matter for surprise that men of the lowest class, weary of their wretched home or workshop, are eager to attack the homes and fortunes of the rich; it is no matter for surprise that already there exists no sense of security either in public or private life, and that the human race should have advanced to the very verge of final dissolution.

(snip)

For, indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very Gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes, nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist: "for what participation hath justice with injustice or what fellowship hath light with darkness?"[7] Their habit, as we have intimated, is always to maintain that nature has made all men equal, and that, therefore, neither honor nor respect is due to majesty, nor obedience to laws, unless, perhaps, to those sanctioned by their own good pleasure.

Leo XIII, Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism), 1878

So this should not be any kind of a surprise to anybody. It is not new. Nor is it particularly imaginative.

It is simply a continuation of the strategy first put in place by the first socialist president.

[markomalley]

ping to #16 (sorry, should have pinged you there)

[Mike Darancette]

Maybe the GOP can find a Catholic candidate to run, then see how fast the Democrat anti-Catholic knives come out.

[Salvation]

We need to have you run the field operation for Catholics against Obama!

[Salvation]

Obortion O will not get “Catholic” votes. He will get some CINO votes, but I think they are falling off his train too.