Hailed in 2004 as the new component to an enduring conservative coalition, the Catholic vote flipped back to the Democratic column in 2008, mirroring the national popular vote.  This happened in spite of a hitherto unmatched effort by Catholic bishops to emphasize that abortion has no moral equivalency, regardless of what Catholic apostates like Joe Biden say. 

Given the disconnect between Church doctrine and individual Catholics’ voting choices, however, we might wonder if there is something called “the Catholic vote” at all. That Catholics may once again merely be “swing voters”—swayed by the economic demagoguery of a pro-choice liberal—calls into question whether they will ever be a permanent part of the conservative movement.

Ultimately, the question of permanency is inconsequential, for the short-term beckons. The activists and insiders who will map the Republican Party’s comeback plans for 2010 and 2012 must include Catholics as a building block. Failing to do so will ensure that the majority of Catholics become a permanent voting bloc, but for the wrong side.

Two factors should alert conservative political leaders that courting Catholic voters is essential to the future of the GOP. 

First, the lessons of 2004 remain relevant: formulated by strategist Karl Rove, the Bush campaign used the “wedge” issues of abortion and gay marriage to pry away Catholic, “Reagan Democrats” from their union and Democratic Party loyalties. 

Post-election studies confirmed that the strategy worked, as President Bush’s popular vote margin of victory, as well as his state-level victories in Ohio and Florida, corresponded almost precisely to the number of new Catholic votes he earned. 

This year, the McCain campaign allowed those wedge issues to recede from the electorate’s minds. The was a significant miscalculation. Failing to replicate Rove’s 2004 Catholic strategy guaranteed that the new Catholic voters brought into the fold in 2004 would vote with their pocketbooks, not with their moral consciences. 

Had the McCain camp forced a conversation on social issues—especially by building upon Sen. Obama’s “that’s above my pay-grade” dismissal at the Saddleback Forum—such an effort would have capitalized on the unexpected political advantage being produced by bishops across the country. 

Second, the demographic trend of an increased Hispanic population has finally become a political reality. Without a strategic shift toward re-emphasizing social issues, this portends electoral disaster for Republicans. 

The silver lining is that courting the Catholic vote gives a socially conservative candidate an entrée into Hispanics, given that 70 percent of Hispanics identify themselves as Catholic.

Should such a strategy not be followed, the numbers offer a sobering picture for Republicans. This year 9 percent of the electorate was Hispanic, and that proportion will grow in future elections. Obama improved John Kerry’s nine-point margin among Hispanics to 36 points. In three states—Colorado, New Mexico, and Florida—the Democratic advantage among Hispanic voters proved to be decisive. 

With a shrinking geographical base, and much of that base—namely, Texas—predicted to see huge population gains among Hispanics over the next three election cycles, tapping into most Catholics’ latent social conservatism is critical for the future of the party.

But are Catholics, and especially Hispanic Catholics, really socially conservative?

Yes—even some results from 2008 suggest so. In every state where traditional marriage was on the ballot, the measure passed with a majority of Hispanic support. Even in liberal California, a concerted effort by Catholic bishops, priests, and allied organizations led 67 percent of Catholics and 53 percent of Hispanics to support the measure;  only 49 percent of whites did. 

Thus the pitch of social conservative issues can be made successfully to Catholics and to Hispanics. But it must come from both Church leaders and political candidates; one or the other will not be effective.

With American bishops signaling a new willingness to enter the public square, Republicans would be wise not to miss another opportunity, lest minority status for a generation or more seem appealing.