Darryl Hart

Foremost among these is the notion that devout voters have supported the Republican Party in recent presidential elections. True, in 2004, Americans who attended religious services more than once a week voted for George W. Bush over John Kerry by a margin of 64 to 35 percent. [Dionne] convincingly argues, however, that below such surface statistics, the reality of the role of religion in American elections is much more complex. For instance, wholly convinced believers and disbelievers account for just over 30 percent of voters. Only 16 percent of Americans attend religious services more than once a week, and only 15 percent never go to church. In between is a wide swath of citizens for whom religion is one factor among many others. Dionne also explains how race, class, wealth, and region affect voting patterens at least as much as religion. The media's focus on "moral values" voters has distracted analysts from other salient factors. Discussions of religion and politics in America are usually restricted to the activities of born-again Protestants. Yet Roman Catholics make up almost a quarter of the population, only a couple of percentage points behind evangelicals (an unwieldy, complex group that defies precise identification). Dionne, a Catholic from the liberal fold, offers a different perspective, especially in two illuminating chapters on the background and dynamics of American Catholicism. He explores the ongoing mystery of the Catholic vote, pointing out, intriguingly, that the historic alliance between Democrats and Catholics has been stronger in the public's imagination than at the ballot In 1960, John F. Kennedy won 80 percent of Catholic votes, yet four years earlier, Dwight D. Eisenhower had carried roughly half. "Catholics may be the most maddening electoral group in American politics," says Republican consultant Steve Wagner. Political scientist David Leege adds, "Despite a cottage industry of scholars who have studied religion and politics among American Catholics, a single theory that explains the dynamics of Catholic political behavior has eluded their grasp." Weighing the evidence, Dionne suggests, "It can ... be said that there is no Catholic vote-and that the Catholic vote is important." Dionne admits, "the public voice of Catholicism is decidedly more conservative than it was in the New Deal or civil rights eras." Yet he is quick to stress that modern Catholicism should not be pigeonholed as socially conservative. He points to the large number American Catholics who wish that Rome would change its stance on the role of women, among other issues. He also explains how Catholic social teaching influenced FDR's policies during the New Deal For Dionne, helping liberals to build a more just and less hierarchical society is in line with the traditions of American Catholicism.