No. “A fetus is a person” is a matter of Catholic doctrine and has been for quite a while now. That doesn’t mean you’re not going to find individual Catholics who disagree, but the church hierarchy isn’t going to say, “Oh, you don’t think the fetus is a person? Go ahead and have an abortion, then.”
That was the case when FDR’s New Deal Coalition was at its fullest strength (roughly the period from 1932 to 1964). That was mainly due to the party’s stance on social issues (abortion wasn’t on the political radar at that time), labor (many Catholics were working class union members), and the fact Republicans at that time tended to congregate in clubs that were limited to people who were white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant (and usually rich).
It should be noted this was not the case everywhere in the U.S. In the South, the Democrats weren’t that friendly (to say the least) to anyone who was both Catholic and a union member while in the northeast, there were Republicans whose voting records were nearly indistinguishable from the most liberal Democrat.
All this changed starting in 1968. The Republicans began using wedge issues like race, crime, and (later) abortion to strip away blocks of traditional Democratic voters like Catholics. At the same time, many children of working class Catholic voters were advancing up the income and class ladder and became more amenable to the Republicans’ pro-business and (during the Cold War) anti-Communist stance.
Of course, I’m simplifying things here but that should give you a general ideal on why the Catholic vote is not as strongly Democratic as it was in years past.
Quoth Paranoid Randroid:
That’s mostly what I was referring to with my comment, but it’s somewhat off-topic for this thread, and I don’t really have the energy to debate the point in detail. That’s why I phrased it as “it can be argued that…”, rather than actually asserting the point myself. I’m not saying it’s a good (or bad) argument, but it is an argument I’ve heard from some Catholics for why they vote Democratic, which is relevant to this thread.
Sure if Jesus was alive today, he would line up with teh Democrats on most things but that abortion thing is a pretty big line item. If you really believe a fetus is a human life, its pretty hard to vote for the guy that would support it.
I suppose what we need is a more vibrant pro-life faction of the Democratic party. It would give people who hold their noses as they vote Republican someone to vote for.
Wow, that made the opposite of sense to me as a consequentialist.
I think I shall found such a party. Should be good for some laughs.
As for the OP’s question, I really don’t think abortion is a good enough reason to vote GOP.
I know there are plenty of pro-life Dem pols, not to mention those who are only “pro-choice” to get along with their friends who volunteer at PP, but really think abortion on demand is immoral. But my threshold for “pro-life” is perhaps a lot lower than a Catholic bishop’s.
I remember when there were plenty of pro-choice Republicans. I suspect today that claiming to be a member of a “culture of life” is so* de rigueur* for GOP pols that they all say it whether or not it is true.
So why are the Catholic bishops so intent on empowering a party that may just be giving lip service on this one issue, & is opposed to humanitarian social justice on other issues? I know GOP Protestants & irreligious who still mock any version of the welfare state as bleeding-heart Nancy-ism, and that’s even among people making < $75K/yr. And evangelicals who live on less than half of that who think that redistribution is theft, & liberals are thieves. I imagine it may be worse among richer Pubbies.
At this point, I don’t know what to think, but the rise of “moderate” socially liberal, environmentalist, integrationist, but pro-capitalist Southern Dems like Clinton & Gore may be part of the Dem’s demographics problem. If you’re a little social-conservative, a little racialist, not really Green, and working class, maybe both parties look equally iffy.
As for the bishops, well, Der Trihs may be right. 