The Cooperative Election Study (CES) is the largest academic survey focused on American elections. Since 2006, the study has interviewed more than a half-million Americans to capture their views on contemporary policy debates, their engagement in political and social life, and their vote choices in federal and state elections. The study is a collaborative enterprise partially funded by the National Science Foundation and involving the participation of hundreds of scholars and students across dozens of academic institutions across the country.
CARA analyzed the data from the CES.
In 2026, we are finally at a point where we can confidently report survey findings about the youngest (and oldest) American Catholic adult generations. To do so we use the Pew Research Center’s generational year definitions. The youngest, Gen-Z were born between 1997 and 2012, however we can only “see” those born 1997 to 2006 in current adult survey data (i.e., ages 18 and older). It’s with these youngest Catholics that there seems to be the greatest interest in data.
How Democratic or Republicans are Catholics by Generation?
How Conservative or Liberal are Catholics by Generation?
|
ADULT CATHOLICS |
ALL |
SILENT |
BOOMERS |
GEN-X |
MILLENIALS |
GEN-Z |
|
REPUBLICAN |
24 |
21 |
25 |
26 |
24 |
19 |
|
NEITHER |
43 |
52 |
44 |
42 |
41 |
45 |
|
DEMOCRAT |
33 |
27 |
32 |
31 |
36 |
36 |
|
CONSERVATIVE OR VERY |
29 |
52 |
36 |
31 |
21 |
16 |
|
SOMEWHAT CONSERVATIVE |
12 |
9 |
14 |
12 |
11 |
10 |
|
MIDDLE OF ROAD/UNSURE |
34 |
20 |
30 |
35 |
36 |
45 |
|
SOMEWHAT LIBERAL |
10 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
12 |
11 |
|
LIBERAL OR VERY LIBERAL |
15 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
20 |
19 |
CARA answers
Overall, in 2024, adult Catholics were 33% Democrat, 24% Republican, and 43% independent, affiliated with some other political party, or were unsure of their party affiliation. Gen-Z Catholics were a bit more Democratic (36%) and a bit less Republican (19%). The most Republican segment of Catholics were Baby Boomers (25%) and Gen-X (26%). All generations were more likely to be Democrats than Republicans and all have a plurality who do not affiliate with either major party.
Party affiliation is only half of the story. Overall, Catholics tend to be more conservative than liberal when describing their political ideology. I have often described the median Catholic voter is a center-right Democrat and we can see the Catholic vote shift from Democrats to Republicans and back over time. Forty-one percent either describe themselves as very conservative, conservative, or somewhat conservative compared to the 25% who say they are very liberal, liberal, or somewhat liberal. Broken down by generation, there is a distinct pattern where we can see older Catholics being more conservative and younger Catholics less so. However, rather than liberals supplanting conservatives among younger Catholics it is more likely that they identify as middle of the road or not sure of their political ideology.
The CARA data deals with those who self-identify as Catholics. We know that most Catholics don't frequent parishes. The Catholics we find in parishes regularly are probably more likely to be conservative than liberal, and more likely to be Republicans than Democrats.
ReplyDeleteThe CARA data helps to explain the lack of "political activity" that Jim, Katherine and I find in our parishes.
Very simply in daily life (families, work) most Republicans and Democrats who are Catholic don't experience fellow Catholics as being very partisan, because in fact most of them are not. Most Catholics are unlikely to make assumptions about the party loyalty of other Catholics and are unlikely to think someone is a fellow Democrat or Republican unless that person clearly says so. Most of us keep politics to ourselves and people whose politics we know.
On the other hand, parishes are clearly conservative in the sense that they are pro-life, in favor of marriage, against divorce, against sexual misconduct, having children, etc. Very few Catholics have liberal views about these issues.
However, most Catholics are for loving neighbors, taking care of the poor, immigrants, homeless, the ill, the imprisoned, etc. We all know that comes from the Gospels and while liberals may for these things, you don't have to be a liberal to believe in them.
In fact, they are all a part of the tradition of Catholicism. We did not build huge school systems, hospitals and social service organizations to promote liberalism. We did to preserve our traditions and help others.
"Very simply in daily life (families, work) most Republicans and Democrats who are Catholic don't experience fellow Catholics as being very partisan, because in fact most of them are not. Most Catholics are unlikely to make assumptions about the party loyalty of other Catholics and are unlikely to think someone is a fellow Democrat or Republican unless that person clearly says so. Most of us keep politics to ourselves and people whose politics we know."
DeleteBingo. Many of us aren't very partisan, and don't want to be. Especially given how dysfunctional political parties are at present, especially the MAGA group.
This data does not account for the many liberal Catholics who ceased to identify as Catholics. I have no doubt that the Conservative aura of parishes has made them unwelcome. I have no doubt that they find no support for being Democrats in our parishes.
ReplyDeleteAny real outreach to them has to be based on the making our parishes more friendly to liberals and Democrats who are interested in immigration, the poor, the environment, etc. We should be able to do that because these are compatible with loving our neighbors.
What I find amazing about this data, is that across the generations those who continue to identify as Catholic are more likely to be identify as Democrats and liberals.
Not only do Catholic leaders need to find ways to welcome Democrats and liberal Catholics, Democrats and liberals need to become better at welcoming Catholics who may not totally agree with them. I think Bernie does a good job of this. He has made pains not to read people who are against abortion out of the Democratic party.
Jack - are there studies that show that Catholics who have left the church are disproportionately liberal? My personal observation is that many types of people leave the church for many reasons, not all of which (e.g. money, sexually abused, didn't like the new priest, kids bullied at Catholic schools) align neatly with the conservative/liberal divide.
DeleteThe Irish Catholic milieu I come from isn't particularly conservative; politically, they have tended to be liberal-ish Democrats. The Irish American women probably more liberal than the Irish American men.
DeleteJim, I think you are right that Catholics leave the church for a lot of reasons. Most of the ones I know left because they are remarried without an annulment from their first marriage. Some others because they don't like the priest. Or issues with kids. I have relatives who are drifting out over not having access to First Communion class for their son without paying a $400 fee. They live in an affluent community, and probably for most people that isn't a problem. I'm pretty sure they could negotiate out of the fee. But they shouldn't have to. (I guess that falls under "money issues")
DeleteI should clarify that the fee is for all religious ed classes, not just for First Communion age.
DeleteThese numbers are interesting, but they don't correlate directly with MAGA identity. Some percentage of Trump voters don't consider themselves MAGA. It's quite possible that Catholics voted for Trump in 2020, not because they are MAGA true believers, but for some other reason, such as a greater sense of political than religious identity, or dislike for the Democratic candidate and what she stood for.
ReplyDeleteI think it is true that some Catholics voted for Trump for other reasons than being MAGA true believers. I hope they are noticing, though, that MAGA is part of the package. MAGA is the essence of who Trump is. If they voted Republican because they believe in classic conservatism, that isn't what they got.
DeleteFrom primaries in 2016 about a third of Americans approved of Trump and more than a third did not. That has remained relatively constant because the essence of Trump, the TV entertainer was well established. Some people find his character at least very entertaining if not attractive.
DeleteThat third is mostly Republican; that Republican primary majority translated not only into become the candidate and president but also into control of the Republican party.
Part of Trump's attractiveness is that he has campaigned against establishments, in Washington, the media, and in his own party.
Trump is vulnerable in the general election; he did lose probably more to Covid and the economy than to Biden. And, of course Biden was merely the establishment answer of "never Bernie" when it became evident (again) that Bernie might win the primaries.
Jim, It seems the only thing that Dems stood for that was objectionable to the RCC was keeping abortion legal. The fact that they were able to ignore the overwhelming number of anti- christian (what Jesus taught) policies that trump promoted and has doubled- down on doesn’t say much for their true beliefs nor for their conscience formation.
DeleteJack -“ Any real outreach to them has to be based on the making our parishes more friendly to liberals and Democrats who are interested in immigration, the poor, the environment, etc. We should be able to do that because these are compatible with loving our neighbors.”
DeleteIOW the parishes need to start educating their parishoners about the church’s Social,Justice Teachings.
Jim, I’m sorry. But I can’t ever welcome MAGAs. I have too many in my own family. I literally can’t find a single way to justify their support of this man and his policies of hate. I have no desire to have them next to me in a pew. Katherine is more tolerant than I am. You say they couldn’t stand what Kamala stood for - she favored religious freedom and thus, abortion rights. She never preached hate - as trump did. He ran on a platform of hate. But they didn’t object to that? I can’t stand what trump stands for - hate, lies, corruption, greed. racism, promotion of violence, absence of compassion, immorality, amorality, etc, etc. that’s what all those white Catholics support.
"It seems the only thing that Dems stood for that was objectionable to the RCC was keeping abortion legal. "
DeleteThe bishops would tell you that Democrats stand for a number of other things that contravene church teaching, from abolishing religious conscience protections to promoting same sex marriage in school curriculum to transgender minors changing the sex identity they were assigned at birth. And it's quite possible we can add opposition to Israel's right to exist to that list.
And while you are certainly right that Catholic voters don't bring the Catechism with them into the voting booth, some of these issues that are dear to Democrats and progressives are kryptonite to conservative voters. If Democrats don't want Catholics to vote for MAGA candidates, they do need to nominate candidates who would appeal to Catholics - the great majority of whom, as Jack's numbers in the post show, range somewhere between moderate and very conservative.
"You say they [Catholic voters?] couldn’t stand what Kamala stood for"
DeleteI don't think I've ever said that? But I do think that, for whatever reason, and despite Kamala Harris's attempts to moderate her image during the 2024 election, gettable Catholic conservative voters never quite came around to her.
But it was a weird election: President Biden's nomination was inevitable until he failed in the first debate with Trump and was pressured by his own party leaders to drop out of the race. Then Kamala was substituted for him without having run in a primary and giving Democratic voters a chance to weigh in on her candidacy. And her campaign was quite abbreviated. Some Americans probably had an impression of her already, after she had run poorly in 2020 and then having been the recipient of some negative media coverage while vice president. My thought is, she didn't have a fair chance to re-establish herself with American voters.
In addition to the toxic (to conservatives) Democratic positions I listed a couple of comments back, I think Trump had a lot of success in the 2024 election running against what he and his MAGA campaign call "woke". Conservatives resent being told what to believe and how to think. Democrats were vulnerable to this. They may still be vulnerable to it. Trump has made anti-"woke" a major initiative of his current presidential term, as with his attacks on Ivy League school administrations, racial preferences in college admissions, and so on.
DeleteI don't doubt he will try to "sell" (politically) this week's Supreme Court decision, abolishing explicitly racial redistricting under Title 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as an extension of his anti-"woke" initiative.
"Anti-woke-ism" uses a lot of straw-man logical fallacies. (example: a person hired under DEI is by definition unqualified). Of course the Democratic party has some straw men of their own (such as, if you are against abortion, you are against women's rights) So they spend a lot of time demolishing one another's straw men, to the neglect of actual governance according to their constitutional duties.
DeleteFor a period of time a few years ago, my employer required all employees to attend mandatory DEI training. It was not as radical as what one saw reported in the conservative media about this training. I thought some of it was quite good (although I must admit that, when I had to watch the same videos the 2nd or 3rd year in a row, it got really old really fast). But I also heard remarks from employees who resented having to be exposed to what they perceived to be ideological brainwashing.
DeleteAnd when DEI principles get translated into affirmative action policies in hiring, promotion or, in the academic world, admissions policies, the level of resentment goes up several magnitudes.
Really? Is it woke to believe in a founding principle of America - that all men (sic) are created equal? Is it woke to believe that denying equal rights to citizens because of race, gender, sexuality, or religion is wrong? Is it woke to believe in the founding principle of separation of church and state? That it’s wrong for one religious group (the Catholic Church) to try to impose its theology on all ( the 81% who aren’t Catholic)? Is it “conservative” to support a state using all its power against a private company (such as De Santis v Disney)? Threaten law firms and media etc with lawsuits in order to impose the will of the president? Is it conservative to have the federal government take an ownership stake in major companies like Intel? Is it woke to believe in freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly? Academic freedom - without the federal government dictating to colleges and universities who they can admit, who they can hire, what they can teach in PRIVATE universities? Is it woke to object to a President referring to Latinos as criminals and rapists? To refer to all immigrants of color - like Latinos and Haitians - as vermin? As rats? Is it woke to object to vilifying those of non- christian religions as evil - like Muslims?
DeleteIs objecting to book bans woke? Is supporting hard fought civil rights laws woke? Is objecting to glorifying confederate leaders who were traitors to the country in order to preserve the evil of slavery woke? Is objecting to the elimination or whitewashing of slavery and Jim Crow laws woke?
The Democrats don't preach hate Trump does and has from his first days as a candidate when he mocked a disabled journalist, encouraged violence against protestors at his rally, inciting fear and hatred of immigrants and refugees. He uses vulgar language always but especially to refer to women. Tragically, most of the rest of “ conservatives” have followed this pied piper in the evil he preaches. . No - I often disagree with Dem policies, but they don’t preach hate. I’m sorry - but nobody who claims to be Christian (or a patriotic American) should follow this hate- preaching man who is trashing all of our constitutional rights - especially those that have helped the disadvantaged.. I will not welcome them. I may pray for them - that they will change- I can even forgive - but only from a distance. I can’t welcome them. Ever.
On the sort of thing that makes DEI necessary, or at least a pretty good idea: my wife, who is very smart (smarter than me, for whatever that's worth) has reported this phenomenon throughout her career:
Delete* Some corporate exec will call a meeting to discuss and solve a difficult problem.
* Within the first five minutes, my wife will propose a solution.
* Everyone ignores her.
* Discussion ensues for another 45 minutes.
* Some executive type, invariably a man, will then propose the same solution my wife had proposed at the beginning of the meeting, as though it had just occurred to him.
* Everyone else extols his brilliance. The idea is adopted.
Jim, that happened to me many times. I’m sorry - but not surprised - that it’s still happening. Now imagine you are a black female professional like my daughter- in- law. There is still a lot of dis rumination out there and trump,and MAGA want even more of it.
DeleteOne college admissions officer at an Ivy explained that they build a community - so some athletes get in with lower academic creds than some whites. Legacy admissions used to be rampant at manycolleges. But this officer said that seeing an applicaction from a minority who may not have been 4.0 GPA and 1500+ SATs but who had accomplished a great deal in spite of poverty etc - and whose academic achievements were high enough that they could do the work ( they turn away thousands who could do the work) might get an edge - they provide a living example of how people can achieve in spite of obstacles, and they can educate their white peers on the realities of being a minority in America.
DeleteLike Jim, while I agree that there is discrimination against people because of the race, religion, ethnicity, etc., I have also found the “woke training” to be overdone.
ReplyDeletePart of the overdone, is the notion that I should regard myself as a “privileged White male.” I rarely think of myself as white or male, and never as privileged.
My dad was a steelworker, my mom a housewife. Neither was privileged. They both worked hard to buy a home, remodel it, and build a cabin. They saved their money rather than investing it. Dad had an eighth-grade education; mom was a high school graduate.
Most of my undergraduate education was free because I was a pre-divinity student. My graduate education and postdoctoral education were free through fellowships, research and teaching assistantships.
We were working class becoming middleclass, neither poor nor wealthy. First the teaching positions and then the mental health positions that I held were not high paying. If I had married and had children, I would not have been able to work in them unless my wife also worked full time with equal or better pay than mine.
My personal income in my late fifties was at the 85% percentile which placed me as an upper class but not rich person; when I retired at age 60 that fell to the 70th percentile which placed me near the top of the middle class.
However, my household income in my late fifties placed me at the 61st percentile, i.e. a very middle-class person and my retirement income placed me at the 46% percentile, barely in the middle class.
Socially I benefitted a lot by being single and having a PhD. Money has never meant much to me. I lived comfortably with what I made. Like my parents, I saved my money and never personally invested in the stock market.
I worked in the mental health system at a time when women began to assume upper management and CEO positions. My observation was they succeeded by doing the things that needed to be done. They did not spend any time advocating for women for these positions. As an upper management person my best bosses and colleagues were women.
At the same time, I usually went to American Psychological Association meetings at which women, minorities and gays often complained about discrimination against them. However, most of these people worked in jobs that paid a lot more than mine in the public sector. Very few psychologists chose to work in the public sector and serve the most severely disabled people. Perhaps if they served these people they would have felt they had far less to complain about in their own lives.
I am sad that overt discrimination has reappeared in our society and that we are going back on some of the practices that seemed to mitigate it. However, I also see attempts to saddle all white males with guilt because we are all "privileged" was a mistake. It goes against my fundamental belief that we are all equal.
I encountered discrimination a few times in my career - but only in the corporate environment. As a freelance consultant I was fine. I loved it - being independent - the office politics and gossip and resentments swirled around me but didn’t touch me. Women have generally gone into “ caring” sectors like mental health in greater numbers than men. I suspect they didn’t have to fight as hard for recognition and promotions as women in other fields did. I was in the first generation of computer professionals. A number of my colleagues were African American women and they opened my eyes to their reality. Decades later my African American daughter in law faces some of the same challenges as her predecessors 50 years ago. However she has been very successful because she is extremely good at her job.
ReplyDeleteMany white men whine about “reverse discrimination”. There is also a lot of angst out there in MAGA land that too few women are willing to marry and have children these days. The young women graduate from high school in greater numbers than the men. More go to college and graduate than their male peers do. More women get graduate degrees than men except in a couple of still male dominated fields - engineering, physics, and math. As many women as men obtain medical and law degrees. Women today have choices that their grandmothers - and even mothers of my generation - did not have. They have no desire to give up careers they love, and lifestyles they enjoy to marry men who expect their wives to take care of all the domestic and child rearing chores AND keep incomes high at the same time. Multiple studies show that most husbands/fathers now do a bit more than the men of previous generations in the home, but the women still carry most of the load.
From my reading now (not personal experience- too long out of the working world) too many white males believe that they are entitled automatically to get the jobs many women and minorities now have. Affirmative action opened long closed educational and employment opportunities to millions of women and minorities during the last 50 years. Generally these policies paid off handsomely for their colleges and employers. Perhaps these affirmative action hires and students were incentivized to work harder than their white male peers, knowing that they were being more closely scrutinized to see if they “performed” well enough. White privilege is a real thing. White male privilege is also - too many of these whiney young men feel that they are entitled and shouldn’t have to actually compete with women and racial minorities.
Back in the seventies when I was teaching college, I found myself advising women who wanted to be nurses that they had the talents to be doctors and advising men who wanted to be PhD psychologists but were not competitive that they could do much the same work as M.S.W.s
DeleteThe feminist myth was that women's talents were suppressed by men. At the end of one of my talks to an advisee about going to medical school she said: "You sound just like my dad and my boyfriend!" The reality is that many fathers are delighted with daughters who have careers, and many men look forward to a wife with a career. And in the seventies when it would have been very easy for this woman to get married and be a nurse when she had time, becoming a doctor was not the easy choice no matter how much social support.
The guys who want to be PhD psychologists were not driven by male privilege but by social expectations that they should aim high and be competitive. I doubt that they had fathers or girl- friends who assured them that could be as happy but not as financially successful being a M.S.W. as having a PhD.
Our society may have opened the door to women and minorities being competitive, but it has not opened the door to white men being non-competitive by finding joy and happiness in being a husband and father. There are a lot of things out there like art and music that both men and women might find great joy but little financial success. Successful husbands might support a wife with such a vocation, but few wives are likely to support a husband with such a vocation.
I think life might be very much better if both male and female children had adult models who fully developed without being successful in the market.
At one time to be wealthy meant to live a life of leisure, now to be wealthy means you have to work, i.e. be involved in the marketplace. Now the people who have leisure are those who are less wealthy.
We need a new ethic of creative leisure rather than our present consumption leisure which is measured by earnings.
I think the white males who feel they are victims of reverse discrimination are a subset. Just observing the people in my sons' generation it seems like most of them have moved on and are used to equality in the workplace. Both sons have women for bosses and it doesn't seem to be a big deal. Of course everyone wants to be treated fairly and any time there is discrimination it causes hard feelings.
DeleteThe other night we watched a documentary on the African American women who manually performed calculations for the US space program in the 1960s. I think there is a movie about it.
Katherine, did the documentary about those women show that they were physically serrated from the rest of the NASA staff?
DeleteIt did say that their work area was separate. However one of the women said that if it was needed for her work she would join the meetings with the NASA men, and no one pushed back.
DeleteTheir work area was separate and so was their restroom! Couldn’t use the whites only restroom. John Glenn trusted Katherine Johnson’s calculations-more than the computers - which were new tech then.
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/11/black-women-mathematicians-nasa-john-glenn-space-race#:~:text=Three%20Black%20women%20mathematicians%20worked%20on%20the,safely%20from%20his%20orbital%20spaceflight%20in%201962.