Canada: Religion & Voting Patterns : The Roman Catholic vote in Canada - any such thing?
A friend brought my attention to a Jeffrey Simpson piece, "Quick now -- why do Catholics prefer Liberals?" The Globe and Mail (13 July 2005):A15. This friend is a self-confessed agnostic who for all that isn't hostile toward Christians and tends to be fairly socially conservative. Odd. Or not. He also describes my blog as "pretentious without being condescending -- I didn't know that was possible." Hmm. He's suggested I respond to Simpson's piece, so here goes (condescending without being pretentious, or was that the other way 'round?).
In the column, Simpson makes generous use of the findings of University of Montreal Professor Andre Blais, a political scientist and leading expert on voting intentions:
In elections since 1965, Catholics have preferred Liberals in Ontario and Atlantic Canada by an average of 18 points over other parties. Before 1990, the Liberal edge among Catholics in those regions was 19 points; since then, it's been 16 points.
Catholics represent 30 per cent of Ontario's electorate, 40 per cent of Atlantic Canada's. Without the big lead among Catholics, the Liberal lead would evaporate in both regions -- and, with it, the party's grip on power.
Also helping the Liberals is their 23-point lead among voters from Asia, Latin America or Africa. Religion and ethnicity are alive and well, therefore, in determining voting intentions.
When I first read the above, I thought, "Aha -- but what are voting intentions among RCs who regularly attend Mass?" But Blais's study addresses these and other speculations, including this:
Prof. Blais has also found that the more the voter practices Catholicism, the more likely he or she is to vote Liberal. The most religious Catholics are the Liberals' strongest supporters. Liberal support among them is 19 points higher than overall Liberal support, compared to 12 points higher for "non-religious" Catholics.
And this . . .
He put forward a number of hypotheses. Maybe, since every Liberal leader after Lester Pearson has been Catholic, the leaders' religion influenced voting behaviour. Said Prof. Blais: "There is no evidence that Catholics vote for a party with a Catholic leader."
He reached the same conclusion for the relationship between Catholic Liberal candidates and Catholics' voting intentions.
And this . . .
Or maybe Catholics think differently about broad issues than other Canadians, and those different perspectives explain why they line up behind the Liberals. Sorry, that won't work, either. Wrote Prof. Blais: "Catholics do not systematically differ from non-Catholics."
There are a few differences on individual issues, but not on the general view of the country and the world. For example, Catholics are more conservative than non-Catholics on abortion and same-sex marriage, but it doesn't seem to shake their Liberal preferences.
And this . . .
Forty years ago, surveys showed that Liberals were preferred by Catholics. So maybe it's just a matter of one generation handing down political affiliations to another. Sorry, research shows that increasingly political affiliations have to be reaffirmed from generation to generation. They don't happen automatically very much.
And this . . .
Maybe success flows from being a centrist party, and Catholics instinctively like centrist parties. Sorry, again. Catholics are no more centrist in their policy views than other Canadians, but they tend to like Liberals more. Professor Blais says, "Why Catholics vote Liberal is still largely a mystery, at least for me. I propose the creation of a special prize for the individual or team that solves the mystery."
Uh, okay. Even so, I'm going to take a stab at it. One of the great ironies of Blais's and other political scientists and sociologists' findings on voting intentions is that for all the media penchant for construing the old Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance as "evangelical," conservative Protestants (including evangelicals and Pentecostal Christians) were only marginally more likely to vote for these two predecessors of the merged Conservative Party, here. Despite what the abstract of the piece linked indicates, the findings given in the full text bear out my assessment that a voter's identifying as "evangelical" was only a marginal predictor of her vote. And although these findings are dated and based on Angus Reid research from 1996, I'd be very surprised if the situation to date has changed substantially.
Canadian, conservative Christians -- both multi-generational Canadians and "new Canadians" -- tend not to vote their "values" -- or their world view, if you prefer. They tend to vote approximately along the same lines as Canadians who do not regularly attend in any house of worship. At least they have, till now.
And before my self-professed "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" partisans in the Conservative Party pounce on this in order to push a fiscally conservative but socially liberal election platform, I urge them to take note . . . As a group, Canadian conservative Christians of any stripe don't consistently vote their world view with respect to fiscal issues, either!
So, what's a Conservative Party to do?
"Thought you'd never ask!"
The short answer is: "voter education."
This should not be taken as in any way demeaning voters. If anything, politicos tend to underestimate voters by "dumbing down" policy platforms into "hot button" issues. What Conservatives tend to do on fiscal policy is make the mistake of only talking about "the macros" -- the positive implications of their economic policy for the Canadian economy taken as a whole. Instead, Conservatives need to get the macros right in the research base, but talk more about "the micros" -- how their policies will make positive impacts on household budgets, home ownership, on children's educations, on health care, and on retirement planning. And then and only then, put these in the context of how Canada's long-term economic situation will be improved.
Frame social policy in terms of -- you guessed it! -- strengthening families, keeping neighbourhoods and streets safe, and caring for seniors. For example, on safe streets, one of the most often cited fears among young, single women, especially in big cities, is being accosted on the street after they've visited a cash machine. So, while a young, single woman might not want to vote for a party that calls for marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman, she just might vote for a party that offers to make her feel safe walking down Yonge or St. Catherine or Portage or 7th Ave or Jasper or Robson at mid-day. And how do you suppose seniors with incomes below a certain threshold might vote if they could deduct their property taxes -- including those included in rent -- from their taxable incomes?
When I went door-knocking for a couple of friends standing for the Conservative Party in last year's election, the policy plank that made people with kids at home and a mortgage practically light up was the Conservatives' proposal for an after-tax, sheltered savings account. As it is now, taxpayers can put money into an RRSP and get a tax credit for that tax year, but they can only draw it down for a down-payment (that must be paid back into the RRSP) until retirement age. And when the RRSP is converted into an RRIF, what is drawn down is taxable in the year drawn out of the fund. That is, the money is taxable on "the back end." Last election, the Conservatives proposed an additional tax shelter. As proposed, taxpayers could have put their after-tax dollars up to a ceiling in an investment savings account and drawn it down for making a lump-sum mortgage payment, for a vacation, for kids' educations or dental bills, or for retirement -- free of tax. They immediately saw the advantage of paying the tax on the front end, and appreciated the flexibility of it. Honestly -- their eyes lit up by the time I was finished.
Think "voter education." At the door, in the canvass card, on the talk show, in the story quote or talking point, on the phone, in the stump speech, in question period, in the scrum, in direct mail, and in campaign ads. Don't talk down, don't underestimate, but educate, educate, educate.
Oh, yeah -- "Why do Roman Catholics prefer Liberals?" First, let me rephrase the question: "Why do Canadians vote Liberal?"
"Um, 'cause Liberals are better at the politics."
Conservatives can overcome that by putting their focus on voter education.
No comments:
Post a Comment