Next month President Obama will give the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame. He was no doubt happy to receive the invitation.
For political parties with national aspirations, the Catholic vote remains in high demand.
In 2000 and 2004 President George Bush courted the Catholic voter and nosed out two victories.
In 2008 Barack Obama worked for this vote, successfully turned the tables, and won among Catholics by 9 points on his way to a landslide victory.
But Republicans and Democrats have diverged in their pitches to these voters. The Bush campaign micro-targeted conservative Catholics. It focused on turning out the remnant of a once distinct urban and industrial Catholic culture and the small suburban vanguard of an emerging conservative Catholic culture.
The Obama campaign understood, however, that the behavior of the Catholic voter is no longer easily distinguished from the non-Catholic voter. So through his surrogates, he addressed Catholics primarily as citizens with working and middle class anxieties rather than as an interest group disassociated from the broader American culture.
The recent data on Catholic school enrollment in the United States seems to confirm that the conservative approach to the Catholic vote needs some rethinking. In short, Bush appealed to a shrinking demographic. Whether or not conservatives reevaluate their approach to social issues, conservatives need to make unique pocketbook appeals to a suburban Catholic voter who has different concerns than the Catholic Reagan Democrats of the 1980s.
The bad news for Catholic schools mirrors the slipping regional relevance of Republicans in the Midwest and Northeast.
In the 1960s there were almost 13,000 Catholic schools in the United States educating 5.2 million students. Today, there are 7,248 Catholic schools with a total enrollment of roughly 2.2 million students.
The decline in Catholic school enrollment has followed the collapse of the industrial economy in New England, the Great Lakes states, and the Mid-Atlantic. Even today, nearly 50% of Catholic schools are in the Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes states. Nearly 43% are located in urban and inner city areas. But the regional distribution of schools and enrollment is shifting toward the Plains, South, and West.
Yet, not all of the news is bad for these schools. While 162 schools consolidated or closed, 31 opened, reflecting demographic shifts toward the suburbs. There remains a demand for a Catholic education, with waiting lists at 2,114 schools. And the percentage of minority enrollment has risen from less than 11% in 1970 to 29% today. Hispanics now represent 12.6% of the Catholic school population.
In short, this data shows that the locus of Catholic culture continues its move from the Rust Belt and Northeast to the South and West. Like the rest of the country, Catholics are more likely to be post-industrial participants in a white collar service economy rather than union members. And insofar as a blue collar Catholic class remains, its members are more likely an Ojeda and Dinh rather than an O’Brien and DeLuca.
So how do conservatives address the pocketbook concerns of this changing Catholic population?
The current economic crisis presents at least one opportunity.
CNN recently ran a story on financially strapped parents forced to choose between the mortgage and tuition payments for their school-aged children.
Democrats, who have perfected the No mother should have to choose between X and Y argument, would know exactly what to do with this story:
This is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and Congress should not force parents to choose between putting food on the table and paying tuition for their children. No family should have to pull a child out of school – away from friends and teachers – because dad lost his job.
Conservative Republicans should run with this. They should promote a temporary tax credit for elementary and secondary school tuition. The credit could be phased out following two quarters of uninterrupted economic growth.
By taking up this issue, Republicans would provide immediate pocketbook benefits to the families of 2.2 million children. And a substantial credit would make a real difference for these families – the average tuition at a Catholic elementary school is only $3,159. Such a credit would begin steering tax policy in a pro-family direction, and conservatives could plausibly argue that because of the credit’s temporary nature, it does not pose the threat to public schools that vouchers might.
The conservative failure with Catholics since 2006 is in large measure a failure to appreciate the changing face of Catholic culture. As conservatives work to reenlist Catholic support, they need to appeal to these voters primarily as white collar suburbanites and working class immigrants rather than as culture warriors.
In this economy, a temporary tax credit for private school tuition would go a long way toward reclaiming the allegiance of the Catholic vote.
20 responses so far
1 joemarier // Apr 9, 2009 at 5:12 am
Interesting idea. You can also frame it as “in a time when we’re still upgrading our school infrastructure, we don’t want to overburden public school enrollment…”
2 PatSajak // Apr 9, 2009 at 8:04 am
The data I would like to see regarding Hispanics is whether those whose children attend Catholic schools (or who attended Catholic schools themselves) are more Republican than other Hispanics.
Conservatives should ask a simple question: does it make any sense at all that people can deduct their home interest but not private school tuition? It might mean that we have to swallow something akin to Obama’s reduction of the interest deduction for upper-income households, but so what?
3 sinz54 // Apr 9, 2009 at 8:08 am
I am puzzled by the failure of the GOP to propose middle-class tax cuts like these. McCain didn’t, and Obama was able to actually get to his right (“We’ll cut taxes for 95% of working families). And in their alternative budget proposal last week, the GOP again focused on cutting corporate taxes, but not on middle-class tax relief.
It seems that, faced with a recession and the prospect of huge budget deficits, the GOP would rather stimulate the economy by helping corporations rather than helping working families. That’s economically dubious, and politically disastrous.
4 joeofpa // Apr 9, 2009 at 9:05 am
Allow me to bring up that nasy little elephant sitting in the corner of the living room. The fact that Notre Dame University would invite a stridently pro-abortion politician — even by Democratic party standards — is a huge scandal. Millions of Catholics are outraged by it. This is a sign of the lack of moral courage and clarity within the Catholic hierarchy. The same moral diseases which have infected the country as a whole are alive and well in the Catholic Church as well. Shouldn’t the fact that this is a scandal qualify for even passing mention in an article about Catholics and Conservatives?
Nuance your economic message as much as you want. But if you ignore life issues, just because the cool people don’t like it, you will alienate that 40+% of Catholic voters who didn’t support Obama. Become Democratic Party lite, and you’ll probably lose the Republican support you’ve got, and I doubt you’ll draw enough of the cool Catholics over to the Republican side to compensate for the pro-life Catholics you’ve alienated.
5 krove // Apr 9, 2009 at 9:23 am
It says something about a Party/Organization/Individual when they are so afraid of an alternative viewpoint they would deny that viewpoint a platform.
I applaud Notre Dame in inviting the President to speak. That is freedom in action.
6 joeofpa // Apr 9, 2009 at 10:07 am
So, would it be appropriate to invite the head of the Arian Nation to speak at Notre Dame’s commencement, since that too is an “alternate viewpoint?” Would someone who objected to inviting the head of the Arian Nation to speak at Notre Dame’s commencement be guilty of trying to deny him a platform? Would you applaud Notre Dame’s freedom of action if they invited him to speak at their commencement? Would you applaud their lack of fear at an alternative viewpoint if they invited him?
7 joemarier // Apr 9, 2009 at 10:08 am
I concur with Pat Sajak on a private school tuition deduction. However, sadly, we can’t raise taxes on one Democratic constituency (rich people with big houses), to undermine another Democratic constituency (the public school lobby), and actually get it passed through a Democratic Congress. Plus, if we’re gonna do it, it would have to be a percentage tax credit, since the lower 50% don’t really pay income taxes, and that’s who we’re trying to educate.
8 joemarier // Apr 9, 2009 at 10:10 am
Oh, and briefly, I’d rather talk about the subject at hand: how to win the Catholic vote. I’d had enough Notre Dame talk for a lifetime.
9 krove // Apr 9, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Yes, It’s up to the organization who they invite. If people do not like it they can peacefully protest the action or the speaker. That is their right.
What should not happen is censorship.
10 barker13 // Apr 9, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Re: PatSajak; 8:04 AM –
“Conservatives should ask a simple question: does it make any sense at all that people can deduct their home interest but not private school tuition?”
A better question is what sense does it make to allow people to deduct mortgage loan interest?
I favor a flat tax… as flat as possible. Some people wanna buy a house, others would rather rent… it’s called freedom of choice. Government should neither favor nor discriminate against either decision.
BILL
11 A.B. // Apr 9, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Gee, a tax credit. A temporary one, too. How did I know the article would end with that? Not everything can be solved with tax credits; in fact, they matter very little to anyone. Sigh.
12 Henry Clay // Apr 9, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Several interesting comments that I wanted to address.
PatSajak: I too would like to see some data on the political preferences of the parents of Hispanic kids in parochial schools. My guess is that it tacks right of the Hispanic population as a whole. And I would expect that the same holds true of non-Hispanics.
joeofpa: I don’t want to leave the wrong impression. Though some others at NewMajority might disagree, I do not believe that the answer for conservatives lies in changing course on abortion policy. I was merely suggesting that conservatives need to spend as much time courting Catholic voters on pocketbook issues.
krove: Though a bit off point (this was not a post about the ND decision to invite Obama), I do have to add something to this discussion. Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of ND inviting Obama to speak at its commencement (and more at issue, the decision to grant him an honorary doctor of laws degree), but it grossly misrepresents the concerns of those opposing ND’s decision to say that they are “afraid of an alternative viewpoint.”
joemarier: I agree that any proposal like this is unlikely to pass in a Democrat controlled Congress. That said, I think conservatives need to wake up every morning and ask themselves “How will we promote policies today that appeal to the middle class and that will be rabidly opposed by liberal interest groups”. In other words, conservatives can win by losing on issues like this.
And A.B.: I had no idea I was so predictable. I agree with you that “not everything can be solved with tax credits.” But I do think that the tuition load for a couple million middle class parents could be lightened by a tax credit. I suppose a tax credit would matter quite a bit to them.
13 Henry Clay // Apr 9, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Several interesting comments that I wanted to address.
PatSajak: I too would like to see some data on the political preferences of the parents of Hispanic kids in parochial schools. My guess is that it tacks right of the Hispanic population as a whole. And I would expect that the same holds true of non-Hispanics.
joeofpa: I don’t want to leave the wrong impression. Though some others at NewMajority might disagree, I do not believe that the answer for conservatives lies in changing course on abortion policy. I was merely suggesting that conservatives need to spend as much time courting Catholic voters on pocketbook issues.
krove: Though a bit off point (this was not a post about the ND decision to invite Obama), I do have to add something to this discussion. Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of ND inviting Obama to speak at its commencement (and more at issue, the decision to grant him an honorary doctor of laws degree), but it grossly misrepresents the concerns of those opposing ND’s decision to say that they are “afraid of an alternative viewpoint.”
joemarier: I agree that any proposal like this is unlikely to pass in a Democrat controlled Congress. That said, I think conservatives need to wake up every morning and ask themselves “How will we promote policies today that appeal to the middle class and that will be rabidly opposed by liberal interest groups”. In other words, conservatives can win by losing on issues like this.
And A.B.: I had no idea I was so predictable. I agree with you that “not everything can be solved with tax credits.” But I do think that the tuition load for a couple million middle class parents could be lightened by a tax credit. I suppose a tax credit would matter quite a bit to them.
14 krove // Apr 9, 2009 at 4:22 pm
HC, It’s a question of equal rights. Bush was invited to Notre Dame to speak even though he had put many to death in Texas.
The Catholic church is against capital punishment and treats it equally with abortion. A death is a death.
So why the different treatment. Oh I forgot Obama is a Democrat.
Bush did not pull the noose yet he is pro death, Oh and not all convicted killers are guilty.
15 cjohn831 // Apr 9, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I was born and raised Catholic and went to Catholic school my whole life. I’m not sure if New Orleans is a pradigm for other large cities but we have a struggling education system, and parents that can afford it send their kids to private school because of the discipline and better educational opportunity.
I do think that experience educates people. I grew up with a priest that put financials in the parish bulletin. Therefore when we got a priest that manipulated the distribution of money in the church, we were aware and did thing to get him out.
Society has realized that George Bush used the Christian rite issues (abortion, stim cell, etc) to draw people morally. And they understand now that no matter how you feel about that, that does not give you a job. Everyone feels that they need the guy who is smarter, is the intellectual, and has the best interest of the people and not the 1% that are controlling everything…the monopolies.
16 A.B. // Apr 10, 2009 at 9:41 am
My sincere apologies, HC, I didn’t mean to be rude. It would be helpful, there is no doubt about that, it just strikes me as woefully insufficient. As an ex-Army brat who trudged through a couple of perfectly awful “civilian” schools, as well as a couple of excellent government-run (base) institutions, I am aware that there are parents who…don’t itemize deductions. Their children are important, too.
17 dendup // Apr 10, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Refining the observation about how each candidate tried to appeal to Catholics. Activist Catholic youth are cultivated by the Church in a variety of ways. World Youth Day is a huge event for these young people.
Check out the Pope’s message for World Youth Day celebrated at the local level last Sun. Obviously the Pope has major differnces with Obama, but ask youself which candidate resonates better with this message.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=32431
18 RLHotchkiss // Apr 14, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I see we’re not exactly spotting racoons yet, are we.
Let me get this clear. You wan’t to give money families who live in the suburbs where the schools are good, have been sending their kids to Catholic schools, but one parent has lost their job, and they still are going to pay 3000 dollars in taxes.
So you have never actually talked to anyone who has lost their job, or a Catholic.
This is what the preist will tell you and say from pulbit. We have a waiting list for these suburbing schools. The Catholic schools in the cities are the one that are dying.
What are you going to tell your lower wage protestants who never paid 3000 dollars in federal taxes but get their kids to religious schools.
What about a mother who home schools whose husband loses his job, but she could get a job that is availble to her. What about her kids.
And what about the gay Republicans. They may have made thier peace with the Republican party but the new Pope has virtually declared war on gays. How are they going to feel about paying to send other people’s kids to Catholic schools>
19 RLHotchkiss // Apr 14, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I see we’re not exactly spotting racoons yet, are we.
Let me get this clear. You wan’t to give money families who live in the suburbs where the schools are good, have been sending their kids to Catholic schools, but one parent has lost their job, and they still are going to pay 3000 dollars in taxes.
So you have never actually talked to anyone who has lost their job, or a Catholic.
This is what the preist will tell you and say from pulbit. We have a waiting list for these suburbing schools. The Catholic schools in the cities are the one that are dying.
What are you going to tell your lower wage protestants who never paid 3000 dollars in federal taxes but get their kids to religious schools.
What about a mother who home schools whose husband loses his job, but she could get a job that is availble to her. What about her kids.
And what about the gay Republicans. They may have made thier peace with the Republican party but the new Pope has virtually declared war on gays. How are they going to feel about paying to send other people’s kids to Catholic schools>
20 RLHotchkiss // Apr 14, 2009 at 9:04 pm
sorry about the double post, I am using internet exploer for first time in years
You must log in to post a comment.