Alex Carpenter finds a nut in a New Yorker essay by George Packer:

Buchanan gave me a copy of a seven-page confidential memorandum—“A little raw for today,” he warned—that he had written for Nixon in 1971, under the heading “Dividing the Democrats.” Drawn up with an acute understanding of the fragilities and fault lines in “the Old Roosevelt Coalition,” it recommended that the White House “exacerbate the ideological division” between the Old and New Left by praising Democrats who supported any of Nixon’s policies; highlight “the elitism and quasi-anti-Americanism of the National Democratic Party”; nominate for the Supreme Court a Southern strict constructionist who would divide Democrats regionally; use abortion and parochial-school aid to deepen the split between Catholics and social liberals; elicit white working-class support with tax relief and denunciations of welfare. Finally, the memo recommended exploiting racial tensions among Democrats. “Bumper stickers calling for black Presidential and especially Vice-Presidential candidates should be spread out in the ghettoes of the country,” Buchanan wrote. “We should do what is within our power to have a black nominated for Number Two, at least at the Democratic National Convention.” Such gambits, he added, could “cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.”

The Nixon White House didn’t enact all of these recommendations, but it would be hard to find a more succinct and unapologetic blueprint for Republican success in the conservative era. “Positive polarization” helped the Republicans win one election after another—and insured that American politics would be an ugly, unredeemed business for decades to come.

And you wonder why I'm so suspicious of attempts to pull in working-class white Catholics with mostly symbolic abortion legislation.

For that matter, why I'm suspicious of Hillary's charges that Obama is "elitist."

...At least according to Mark Stricherz, who is not coincidentally a socially conservative Catholic:

The bottom line is clear: The party must woo Casey Democrats in Rust Belt and border states -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, Missouri, Kentucky. To win them over, it won't be enough for Democrats to hammer the GOP over the economy and the war in Iraq, as Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, did in 2004, or merely to use inclusive language and support partial-birth abortion, as Obama and Clinton have done. Instead, Democrats must address voters' real concerns about protecting families and human life, as Gov. Casey did. "Catholic voters have emerged more pro-life," pollster Greenberg wrote in a 2005 memo, "but they are very responsive to a broad initiative to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions."

Some Republicans agree:

With Democrats flush with advantages, McCain hopes that Brownback's street cred among religious conservatives could help tip a swing state or two his way.

"He has a big following in the conservative wing of the party with right-to-life supporters and those who care about social and cultural issues," said Charlie Black, a McCain senior adviser and a veteran of Republican presidential politics, "and he has been terrific at promoting McCain among those groups."

That Charlie Black, by the way, is the guy who conned US Senators into sponsoring a messianic coronation ceremony for Sun-Myung Moon, who was a lobbyist for the Saudi Government even as he worked on Sen. McCain's 2000 campaign, and who has flacked for dictators from Ferdinand Marcos to Jonas Savimbi to Mobuto Sese Seko. So of course he's an impartial observer whose judgment can be trusted when it comes to religious matters.

I've said it before, but what's never been made clear about this storyline is why exactly Democrats should sacrifice core principles for a tiny swath of voters. The argument is that you need conservative Catholics to win the swing states, but as I've noted before, Catholics tend to vote on the economy, not just hot-button issues. Obama won't attract nearly the same hostility from the Catholic church that Kerry did, and it's entirely possible that he'll put new states into contention.

Pew polling maven John Green says that Obama does appear to have a problem attracting white Catholics:

Could this problem persist in the general election if Obama is the Democratic nominee? It might, and, if so, it would pose a challenge for Obama in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. We should keep in mind, however, that many of the Democratic Catholics who did not vote for Obama in the primaries might well support him in the fall against John McCain. But on the other hand, not all white Catholics are Democrats -- many are independents or Republicans. If nothing else, this means that white Catholics are a key group to watch.

But that hardly sounds like an unequivocal case for flanking the GOP on abortion. It sounds more like a mixed message to me: Obama needs to attract Catholics, but does he need conservative Catholics? So the question remains: why exactly should Democrats propitiate these people? Is it because they're a necessary part of a new Democratic coalition, or because somebody wants to pull the party to the right?

That would be the Hon. Robert Schaeffer, Republican Senator of Colorado and full-time hypocrite:

Washington, D.C. - Catholics United today welcomed President Bush's signing into law of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. This legislation includes a provision that will bring the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) under the protection of federal immigration laws, effectively putting an end to years of rampant human rights abuses within the territory. The Department of the Interior and Catholic advocates in the CMNI have documented extensive worker exploitation associated with an infusion of low-paid immigrant workers, including allegations of forced abortions.

Today's victory comes despite the work of former U.S. Congressman Bob Schaffer of Colorado, who has recently come under scrutiny for participating in a 1999 junket paid for by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Following this trip, Schaffer - who served on the House Resources Committee - led an effort to discredit the testimony of abused workers in the Northern Mariana Islands. His roadblocking ultimately delayed the passage of today's legislation for almost a decade.

In 2007, representatives from Guma Esperanza-House of Hope shelter of battered women in the Mariana Islands, including representatives of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd testified before a Senate committee on the rampant abuse of women on the island. One Catholic nun told explained that the then-existing labor and immigration regulation "effectively created a permanent underclass of disenfranchised persons."

I could swear I wrote something about an anti-abortion group that took the same swing at Schaeffer, but I can't find it at the moment.

In any case, the message is pretty clear: if you're going to talk the talk, you'd better be prepared to walk the walk. Catholics United and other folks are not going to put up with lip service to Catholic ideals used as cover for rank injustice.

While we're sort of on the subject, a quick reminder: don't mess with the nuns. They will mess you up.

Whoops. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Hillary Clinton lost Catholic votes between Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina:

In Pennsylvania, Sen. Clinton beat Sen. Barack Obama by 40 points among Catholics. In Indiana, Sen. Obama sliced that deficit in half, earning 41% of the Catholic vote to Sen. Clinton's 59%. And in North Carolina Sen. Clinton won among Catholics by a scant seven points.

All sorts of reasons are advanced for this shift, most of which are more or less stupid. (Honestly, a "nun theory"?) The one I find persuasive is that Pennsylvania Catholics are a little more downscale than those in Indiana or particularly North Carolina. Clinton apparently resonates with the culturally conservative white working class - the union folks, who skew Catholic. But Obama's learning how to reach out to them, and as things go along, the rationale for a Clinton campaign keeps dropping, which has to hurt her with all the various demographics.

As it stands, she'll soon be forced out of the race anyway, but this is just one more piece of data suggested that her "electability" narrative is a crock.

I actually thought this was way more interesting:

In a recent survey of 19 states that have held a presidential primary this year, 63% of Catholics identified themselves as Democrats, compared with 37% for Republicans, a sharp increase from 2005 when 42% of Catholics identified themselves as Democrats. One of every four voters in the U.S. is Catholic.

Catholics have been a swing vote since the early 70's, and it looks like they're swinging right back into the Democratic camp. This does not bode well for the GOP: even a temporary shift in Catholic sentiment could be enough to establish the generational realignment that seems to be in the offing these days. As for John McCain: he needs to hold Texas and Florida and pick off at least one of the heavily Catholic Rust Belt states - Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, or Wisconsin - to have any, erm, prayer of taking the election.

Whoops.

The Party Faithful : How and Why Democrats are Closing the God Gap by Amy Sullivan [book review]

Some on-line progressives (e.g. many at DailyKos) to dismiss Amy Sullivan as a concern troll, mainly those who have managed to convince themselves that Democrats can somehow regain power without reconciling themselves to the vast majority of voters who take religion more seriously than they take politics. That they are wrong does not make Sullivan right on all counts, but she is certainly a voice worth hearing.

The man who, in my life, has demonstrated the closest thing I've ever seen to the grace of God and the example of Christ -- my dad -- is now 77, having had a stroke, suffering a bad heart and fighting leukemia.  I'm taking some time off to go visit him.  We'll go fishing.  We'll drink coffee.  We'll talk.  We'll pray.  And we'll just be together.  I tell you this so you'll understand why you may not see me post again for a week or so.  In the meantime, be good to each other.

News below.

Well, hoo-ey. I ain't had so much fun since before Mrs Pastor banned me from the ladies' mud-wrestling championships:

The president of the Catholic League today blasted Sen. John McCain for accepting the endorsement of Texas evangelicalist John Hagee, calling the controversial pastor a bigot who has "waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church."

Hagee, who is known for his crusading support of Israel, backed McCain's presidential bid Wednesday, standing next to the senator at a hotel in San Antonio and calling McCain "a man of principle."

But Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement today that Hagee has written extensively in negative ways about the Catholic Church, "calling it 'The Great Whore,' an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' and a 'false cult system.'"

"Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee," Donohue said.

Long-time readers will remember that Donohue isn't exactly popular around here, and that's only half the story! But I at least am happy to let him spend his considerable energies tilting at Republicans, rather than Democrats.

And lucky for us, we don't have to rely on Donohue. Responsible Catholics organizations like Catholics United for the Common Good are on the same wavelength:

“By receiving the endorsement of an outspoken critic of the Catholic Church, McCain is jeopardizing his support within the Catholic community,” said Chris Korzen, Executive Director of Catholics United. “We hope Senator McCain will take the principled position of publicly and unequivocally distancing himself from Pastor Hagee’s anti-Catholic comments. Intolerance and bigotry do not belong in American politics.”

Donohue's hardly the only conservative to speak out against Hagee, either. Here's Kathryn Lopez at National Review Online, Erick and Alexham from RedState, and the himself-execrable Deal Hudson.

Nor, I should point out, is Hagee the only one right-wing religious creep McCain is hanging out with:

This week McCain campaigned with Rod Parsley, founder and president of “The Center for Moral Clarity” and leader of the right-wing “ Patriot Pastors” (a church based campaign that was infamous for referring to political opponents as “secular jihadists,” the “forces of darkness,” and the “hordes of hell.”)

Neither Hagee nor Parsley fits in with the Religious Right crowd. They're crazy and scary and very aggressive in their perspectives. Needless to say, they represent the viewpoint of only a tiny slice of American Christianity. You all are free to correct me, but I don't remember bumping in to too many red heifer enthusiasts even among the hard-right Christians I've known. And somewhere between 2/3's and 3/4's of Americans believe that people outside their faith tradition will not be punished after they die.

I'm happy to egg on Bill Donohue as Glenn Greenwald does. McCain has thrown his lot in with Hagee's crowd on the apparent assumption that that's what will earn him back the enthusiasm of the conservative Christian voters, and he can choke on it for all I care.

But in the end, I'm left wondering what it says about John McCain's judgment that he has gone beyond a supermajority of Americans, beyond even the extremes of conservatism, to soak up the support of the true fringe of belief, of a man whose beliefs include literally hatred of Catholics (or anybody else not of his extremist sect) and the desirability of bringing on the Second Coming through global warfare. It doesn't sound like somebody I'd trust to unitenotdivide the nation. Never mind having his finger on the bomb.

All this time, I'd been thinking that the Republicans were just playing a role when they tried to frighten the voters into supporting them. Turns out they're as scary as any cave-dwelling knuckle-dragger they could conjure up in their fevered imagination.

Kiss your loved ones before you go to bed tonight, folks, and if you're Catholic, hold that rosary tight. I'm just saying.

If you've ever met Luke Johnson, or even just read his books, you'll know that he is not exactly theologically unorthodox. In fact, he may be the most orthodox man I've ever met, other than a Romanian priest, and he was insane.

Luke's a good guy, not one to wear his politics on his sleeve. He is absolutely committed to the church and to developing pastors and scholars who can serve it with integrity.

And the man really is more Catholic than the pope.

Which is why this bit from Commonweal came as a surprise:

Commonweal sponsors a speakers bureau that sends a handful of contributors and editors to Catholic and secular colleges across the country. Among our most popular speakers is Luke Timothy Johnson of the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. One of the most highly regarded Scripture scholars in the nation, if not the world, Johnson is much in demand as a lecturer and a preacher. But not, we were saddened to learn, in the Diocese of Belleville, Illinois. Johnson recently accepted an invitation to speak at the Newman Center at Southern Illinois University. When Edward K. Braxton, bishop of Belleville, was told that Johnson was to speak, he informed the center staff that he could not grant permission for the talk and the center withdrew the invitation. As Bishop Braxton subsequently explained in a letter to Commonweal, “The reason is quite simple. I do not wish Catholic institutions or organizations to invite speakers into the diocese who have written articles or given lectures that oppose, deny, reject, undermine, or call into question the authentic teachings of the magisterium of the Catholic Church.”

The issue apparently is that Johnson isn't fully on board with the Catholic position on gays and lesbians. That might be cause for the bishops to dislike him. But really, to prevent him from speaking at a college event? This is going far out of the way to make a point, with a professor who has done nothing but model respectful and carefully reasoned dissent on a single issue. Makes you wonder what Bishop Braxton is so afraid of.

The blog PolySigh (not the same and obviously crudely derivative of our own PoliSigh) has some interesting maps of Iowa. Counties won by Mike Huckabee:

Now, the distribution of Catholics in Iowa:

There's some math there too that I don't claim to understand or be able to properly evaluate.

But this does remind me of something. States broken down into largest religious group:

That's Southern Baptists and Mormons in red, Catholics in blue, in case you were wondering. Follow the diary link for more information.

Run, Mike, run.

(Via Yglesias, from whom I kipped the post title.)

Pee Ess: Andy White informs us of the New Hampshire results by e-mail:

With about 10-11% reporting...

Hillary has more than twice as many votes as McCain.

Obama has far more than twice what Romney has.

Edwards is nearing three times what Huckabee's numbers.

Giuliani's with a handful more than Richardson.

Paul has twice Kucinich.

Turn-out again looks to be 2 to 1 Democratic just as it was in Iowa.

...Grampa Fred is beating Duncan Hunter by more than 2 to 1! However… write-in’s are beating Fred.

One of my strong suits back when I was going to be an academician was cultural or intellectual history. I'm still intrigued by questions such as "why was this particular cultural artifact produced in this particular way, and at this particular time?" and love tracing the connections through art, politics, sociology, or pure historical circumstance. (I've also read my fair share of cultural theory, which along with theology is responsible for ruining my writing style.)

As you might imagine, one of the big questions in cultural history is "what is this thing supposed to do?" You get different answers depending on whether you're asking about a button or Ike Turner's first hit, but in principle, it's the same question.

And it's the same question that I kept asking while reading Rick Perlstein's deconstruction of Mark Stricherz's book Why the Democrats Are Blue: How Secular Liberals Hijacked the People's Party in Democracy Magazine. (I wrote about it here.) It's a registration-required site, unfortunately, but a couple of paragraphs ought to give you a sense of the demolition job Perlstein lays down:

Stricherz’s historical account begins with, as it were, the first Caseycrat: David Lawrence, the Pittsburgh political boss who fought for a civil rights plank at the 1948 convention. Stricherz wants Lawrence to stand in for his cohort as a whole: "The post-war Catholic bosses [who] produced good and equitable Democratic results, which reflected the values of the party’s working-class and Judeo-Christian constituents." He labels their ideology "Christian humanism." That’s a bit fantastic. Among other "Christian humanists," Stricherz singles out Frank Hague of Jersey City, who also brought his delegation into line for the plank. Hague reportedly died with $10 million in the bank, though his mayoral salary never exceeded $8,000, and you can still see his old desk at City Hall, with its specially designed reverse-drawer that he would push forth to demand a bribe.

The transformation dates to 1968. Mayor Richard Daley–whom Stricherz singles out as one of the bosses "more ethical and less sectarian than their predecessors," and I dare him to read that howler aloud in my hometown of Chicago–presided over the police riot in the streets outside the Democratic National Convention, as well as the machine riot inside the hall, from which people questioning procedural irregularities by the Humphrey and pro-war forces were dragged by helmeted cops. One result of the convention was the appointment of a party commission to reform the nominating structure. You didn’t have to be an antiwar activist to reasonably fear that a party that settled ineluctable divisions via fisticuffs and billy clubs might go the way of the Whigs. But it is crucial to the structure of Stricherz’s argument to show the reform contingent as mere usurpers.

There's more if you care to read it. Stricherz writes his history from a perspective, let us say, and Perlstein sets the record straight, cleanly, crisply, and with only the most necessary of exsanguination. It's a beautiful thing.

I wanted to add this to the Krugman post below, but Scoop isn't cooperating. The Shrill One reminds me of something I meant to write about last night. The Catholic bishops say:

The statement decried “the political stalemate in Iraq that blocks national reconciliation” and “finds a parallel” in “the political and partisan stalemate in Washington.”  Bishop Skylstad continued, “Our country needs a new direction to reduce the war’s deadly toll and to bring our people together to deal with the conflict’s moral and human dimensions.  Our nation needs a new bipartisan approach to Iraq policy based on honest and civil dialogue.”

No, goddammit, with something like 70% of the nation opposed to the war and only 35% of freaking Montanans in favor of the decision to go to war in the first place, the last thing needed is a "bipartisan approach to Iraq policy". What we need instead is to bless the peacemakers, and tell the warmongers to STFU.

What the Dilly-O?

Another consequence of a Giuliani victory would be to place the Republican nominee in direct conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. For someone who aspires to be the fourth Roman Catholic to lead a major-party ticket, this is not a minor thing.

Giuliani is not only pro-choice. He has supported embryonic stem cell research and public funding for abortion. He supports the death penalty. He supports "waterboarding" of terror suspects and seems convinced that the conduct of the war on terrorism has been too constrained. Individually, these issues are debatable. Taken together, they are the exact opposite of Catholic teaching, which calls for a "consistent ethic of life" rather than its consistent devaluation. No one inspired by the social priorities of Pope John Paul II can be encouraged by the political views of Rudy Giuliani. Church officials who criticized John Kerry on abortion are anxious for the opportunity to demonstrate their bipartisanship by going after a Republican. Those attacks on Giuliani have already begun.

First, as Glenn Greenwald says, this makes no sense: you can't talk about the Catholic church's "consistent ethic of life" while leaving off their opposition to the war in Iraq. As Glenn quotes Cardinal Ratzinger, "A preventive war is not in the Catechism."

Second, as Glenn Greenwald says, this makes no sense: Gerson was one of the people most responsible for stapling the Mother Church's opposition to abortion to the Republican party in this country. But now out of political convenience, he's going to disavow the other violations of the "consistent ethic of life" as immoral and anti-religious. Either it's a seamless garment or it's not, which means that either the Bush administration was wrong to go to war with Iraq (and do all the stuff that gets Rudy excited), or it's possible to actually pick and choose ethical stances and the Bush campaign was wrong to deride John Kerry as a "cafeteria Catholic."

Hopefully, as Glenn says, the tensions of that contradiction will lead to a healthier and more honest debate about faith and politics.

In the meantime, as pastordan says, this makes no sense: since when do we shy away from presidential candidates because they might piss off the pope? Does Gerson have any idea what the Establishment Clause means? What "avoid entangling alliances" means?

I swear, I'm beginning to agree with Atrios...