Cover story:
Analysis Research challenges bold GOP boast
By WILLIAM V. DANTONIO
and JACQUELINE SCHERER Special to the National Catholic
Reporter Washington
The Republican Partys Catholic
Task Force has made a far-reaching claim: that of all political parties, the
Republican Partys agenda best reflects Catholic teaching.
Specifically, in a mission statement last revised in January, the
task force said, We have studied the political record of all major
political parties and we believe that the Republican Party is closest to the
teachings of the Catholic church.
The partys claims are unusually bold, given that most people
who follow national politics would say that since the 1930s, the Democrats have
more consistently reflected the social teachings of the Catholic church.
Further, for most of that time, the majority of the Catholic vote has gone to
Democratic candidates.
If there were a change in the historic alignment between Catholics
and Democrats, it would be a dramatic, surprising shift. And if Catholics
believed the recent Republican claims, and voted accordingly, it could have
significant electoral results.
With such results in mind, the Republican Partys National
Committee chairman announced June 30 that a major outreach to Catholic voters
was already underway. The chairman, Jim Nicholson, also announced that he had
appointed Brian Tierney of Philadelphia to head the Republican committees
Catholic Task Force. Tierney is a powerful public relations figure with close
ties to Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia.
Were shifting into high gear in our efforts to reach
Catholic voters, Nicholson announced.
As researchers who have examined the religious factor in the U.S.
Congress, we decided to examine the Republican claims. Our extensive analysis,
which included consulting many experts on Congressional votes in relation to
Catholic teaching, shows clearly that, aside from the Republican Partys
antiabortion stand, and its support for educational vouchers and funds for
Catholic schools, the partys claim to best represent Catholic views is
greatly exaggerated.
In virtually every other area of concern to Catholic leaders and
to Network, the Catholic social justice lobby, support by Democrats in Congress
for positions aligned with church teaching far outranks support by
Republicans.
These areas include raising the minimum wage, housing assistance,
restricting the death penalty, health insurance, increased Medicaid
eligibility, patients bill of rights, cuts in military spending and
support for peacekeeping efforts.
Our analysis was based on three sources:
- A summary of evaluations conducted by Network of roll call
votes by members of both the House and Senate, for the 104th and 105th
Congresses.
- Assessments of how legislation relates to Catholic teaching, as
determined by a group of knowledgeable Catholics whom we asked to serve as
judges. We compared their assessments to roll call votes on key issues selected
by Michael Barone for his Almanac of American Politics.
- An examination of legislation of concern to Catholic bishops --
specifically, the bishops Office of Government Liaison, which is
sponsored by the United States Catholic Conference in Washington. The
conference serves as the social policy arm of the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops.
Network is a voluntary association founded by Catholic women
religious in 1971. The organization lobbies Congress on issues it believes to
be relevant to building a just society, based on principles set forth in the
gospels and in Catholic social teaching. The organization does not lobby on
abortion-related legislation. Each year, the January issue of Networks
bimonthly magazine, Network Connection, contains a list of the 10 to 15
legislative issues Network is concerned about, along with the votes cast by
each member of Congress on those issues.
For the 104th and 105th Congresses, for example, Network selected
15 or 16 pieces of legislation that it considered both important and relevant
to church teachings. Table 1 shows results of Networks evaluations. The
results overwhelmingly repudiate the contention of the Republican Catholic Task
Force that the Republican Partys agenda is closer to the teachings of the
Catholic church. The evidence clearly shows that on these issues Democrats have
been closer to Catholic teachings than the Republicans.
To illustrate, in the 104th Congress, Network opposed tax and
spending cuts in HR 1215 because the cuts made the tax system even more
regressive by benefiting predominately upper-income individuals and
corporations. Further, Network argued that the cuts, paid for by reducing
spending for domestic discretionary programs, disproportionately hurt low- and
middle-income persons. Democrats opposed the cuts, supporting Networks
position, while Republicans supported the cuts.
Network took a similar position on Senate Bill 1357, opposing a
move to cut $43 billion in funding for the Earned Income Tax Credit. The bill,
which passed, increased the tax burden on low-income families. Again, Democrats
opposed the cuts, which benefited wealthier Americans; Republicans supported
them.
Judging the issues
Our judges for the second part of our analysis, how legislation on
key issues related to Catholic teaching compared to Congressional votes,
consisted of two women religious, two priests and several laypersons. All have
worked as advocates for social justice in Catholic settings and are thoroughly
familiar with church teachings.
The assignment we gave them was this: to look at specific
legislative issues and apply their knowledge of Catholic teachings to determine
church support. In selecting legislative issues, we used those listed in The
Almanac of American Politics by Michael Barone et al. Barone is known widely as
a careful observer of U.S. elections and voting patterns in Congress. His
almanac, produced every two years, provides data on how House and Senate
members voted on issues that he regards as indicative of those members
stances on important votes. Barone also describes how a variety of major
interest groups evaluate members of Congress in relation to their respective
ideologies.
Our tables show clearly that on the majority of issues labeled as
key by Barone for the 103rd-105th Congresses, Democrats in both the House and
Senate were much closer to Catholic teachings than were Republicans.
In just one case -- the override of the partial-birth abortion
veto (HR 1833) -- Republicans supported the bishops position 215-15,
while the Democrats opposed it 70-121.
More typical was a minimum wage bill before the 104th Congress (HR
1227) that was strongly supported by the church. House Democrats gave it 97
percent support; House Republicans 33 percent. In the Senate the vote on a
similar bill (HR 3448) was Democrats 100 percent, Republicans 53 percent.
Further, the church supports easing restrictions on trade with
Cuba. Republicans supported tightening the embargo. A bill to that effect, HR
927, was passed by the 104th Congress with overwhelming Republican support, 227
to 4. Democrats voted against the bill 125 to 67.
Legislation and the bishops
To find legislation of concern to Catholic bishops, we reviewed
the Legislative Reports of the Office of Government Liaison of the United
States Catholic Conference for the 105th Congress (1998), and the Legislative
Report on the First Session of the 106th Congress (the current Congress). These
reports are available to the public on request. We also conducted an extensive
study of the Congressional Quarterly for 1999 and the early months of 2000 so
that we would know about any amendments that might have changed the
legislation, possibly affecting Catholic support.
The U.S. Catholic Conference publishes many statements on church
teachings, with major emphasis on the sacredness of life from conception to
death. These statements are designed to help people know and understand the
churchs teachings and to encourage their active support as citizens. A
recent statement, Faithful Citizenship: Civic Responsibility for a New
Millennium, reiterates the conferences position that abortion,
assisted suicide and euthanasia are morally unacceptable. The statement goes on
to emphasize the importance of family, of jobs with adequate pay and decent
working conditions, the need to increase the minimum wage so it becomes a
living wage and to overcome barriers to equal pay and employment for women and
minorities.
The bishops make clear that these statements are being addressed
to all citizens, Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
In the current 106th Congress, the liaison office, on behalf of
the Catholic bishops, has been following 82 issues in several categories
including: communications; domestic social development; education;
international justice and peace; migration and refugee services; and
pro-life.
In some cases, the office lobbies directly to amend, pass or
defeat specific pieces of legislation or the bill as a whole. In others, staff
simply tracks legislation.
For example, under the category domestic social
development, the office staff lobbies for health care for vulnerable
populations, support for low-wage earners and other issues it recognizes as
burdensome to low-income Americans. Minimum wage is one of the most important
pieces of legislation in this category. The office is currently lobbying for an
increase of $1 over two years, which Democrats support. Republicans, on the
other hand, want the increase spread out over three years.
A final vote on any bill represents a series of compromises,
negotiations and modifications. Tracking amendments to the legislation often
reveals party positions. However, this procedure is complicated for several
reasons. Members often propose amendments they know will not be acceptable just
to have their position on record for their constituents back home. Moderates in
both parties risk party disapproval if they cross party lines more than very
rarely.
In some cases involving controversial legislation, party members,
even leaders, cross over in order to support legislation backed by the
bishops government liaison office. But these crossover votes have become
less and less common as both parties have become more disciplined in their
demands on member loyalty.
Parties excel at rhetoric
After close scrutiny, we determined Republican claims to represent
Catholic teaching are vastly overstated. Although it is true that the
Republican Party is more consistently aligned with Catholic teaching against
abortion, we found that Democrats more closely reflect Catholic teachings over
the broad spectrum. Recent Republican claims to the contrary appear to be based
on the assumption that reproductive issues, particularly abortion, are the only
policies of interest to Catholics.
In reality, the church has an exceptionally strong body of
teachings on social justice -- teachings that play into many areas of social
policy. A careful reading of documents the Catholic church has produced during
the past quarter century makes it clear how far beyond reproductive rights the
teachings of the Catholic church extend.
Between 1972 to the present, the Republican Catholic presence in
the House has grown considerably, from 22 Republican Catholics in the House in
1972 to 49 in 1999 and from 3 Republican Catholics in the Senate in 1972 to 11
in 1999. (The number of Catholic Democrats remained steady in the House -- 77
in 1972, 78 in 1999 -- but increased in the Senate, from 9 in 1972 to 14 in
1999.) Yet Republican policies have remained fundamentally the same: opposed to
using federal tax dollars for social programs that would relieve the burdens of
the poor.
In many cases, the Republican position on issues is rooted in the
partys rhetoric against moral decay, weak families, sexual excess and
drug use. The church can generally agree that these social problems are matters
of serious concern. Democrats also are good at this rhetoric. But it is the
willingness of Democrats committed to social action -- not rhetoric on either
side -- that makes possible the social programs that benefit societys
most vulnerable members.
An example is found in HR 2684, a bill that originally cut funding
for housing assistance for the poor. The church opposed all such cuts
(Legislative Report, December 1999). Our research revealed that it was the
Democrats who beat back a series of votes that, had they passed, would have cut
funds for housing assistance. The final Senate vote in support of HR 2684 was
92-5, with only three Republicans and two Democrats opposing it. But what
really counted in support of the church position was the ability to beat back
the amendments with the support of a majority of Democrats and a minority of
Republicans.
In other cases, Republican policies focus on lowering taxes and on
returning tax dollars to the people who earned them, as they like
to say. But nowhere do church teachings say anything about returning tax
dollars to already wealthy Americans. Rather, the teachings emphasize our
responsibility as a people to use tax dollars to lift up the needy.
Up to now, the Republican Party, other than in its efforts to
restrict legal abortions, has largely ignored the Catholic churchs
emphasis on a consistent ethic of life. This ethic teaches that all those born
into this world should have adequate health care, decent housing, quality
education and opportunities for jobs with living wages, and that the government
should use tax funds for programs that will make such basic justice
possible.
As part of its consistent life ethic, the church has begun in
recent years to focus on the death penalty, calling for society to halt
execution as a penalty for crime. While neither party is as clearly opposed to
capital punishment as recent Catholic teaching is, Democrats in the House and
Senate have fought efforts by the Republican Party to stiffen the death
penalty. For example, S 1241 (June 1991), which limits death row appeals, had
strong support from Senate Republicans, who voted 42-0 in favor. Democrats, on
the other hand, opposed the bill 40-16.
These examples could go on, but the point by now is clear. The
Republican claim that it reflects Catholic teaching is limited. The fact is the
Republican Party departs from Catholic teachings on most issues that fall under
the umbrella of social justice. Our research shows that the affinity between
Democrats and Catholic social teaching, an affinity that reaches back to the
New Deal in the 1930s, continues into the present.
It is equally clear, however, that neither party can claim to be
fully in accord with church teaching. If both parties were really concerned
with using available tax funds to assist the least fortunate among us, as the
gospel requires, we would be living in a far more humane and loving world.
As U.S. bishops have said in their document on faithful
citizenship, The next millennium requires a new kind of politics, focused
more on moral principles than on the latest polls, more on the needs of the
poor and vulnerable
more on the pursuit of the common good.
Sometimes it seems few candidates and no party fully reflects our values.
We must challenge all parties and every candidate to defend human life
and dignity, to pursue greater justice and peace, to uphold family life and to
advance the common good.
William V. DAntonio, a sociologist, is professor emeritus
of the University of Connecticut and visiting research professor at The
Catholic University of America. Jacqueline Scherer, a sociologist and
professor emerita of Oakland University in Michigan, resides in Alexandria,
Va.
National Catholic Reporter, August 11,
2000
|