c. 1996 Religion News Service

(Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and sociologist at the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. His home page on the World Wide Web is at http://www.greeley.com. Or send him e-mail at agreel(AT)aol.com.)

(RNS)-“Do you think the Democratic candidate’s stand on abortion will cost him Catholic votes?” The mayor looked at the reporter who asked the question with that expression of pained puzzlement he reserved for questions that were particularly dumb.”Oh, no,”he replied.”They don’t vote on that.” The year was 1976. The mayor was the late Richard Daley, and the presidential candidate was Jimmy Carter. Even though Carter did nothing to win Catholic votes and referred to Italians as Eye-talians, Catholics did vote for him in disproportionate numbers and he did win a very close election-against an opponent who had pardoned Richard Nixon.

Somehow, 20 years later, politicians and pundits can’t comprehend the truth in what Mayor Daley said. They still speak of Catholics as a”swing”vote and of a Republican effort to redeem the already-lost cause of Bob Dole by winning Catholics to their side on the abortion issue.

Somehow they seem to have missed the point that Catholics were 10 percentage points more likely to have voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 than for former President Bush and that they were disproportionately present among the Reagan Democrats who returned to the party in 1992.

Why the abortion issue would garner any more Catholic votes in 1996 than it did four years ago is difficult to understand. The only reason seems to be that myths about Catholics do not yield to facts.

The Republican spin doctors point to the recent letter of protest from Catholic archbishops to President Clinton in the wake of his veto of a bill banning late-term abortions. The assumption in that argument is that the bishops can somehow deliver the Catholic vote on this issue-or indeed any issue. In point of fact, the bishops could not deliver a pack of starving vampires to a blood bank.

One may concede that Catholics should be opposed to abortion and even that they ought to vote on that issue. But the late Chicago mayor was right. They don’t vote on the issue, and there is almost no difference between Catholic and Protestant Americans in their attitudes on abortion.

Indeed, statistics show that Catholics are as likely to have abortions as are other Americans. This may well be tragically unfortunate, but it does prove that the bishops should spend a lot more of their time and energy reclaiming their credibility among the rank and file and less time trying to impose the Catholic position on abortion-however morally right it may be-on other Americans.

Is there, then, no”Catholic vote”?

There certainly is a Catholic vote, although it does not seem to respond to any particular issue-as the Jewish vote does for support for Israel. Catholics disproportionately vote Democratic, partly for reasons of history and partly because the Catholic social perspective finds more resonance in the Democratic party than among the Republicans.

One assumes that Catholics will continue to vote for the Democratic candidates in this election, will get no credit for it, and will be disowned by the Democratic wise guys.

The president might be able to deepen his support among Catholics by breaking with the past and promising some sort of support for Catholic schools. Are ideological liberals and the officers of the American Federation of Teachers going to turn to Dole if he does? Not hardly. Clinton has nothing to lose.

LJB END GREELEY