President Obama names theologian Miguel H. Diaz U.S. ambassador to the Vatican

In the same week of his nomination of a Hispanic Catholic for the Supreme Court of the United States, President Obama has finally named Havana-born 45 year old Miguel H. Diaz, an associate professor of theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. Eric Gorski (Associated Press) reports:

Book Review: "Strangers in a Foreign Land: The Organizing of Catholic Latinos in the United States"

Given the current raging debate over immigration reform legislation, it is appropriate to review at this time a recently published book on Latino immigrants in the U.S. (Lexington Press, 2007). The book is by Fr. George E. Schultze, S.J.--don't let the name fool you: he's Latino himself through his mother. The back cover has an endorsement by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., of Ave Maria University and Ignatius Press reknown. So you can drop the anti-Jesuit bias in this case. Fr. Schultze is a "labor priest." He is passionate about the need for labor unions to ensure a living wage for workers. He is also, as it should be, a good Catholic priest who stands with the magisterium when it comes to being pro-life and in favor of traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

The thesis of the book is that the current American labor movement has marginalized itself by unnecessarily and obtusely tying itself to the pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda of liberal activists. Schultze points out how this alliance with openly anti-Catholic, anti-life, and anti-marriage forces makes it unlikely that unions will be able to organize Hispanic workers who are, for the most part, socially conservative on these cultural issues. Schultze is, in my view, absolutely correct, as Fr. Fessio agrees, in prophetically warning the labor movement of its grand error. The problem is deep because it cannot be reduced to one of mere tactics or strategies. Many top leaders in the American labor movement are indeed pro-abortion and pro-gay by conviction. As someone who has very little familiarity with union affairs, I was amazed at the extent to which AFL-CIO president John Sweeney is in lockstep with the gay agenda (p. 126). I wonder how many union members realize what are the convictions and the agenda of their top leadership.

As someone who does not come from a union background, I am at a disadvantage in reviewing this book. So my observations and reactions are really those of an outsider to the union movement. Yet, I think my reactions are still worth airing, given that most Americans are also outsiders to the union movement. While agreeing with Fr. Schultze's critique of the left-wing cultural bias of the labor movement today, I also share a different perspective from the good Father when it comes to unionism. Maybe, the Catholic response should not be so much to struggle to wean the unions from their new culturally liberal allies. Maybe, the Catholic response should rather be to recognize that the union model itself is out of date in contemporary American society, especially when it comes to Latino immigrants. My personal view is that Latinos should focus on education and not on unionism as the way to improve their own lot and that of their children. The emphasis on education means that as Catholics we should focus on what I think is the long overdue reform that will revolutionize the lives of all the working poor, whether Latino or non-Hispanic: school vouchers for the poor.

I would prefer to see Catholic activism focused on school vouchers for the poor because education is the key to advancement in today's society. In my personal opinion, unionism may very well be passing into social irrelevance in a society where education is key. Yes, the Church teaches that workers have the right to organize unions. But does that teaching mean that we are always tied to the judgment that unions are always the way for the working poor to advance everywhere at all times in history? I think not. My own prudential judgment is that Catholic activism for the working poor would do better to focus on school vouchers, rather than on trying to reform declining unions whose leadership. in many cases, is so hostile by conviction to the culture of its own workers, whether Latino or not.

The Tipping Point: Hispanic Males Voted 46% for Bush

Today's N.Y. Times has a tiny news brief with data from the National Annenberg Election Survey showing that 46% of Hispanic men voted for Bush in 2004. The figure for all Hispanics is 41% for Bush in 2004--compared to 35% in 2000. The lesson: culture is thicker than past party loyalties.

Not surprisingly, the conservative Washington Times ("Hispanic Men Moved to Bush," 12/22/04) thought this data worth a full news article in contrast to the N.Y. Times "footnote" coverage of the same data.

Hispanic Social Conservatives

As a Hispanic Republican, I cannot help but comment with pride on a recent N.Y. Times article documenting the successful Bush campaign appeal to Hispanic voters ("Hispanic Voters Declared Their Independence," by Kirk Johnson, 11/9/04). The article is full of insight and numbers, but one fact stands out: the Bush campaign, unlike the Democrats, did not appeal to Hispanics as a special interest group on issues like immigration or welfare benefits.

Rather, the Bush campaign simply appealed to Hispanics as it did to other socially conservative voters. The article quotes one expert in the area of Hispanic voting as noting that the "Bush campaign used moral values, and specifically the national discussion over gay marriage and abortion rights, as wedge issues within the Hispanic community to try to break off a conservative religious segment."

The truth is that Democrats patronize minority groups. This patronizing approach is part of the liberal elitist mentality that the sophisticated are destined to guide the unwashed masses to utopia. The Republicans did not patronize. The Republicans made common cause with the socially conservative views of many Hispanics. And so President Bush increased his share of the Hispanic vote by 9 points from 35% in 2000 to 44% in 2004.

The Democrats are trying to minimize the significance of this gain; but, as the article notes, "other experts say that crossing the 40 percent threshold is a turning point, especially given that the rapidly growing Hispanic population has become the largest ethnic minority in the nation."

Other startling figures follow. The number of Hispanics identifying as Republicans increased by 5 points from 26% to 31%. Those identifying as Democrats decreased by 13 points--double digits! The number identifying as Independents increased by 8 percentage points.

But hold on. More Hispanics identify themselves as conservative (33%) than as liberal (26%). In addition, the percentage of Hispanics thinking that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases rose from 32% in 2000 to 42% in 2004.

The article quotes a Hispanic security guard from Denver: "I voted for Bush based on his moral stance . . . . Bush is pro-life, I'm pro-life. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and so do I." He's not alone in those sentiments.

Finally, indulge me in a point of ethnic pride by quoting this excerpt from the article: "Hispanics are heavily represented in the Marines . . . and according to some national polls are about as patriotic as Americans get: both factors could have increased support for a sitting president in wartime." The Marines are now taking Fallujah, and we pray for all of them. And you can bet that a few prayers will be said in Fallujah in the coming days in Spanish by some tired and brave Marines.