The art of running a presidential political campaign today seems to be a high-stakes game of divide and conquer.

The first step involves dividing up the electorate into neatly packaged voting blocs: NASCAR dads, security moms, conservative Christians, labor union members, Latinos, conservative Caucasian soccer moms who drink coffee, etc. — groups that can be effectively targeted by specific sound bites.

In the 2004 presidential election, the most coveted remains the 65-million-strong Catholic voting bloc.

Of course, calling it a Catholic voting bloc is a bit of a misnomer, given that Catholics were evenly split between Al Gore and George Bush in the last election. (They seem to favor Bush much more now than they did then.)

Given the issues the candidates are stumping, popular opinion is that John Kerry will get the liberal Catholic vote — as he is championing predominately liberal issues — and Bush will get the conservative Catholic vote. This continues a trend evidenced from the late 1980s. It seems to quell the notion that there is one Catholic bloc, making it necessary to take the electorate dicing one step further. In future elections, the Catholic vote will be seen, if it isn't already, as two distinct blocs, both with their hot-button issues, each of which must be courted separately.

It seems then that there are two Catholic churches in America, the conservative Republican Catholic Church and the liberal Democratic Catholic Church, and that these two are diametrically opposed.

Unfortunately, many Catholics on both sides of the divide fuel this perception. In conservative Catholic circles, where Kerry is seen as something akin to the devil, many believe Kerry supporters have given up their right to be called Catholics. Likewise, in liberal Catholic havens, Bush supporters are seen as hypocritical zealots who support life in the womb and then ignore it thereafter, failing to provide adequate living wages and health care.

Rather than giving an inch, these two groups of Catholics both proclaim to speak from the convictions of the Catholic faith. For example, Mark Roche, dean of the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame, argues that if Catholic voters would honestly look at Bush's stances on health care, the environment, just-war theory and the death penalty, they would find themselves reaffirming the traditional Catholic allegiance to the Democratic Party. Likewise, a myriad of writers on these pages has pointed out the obligation of Catholics to support candidates who are unambiguously pro-life.

The question arises: On which side of the divide do the true Catholics stand? Are they Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives? The answer obviously lies somewhere in between, because both parties and both political extremes have failed to capture the fullness of the Church's teachings, a situation that has contributed to the deep divide in the Catholic electorate.

This is not to advocate that there is a moral equivalence between the positions advocated by Kerry and Bush. Missing the boat on the right to life is certainly more problematic than missing the nuances of just-war theory, capital punishment or the effects of raising the minimum wage. In Kerry's case, an error in the beginning is an error indeed.

The problem lies in the fact that the only real alternative to Kerry is Bush, who, despite his strong pro-life record, leaves many things to be desired. Quite a few Catholic voters who will be pushing the chad (or possibly the screen on a new electronic voting machine) for Bush are doing so with a heavy heart. They have misgivings about the war in Iraq, particularly the suffering and death it has caused both that country and ours. They remain convinced, as the Pope was before the war, that there was not sufficient justification for the invasion.

Many Catholics also take issue with Bush administration policies regarding social-justice issues, citing the fact that Bush policies have not lead to increased access to health care, especially for the poor and for children. At the same time, large corporations have not been held fully accountable for questionable practices that have left pension funds for their retirees bereft of funds.

In addition, Bush's support for the death penalty, particularly during his tenure as governor of Texas, is a major sore point for many Catholics. For some, like Dean Roche, the additive effect of these issues is enough for one to overlook the abortion issue and vote for Kerry. While this certainly can't be reconciled with Church teaching, neither can we give President Bush a free pass on these issues merely because he is pro-life. The words “authentically Catholic” and “politically conservative” do not go hand-in-hand, as often wrongly implied.

In the end, the truth of the Catholic faith transcends human labels. It affirms the dignity of the human person, and it requires that we care for the needs of all members of society at all stages of life. Certainly, in many instances, Catholics can disagree regarding the most effective means to accomplish this task. For example, will raising the minimum wage actually help raise standards of living in the long run? The answer is not entirely obvious and requires more than knee-jerk conservative or liberal answers.

In many ways, then, I believe when it comes to politics, the mark of a good Catholic is that it is not transparent whether he or she is conservative or liberal. My parents exemplify this position. I know they are unambiguously pro-life and proud of it. However, growing up — and still, to this day — I would be at a loss if I had to classify them as conservative or liberal, given the range of positions they have on various issues.

What is consistent in their case is that every political decision they make is informed by their Catholic faith, and I know they are hopeful that one day we will have a presidential candidate whose decisions are informed likewise.

Daniel Kuebler, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of biology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio.