If conventional wisdom is to be believed, John Kerry has a religion problem -- namely, that Americans think he's insufficiently devout. Every pundit in America has advice for Kerry on how to appeal to religious audiences on the trail and how to make use of his own Catholic faith -- but should he listen? Ayelish McGarvey argues that religion could lead Kerry to the promised land, but Matthew Yglesias fears that the road to defeat is paved with biblical quotations.
This is the second round in a three-part debate. Click here to read the opening round and here to read the conclusion.
Matthew Yglesias
McGarvey writes that this debate is about swing voters, not "southern fundamentalists or rural Pentacostals," so at least we agree on that much. The question is whether "get[ing] comfortable with religion," to use the prevailing jargon for mention God more often, is a sound strategy for reaching them. We also agree that moderate Catholics are an important swing constituency but again, why do we think a God-drenched campaign will attract them?
As I see it, moderate Catholics are notable precisely for the fact that they don't vote their religion. On the one hand, you have white, merely nominal Catholics who, like basically secular people everywhere, are loyal Democrats. On the other hand you have highly observant white Catholics who, like white evangelicals, are wedded to Republican stances on certain issues. What makes the moderate Catholics moderate -- what makes them a swing constituency -- is that unlike the other brands of Catholics their voting behavior isn't determined by their religious beliefs. Last I read, Kerry was actually ahead among this group; if he's lost his lead it will be because a brief spat of economic good news and the transition in Iraq made Bush look better. If Kerry wants to do better among this group he needs a wider-ranging domestic-policy critique (and with the addition of John "Two Americas" Edwards to the ticket he seems to be doing so) and, as always, to improve the public's perception of his ability as a leader in a crisis.
One thing talking more about faith certainly won't do is resolve Kerry's problems with Republican supporters in the American Catholic hierarchy. Protestants have a big advantage over Catholics in playing the God card since, as members of a religion oriented toward a personal relationship with Christ, they can more or less make their faith say whatever they happen to believe. Kerry has no such luxury. The view that one can personally oppose abortion on moral and religious grounds and yet not favor its criminalization makes perfect sense, but it isn't the view of the Catholic Church. On gay marriage, too, Kerry's views are at odds with those of the hierarchy. Liberals may complain that the Church does not demand such strict adherence from its followers of more left-wing teachings on the death penalty and the war, but that's a matter for the Pope -- not for The American Prospect or John Kerry.
Kerry's best shot in this regard is that, like Kerry, the moderate Catholics in question don't necessarily take their marching orders from the local bishop. What's more, most Catholic clergy seem disinclined to take their church into a downward spiral of politicization. That's good news for Kerry. Running up and down the country talking about how his political views are inspired by his faith, however, will merely strengthen the hand of conservative bishops who will pressure their colleagues to point out that Kerry's views are not, in fact, in line with the teachings of the Church that he claims is so important to him.
This probably won't impress moderate Catholics either way, but it might hurt Kerry among non-white, socially conservative Latinos, to whom the Democratic pitch is precisely that such people ought to ignore questions of faith in the voting booth and pull the lever for the candidate who will deliver jobs, health care, and better schools.
I think the 1980 election helps prove my point. Ronald Reagan didn't beat Jimmy Carter in a pray-off. Instead, he took positions on issues -- abortion, school prayer, anti-communism -- that appealed to religious conservatives and that, combined with the poor performance of the economy in the late 1970s, won the allegiance of Carter's 1976 base in the South. Kerry needs to perfect the platform he's actually running on, not fruitlessly try to out-Jesus the incumbent.
Ayelish McGarvey
While writing one segment of this debate I received an email from the Kerry campaign. “Join People of Faith for Kerry-Edwards!” it boldly announced. The email directed me to a long-awaited new website created by the campaign to reach out to religious voters. The link led to an error page.
Truthfully, I wasn't altogether surprised. I had been let down by the Kerry campaign's many promises of religious outreach before. The campaign's relationship to religion is mercurial, at best: In March, Kerry gave a rousing, impromptu speech in a black Baptist church in St. Louis, during which he took the Bush administration to task for empty religious pandering: “The Scriptures say, ‘What does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works[?]' When we look at what is happening in America today, ‘Where are the works?' For it is also written, ‘The doers of the word are no hearers only.'” Kerry's words were met with thunderous applause from the audience, and left Bush's “God Is On Our Side” campaign smarting.
Things were still looking up a month later. In April, Mara Vanderslice, a born-again evangelical, was brought on as the campaign's coordinator for outreach to faith communities. Her hiring came as a welcome surprise. The creation of her position within the Kerry campaign was a step in the right direction: Democrats have traditionally done all of their Bible-thumping in black churches, but Vanderslice was hired for a broader outreach including white evangelicals and Muslims.
But I should have known something was amiss when my repeated attempts to interview Vanderslice met with bureaucratic run-around and finally silence. This Washington Times story says it all: The Kerry campaign has lost its nerve and righteous indignation in the face of rogue Catholic bishops who have fought to refuse Kerry communion because of his liberal stance on abortion. But one localized group of legalists should not silence an entire presidential campaign, especially not when the opponent has exploited his religious faith more aggressively than any president in recent history. John Kerry will seal his defeat by keeping mum on these issues.
The campaign's religion problem is perhaps most evident in its pathetic outreach to non-black Muslim voters. Most Muslims voted for Bush in 2000, but the fate of this group in the aftermath of September 11 (read: Patriot Act) has reversed that leaning. Kerry currently leads among Muslim voters, but Ralph Nader (whose heritage is Lebanese) holds a significant share -- a crucial one in states like Michigan and Ohio. Why on earth has the Kerry campaign not done more to court these voters? Didn't he get the memo? John, you don't have to be a Muslim to understand them.
In his prior comments, Yglesias snarkily alluded to his vision of John Kerry getting comfortable with religion “with a prayer here and a biblical quotation there.” Yglesias also mentioned a “pray-off” as a necessary component of a “God-drenched campaign.”
But here's how I see it: John Kerry can use religious language and understanding to frame his position on traditionally liberal issues -- including abortion -- for audiences whose morality is bound tightly to religious faith. In places like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, this strategy could pay off. John Kerry has the unique opportunity to (correctly) realign Christian values of equality, justice, and honesty with the Democratic platform. It's a win-win situation. And a baseless debate about “values” won't cut it with swing voters. They've heard that before.
Yglesias and I agree on one thing: John Kerry should not pretend to be more religious than he really is. That's George W. Bush's shtick. Let him have it. When questioned by Larry King last week, Kerry said simply that faith "guides you. It's your rock. It's the bedrock of your sense of place, of where it all fits." That's a fine answer for now. But it is not disingenuous for Kerry to reach out to faithful voters on issues of agreement. This isn't a vote about the inerrancy of scripture but about a failed and unjust war in Iraq, among other things.
George Bush will beat the Bible until November, using his cache as a born-again Christian to his every advantage. For John Kerry to meet this with silence is nothing short of sinful. Matt, tell me: What does Kerry have to lose by getting religion?
Matthew Yglesias is a Prospect staff writer. Ayelish McGarvey is a Prospect writing fellow. This is the second round in a three-part debate. Click here to read the opening round and here to read the concluding round.
