How would a Catholic US presidential candidate have done in the 1940s to early 1950s?

This isn't technically an alternate history scenario, because I'm not yet specifically asking anyone to suggest a specific candidate or individual (though if you have something in mind, please share). Rather, I'm asking about general political attitudes in the United States during the middle of the 20th century.

In 1928, Al Smith, the first Catholic presidential candidate for a major party ticket, lost the general election in a landslide. In 1960, John F. Kennedy, the second such individual, narrowly won the general election. Both garnered some manner of opposition to their candidacies due to anti-Catholic sentiment in the United States. However, while there are any number of factors one could name for Smith's failure and Kennedy's success that had nothing to do with their religion, it seems reasonable to attribute part of the difference to both a weakening of anti-Catholic sentiment in the ensuing years, and a proportional growth in the number of Catholic voters.

So, what level of opposition could a Catholic presidential candidate have expected had they run in any of the elections from 1940 through 1952 - opposition, that is, merely based on nothing more than their religious affiliation. Was this period still too early for all but the most savvy of Catholic candidates to run and win? Or did the 1930s see an erosion of anti-Catholic sentiment sufficient to make such a candidate viable?
 
As late as 1940, 33 percent of Americans told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, and only 61 percent said they would. http://news.gallup.com/poll/26611/s...mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx When at least one-third of the electorate *openly* says they won't vote for someone of your religion, that is a fairly severe handicap. By 1955, 69 percent said they were willing to vote for a Catholic, 23 percent that they would not. So that by the mid-1950's a Catholic candidate was once again conceivable, but I still think he would be facing a handicap.

Indeed, although I know some people disagree, I think that as late as 1960, JFK's religion hurt him rather than helped. Given that there was a recession (though a mild one), that time for a change sentiment is normal after two terms of one party in the White House, that Democrats easily won the congressional elections, etc. I would say that JFK's winning margin was less than it should have been. He did win back the Catholic vote, but it was mostly Catholics who had voted for Truman in 1948, and whose vote for Ike in 1952 and 1956 was mainly a personal rather than a party vote; probably any Democratic presidential candidate other than the divorced and dovish Stevenson would have won them back in 1960. Meanwhile in many southern and border states Nixon did better than Ike had done in 1956, and it is hard not to conclude that religion had something to do with it.
 
As late as 1940, 33 percent of Americans told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, and only 61 percent said they would. http://news.gallup.com/poll/26611/s...mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx When at least one-third of the electorate *openly* says they won't vote for someone of your religion, that is a fairly severe handicap. By 1955, 69 percent said they were willing to vote for a Catholic, 23 percent that they would not. So that by the mid-1950's a Catholic candidate was once again conceivable, but I still think he would be facing a handicap.

Hmm - are you implying that something like the Bradley Effect existed at the time?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Depends on the Catholic. If Ike had been Catholic, he still had a very good chance in 1952, due to his status as a war hero.
Maybe.

There was a remarkably deep belief that Catholics would do whatever the Pope told them to do. That has remained an issue long past JFK. It still exists for other religions. Romney suffered from it regarding his Mormon faith in 2012 and we can all readily imagine how a legitimate Muslim candidate would be challenged.

BTW: Technically it IS an interesting theological & political question if the Pope was to address something falling under "Faith and Morals" and doing so Ex Cathedra what any Catholic political leader would do.

The reality, however, is that the Ex Cathedra platform is so controversial (it didn't exist before 1870 when Vatican Council I promulgated it) that it is very rarely even considered. It has been used exactly ONE TIME in the 147 years that it has existed, and that was on a matter of doctrine that was somewhat unimportant outside the Faith (the physical Assumption of Mary's Body and Soul at the time of her death, the big controversy having been if Mary had actually died before the Assumption. Like I said, not really a burning issue outside the Faithful, and not much of one within except for a few theologians), although Pius IX's bull on the Immaculate Conception had all the markings of an Ex Cathedra statement, but without the doctrinal backing to make it so.
 
Hmm - are you implying that something like the Bradley Effect existed at the time?

Well, it was widely thought in 1928 that a lot of people who said they were voting against Al Smith because of his opposition to Prohibition really objected to his religion. https://books.google.com/books?id=KbGiJpDk6pwC&pg=PA89 And there is some evidence for this: Smith lost heavily in some Protestant areas that had voted "wet" in Prohibition referendums.
 
Another point: Doubts about whether a Catholic president could resist pressure from the Church were not limited to Bible-Belt types. Recall that Paul Blanshard's *American Freedom and Catholic Power* was popular among liberals in the 1950's; also recall Spellman's quarrel with Eleanor Roosevelt over public aid to parochial schools. Of course even those liberals who viewed the Church with suspicion were willing to give JFK the benefit of the doubt because he seemed pretty secular and because they hated Nixon so much. But I wonder if it would have been different had JFK been running against, say, Nelson Rockefeller...
 
Another point: Doubts about whether a Catholic president could resist pressure from the Church were not limited to Bible-Belt types. Recall that Paul Blanshard's *American Freedom and Catholic Power* was popular among liberals in the 1950's; also recall Spellman's quarrel with Eleanor Roosevelt over public aid to parochial schools. Of course even those liberals who viewed the Church with suspicion were willing to give JFK the benefit of the doubt because he seemed pretty secular and because they hated Nixon so much. But I wonder if it would have been different had JFK been running against, say, Nelson Rockefeller...

Sidebar: William F. Buckley, a Catholic, got a lot of opposition from old WASPy blue bloods for some of the ideas he promulgated during his God and Man at Yale era, no?

Anyway, would the situation have been significantly different for a Catholic Democrat vs. a Catholic Republican (of which there were fewer, obviously)?
 
There was a remarkably deep belief that Catholics would do whatever the Pope told them to do. That has remained an issue long past JFK.

Hmm, I get that there was some lingering anti-Catholic sentiment post-JFK, but that raises an interesting question. Exactly how long did it take for a candidate's Catholicism to have been a nonfactor for all but the fringiest segments of the population? All other factors being equal, would there have been a noticeable electoral penalty to a Catholic presidential candidate in 1972 through 1980? (Though I have to believe by that point that, even if there was, that members Catholics voting bloc such as the Irish, Italians, Hispanics, and others were numerous, organized, and influential enough in important states like New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California that the benefits for such a candidate would have outweighed the negatives.)

(And before anyone brings it up, yes, anti-Italian sentiment probably would've hurt any potential Italian candidate pretty badly, but I think that would've had more to do with prejudice against the Italian community specifically than any sort of generalized anti-Catholic sentiment.)
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hmm, I get that there was some lingering anti-Catholic sentiment post-JFK, but that raises an interesting question. Exactly how long did it take for a candidate's Catholicism to have been a nonfactor for all but the fringiest segments of the population? All other factors being equal, would there have been a noticeable electoral penalty to a Catholic presidential candidate in 1972 through 1980? (Though I have to believe by that point that, even if there was, that members Catholics voting bloc such as the Irish, Italians, Hispanics, and others were numerous, organized, and influential enough in important states like New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California that the benefits for such a candidate would have outweighed the negatives.)

(And before anyone brings it up, yes, anti-Italian sentiment probably would've hurt any potential Italian candidate pretty badly, but I think that would've had more to do with prejudice against the Italian community specifically than any sort of generalized anti-Catholic sentiment.)
There are still folks who wouldn't vote for a Roman Catholic (or a Jew, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, or "non-believer").

Even 57 years after JFK was sworn in, there are smaller groups of people who are convinced that Roman Catholics are literally agents of the Dark One. I've met people who have told me to my face that, since I was Roman Catholic, I was NOT a Christian. Can't even imagine what they would say to a Mormon.
 
Maybe.

There was a remarkably deep belief that Catholics would do whatever the Pope told them to do. That has remained an issue long past JFK. It still exists for other religions. Romney suffered from it regarding his Mormon faith in 2012 and we can all readily imagine how a legitimate Muslim candidate would be challenged.

BTW: Technically it IS an interesting theological & political question if the Pope was to address something falling under "Faith and Morals" and doing so Ex Cathedra what any Catholic political leader would do.

The reality, however, is that the Ex Cathedra platform is so controversial (it didn't exist before 1870 when Vatican Council I promulgated it) that it is very rarely even considered. It has been used exactly ONE TIME in the 147 years that it has existed, and that was on a matter of doctrine that was somewhat unimportant outside the Faith (the physical Assumption of Mary's Body and Soul at the time of her death, the big controversy having been if Mary had actually died before the Assumption. Like I said, not really a burning issue outside the Faithful, and not much of one within except for a few theologians), although Pius IX's bull on the Immaculate Conception had all the markings of an Ex Cathedra statement, but without the doctrinal backing to make it so.
If an Ex Cathedra declaration did occur I think the politicians are still supposed to work within the legal means of their respective countries, so it would be no different a non-Catholic was trying to do the same thing.
There are still folks who wouldn't vote for a Roman Catholic (or a Jew, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, or "non-believer").

Even 57 years after JFK was sworn in, there are smaller groups of people who are convinced that Roman Catholics are literally agents of the Dark One. I've met people who have told me to my face that, since I was Roman Catholic, I was NOT a Christian. Can't even imagine what they would say to a Mormon.
Agreed, I live in an 80%+ Catholic area and I've still been told the same thing.
 
James Aloysius Farley comes to mind as a possibility. Have him become VP & maybe...

In 1939, Cardinal Mundelein urged Farley not to run, ostensibly because he did not think a Catholic could win. See my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/jim-farleys-case-for-jim-farley-in-1940.336202/

BTW, if we are talking about Catholic vice-presidential candidates, one who was mentioned was Frank Murphy in 1940. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Murphy But it is doubtful that FDR, having defied one taboo (the third term) would also risk having a Catholic running mate only twelve years after Al Smith's defeat.
 
Top