THE PLANK AUGUST 17, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
TNR
contributing editor Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi
Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, gives his take on Obama and McCain's appearance at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church yesterday:
If
you watched the Best Political Team on Television discuss the joint appearance
of Senators Obama and McCain Saturday night at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church,
you heard a lot of chatter about which candidate performed better. In their
usual manner, however, the mainstream media--or, as leftwing bloggers calls it,
the Village--missed the point. The real debate was not between the candidates
but between Rick Warren and the Best Political Team on Television.
Warren won, and in a
landslide. His questions were at times inane, but nowhere near as inane as the
campaign has been. Paris Hilton and Britney Spears made no appearance. Barack
Obama was not asked to defend himself against the idea that he is a rootless
celebrity. Speaking to one preacher, he was never asked to comment on his
former preacher. This was politics before Karl Rove. The only question is
whether it will also be politics after Karl Rove.
John
McCain was given fair and balanced treatment as well. If he wanted to emphasize
foreign policy, Warren
let him do so. If he was more comfortable repeating stories he has told many
times before, that was OK with the pastor. My guess--and it is only a guess--is
that Rick Warren does not know much about policies in which he is not all that
interested. But neither does McCain. Like Obama, he was allowed to project the
kind of person he is.
All
this was contrary, not to the media narrative of the campaign, but to the
media's narrative of itself. We ask tough questions, television journalists convince
themselves, and our job--remember Tim Russert--is to contrast what candidates
say with what they said. But there is not, and never has been, anything tough
about it. Candidates learn how to get their talking points across, no matter
what the question. By the time the debates roll around, everything has been
said, which means that everything is repeated.
I
saw two men, not two candidates, speaking with Rick Warren. One was
conversational, intelligent, and responsive. He seemed to listen to the
questions, to think about them, and to answer them. I liked his performance,
but, then again, I am a liberal and a Democrat. What was most interesting to
me, though, was that Obama never pretended to be anything other than what he
is. If you want a president who knows the details of policy on the one hand and
thinks the world is complicated on the other, you would vote for this guy.
McCain
also took the opportunity Warren
offered to be himself. He was witty, energetic, and quick. He was far too quick
for my tastes--I would not be happy with a president so convinced that his job
was to rid the world of evil--but I was left in no doubt about how he views the
world. Over the course of his career, there have been many John McCains: the
conservative, the maverick, the conservative redux. But only one John McCain is
about to receive the Republican Party's nomination for president in 2008, and
that one got to show his stuff.
If
Rick Warren's job was to elevate the tone of the campaign, he succeeded. Any
person who had not been paying too much attention to the ads and the spin was
offered a real choice about the nature of leadership. Is this the right moment
for a leader who will try to elevate us by speaking to our ideals? Or is
elevation really another term for elitism, the times demanding someone who will
respond to our fears? We have had choices such as this in the past, but we were
not all that aware of what we were choosing: In the fateful 2000 campaign, for
example, such a choice was there, but the mainstream media scoffed at Al Gore's
thoughtful side and accepted George Bush's word that our foreign policy was
humble.
Whoever
wins the 2008 presidential election, it will not be like that one in 2000. This
time, we will not be able to pretend afterwards that we did not know what the
stakes were. For that we have Rick Warren, and not CNN or Fox, to thank.
--Alan Wolfe
Click here for Noam Scheiber's case that Obama emerged the victor from the event. Click here for Wolfe's take on the broader significance of Obama and MccCain's appearance at Saddleback Church and Warren's potentially positive influence on religion and politics. (Photo Credit: Getty Images)
21 comments
I like the idea here, but it misses the point that all of the event's virtues will quickly be reduced (by the Village) to a question of how much nuance is too much. As Crowley reminded us the other day, presidential elections are about the strength of one's convictions, not the quality of one's reasons. Strong and wrong beats nuanced and correct every time.
- ralphnelle
August 17, 2008 at 3:00pm
Unfortunately, the forum played so early in the West, 5pm on a Saturday night, that most people were out and missed it. I've onlly seen some taped segments. The people I know who did see it said the best thing about it was that the moderator let the candidates speak for themselves. It was not all about the moderator, with the gotcha questions, the raise your hand if you agree stunts, etc. It allowed viewers to measure the candidates without someone flayling around in between. The primary debates were a sham and shameless. I hope the general election debate moderators show more restraint. Town hall meetings would also be nice, but I doubt we'll see any of those.
- cal80
August 17, 2008 at 4:26pm
I agree completely with this post. And people should stop calling it a "debate" - Rick Warren even put McCain in a "cone of silence" during Obama's half, so that McCain wouldn't be responding to what Obama said. They were completely separate interviews.
- psantillana
August 17, 2008 at 4:27pm
Warren won the day. Think of it, he just wrestled the title of 'voice of the Evangelical movement' away from all of the other AmeriProt mega-church types. The folks crying into their martinis this Lord's Day are the Robertsons, the Hagees, and the Dobsons of the world.
I am not quite certain that it is progress. Yes, in the sense that clearly Warren is a great deal less overtly narrow-minded, it can be seen as progress. But, I am leary. First, Warren still has an exceptionally conservative agenda, as noted by the audience last night cheering every simplistic grunt uttered by McCain. When he brayed about drilling, and the audience erupted as if he had just declared a cure for cancer, I knew that the very fact that they didn't chase Obama out of the auditorium was a victory for Obama. Second, Warren represents a deeper, more profoundly unnerving (and wildly popular) form of Christianity, that dovetails quite nicely with the kind of muscular, anti-intellectual Republicanism that McCain parrots so well these days. It is Christianity-lite; a pablum spewing, happy-clappy, Buddy Jesus (yes, just like the movie Dogma (one of my favorite Kevin Smith films)), short-attention span theatre, entertainment reductions of what Christianity can be. Not unlike Joyce Meyers, the vacant foolishness of Joel Osteen, and any number of other AmeriProt types who have reduced Christianity to some vague feel-good Gospel of Prosperity.
The convergence of this empty-headed foolishness (both religious and political), this sharp reductionist tendency to see the world in dualistic fashion, is dangerous, both for the country and Christianity. In both cases the assumption is that the American people simply do not have the patience for questions, for examination, for doubt, for anything that doesn't offer immediate gratification. I do not see it as a mark of strength that so many seem to be following this lead.
Warren plays to this as expertly as anyone, and proved this once again last night.
I am less than enthused by this development.
- kgrant1054
August 17, 2008 at 5:35pm
It's pretty easy to tell who emerged the victor from last night's forum at Saddleback Community Church: For the Republicans: National Review thought McCain won, hands down, and The Weekly Standard liked McCain's performance as well. Ace of Spades, (not
- Anonymous
August 17, 2008 at 5:52pm
It is very clear that over the course of this endless campaign, media narcissists have made a mockery of the concept of debates and that our national slogan of "E Pluribus Unum" has been replaced by "Gotcha." However, the field of candidates was thin to begin with. Obama jumped out to the lead by displaying more charisma than his rivals and was better able to conceal his baggage than Hillary until it was too late for her to catch him. Likewise, McCain, in trouble until the primaries, practically won by default when his rivals knocked each other out. I still feel that if "None of the Above" was on the ballot, it would win by a landslide.
- nbarry
August 17, 2008 at 6:38pm
Another brilliant post by kgrant.
- Wandreycer1
August 17, 2008 at 6:54pm
I refuse to see the thing, so will confine myself to commenting on the pic. McCain looks like he's pulling a Shrub, goofing around. Oy.
- icarusr
August 17, 2008 at 8:41pm
Any "debate" that doesn't include that stupid YouTube snowman or that idiot woman who grilled Obama about his flag pin is a step forward.
- BHLnyc
August 17, 2008 at 10:23pm
The media's analysis of last night's forum is a f'ing embarrassment. This is from Chuck Todd, one of the "good" guys:
"The two answered the Supreme Court justice question VERY differently, with Obama seemingly trying to say a nice thing or two about justices he disagreed with, while McCain went right to pander mode in his answer. And yet, McCain's straightforward answer easily penetrated while Obama's did not."
We live in the most powerful country in the world. The next president will have more responsibilities and more power than any person in history. And yet our media, the gatekeepers of these increasingly senseless presidential campaigns, DEMAND that candidates speak at a 2nd grade level.
Keep it short. Keep it direct. Keep it simple. Otherwise you're John Kerry or Al Gore, and God knows we'd be in a shithole if we had either of them as president during the past 8 years. As Giuliani, a wise man if there ever was one, said on 9/11, thank God we had Bush on that fateful day! Thank God.
I am pulling my hair out. This country is utterly hopeless if this bullshit works all over again.
- ralphnelle
August 17, 2008 at 11:08pm
Now that it is so easily accepted - even by so-called liberals - that candidates for office ought to be subjected to job interviews conducted by religious leaders in their places of worship, can we all stop complaining about angry atheists? It would seem their counter-attacks on political religion are well- justified. As for myself, I am simply disgusted.
- purcellneil
August 18, 2008 at 8:26am
The coverage of this event has convinced me that the only way Obama can win in November is to undergo a prefrontal lobotomy as soon as possible. As is, he simply isn't dumb enough to clinch this race.
- Lyn39
August 18, 2008 at 8:35am
Yep, we are already on the Axiom.
- kgrant1054
August 18, 2008 at 9:29am
What did Rick Warren win. For the bits of it I could bear to watch, I heard soft ball questions and B. Walters questions. It was lousy and superficial, an embarrasment to your country, and the smooth spearding of religion ito your poltics, like a newer more attractive brand of margerine. Something to be concerned about, not welcomed. But it seems that for now this kind of thing is a template for future elections. what a shame and something to be pushed back against. I agree with all those above who have, much better than I, protested this side show swalllowing the circus and in fact itself becoming the circus. Wherfe's the bread?
- basman
August 18, 2008 at 9:46am
ralphnelle: Well, that is Todd's view, and the answer "penetrated" (interesting verb - to which my dirty mind answers, "was it well lubed, at least"?) an audience already spread-eagled, ahem, for that very answer.
What I do find amusing is that "nuanced" has become an insult in this campaign. Or perhaps it is an insult for the Democratic candidate only, whereas McCain would be "thoughtful" and "deliberate" with the same set of answers.
There is also the increasingly established fact that McCain was not in a "Cone of Silence" - according to Fuck Davis, he was in the car and on his way to the event. And of course neither he nor any of his handlers listened in, took notes, or prepped the good Senator, who pretended that he had been in the building all along. Quel honneur. And Rick Barren, the "winner" of this event, hemmed and hawed and hedged and swirled and twirled more than a Rumi Dervish in answering the question of whether McCain had really been in the building ...
Rove triumphant?
- icarusr
August 18, 2008 at 10:30am
Kgrant - excellent post. Also, your nickname for McCain "The Manichean Candidate" would have been a perfect title for Kristol's post mortem of the debate in the NYT today. Unfortunately, Kristol thinks the nickname is a compliment.
- Geoff G
August 18, 2008 at 10:40am
Forget about the cone of silence thing- I always assumed that McCain was going to cheat his way out of that.
Did McCain confabulate the whole cross in the dirt story?:
andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../mccains-cross-i.html
- miceelf
August 18, 2008 at 11:09am
I read Kristol's op ed today. Truth to tell I kind of like his op-eds--stoning to begin in 2 hours--but found this one empty, one he really did phone in.
Kgrant, I join with those who enjoyed your above post and others of yours I have read here of late.
Your take on Osteen et al seems dead on.
if you have not, you may want to take a look at Noah Feldman's Divided By God, for an interesting historo-legal review of the church state problem in America. My own theory is that Feldman is a closet legal secularist.
- basman
August 18, 2008 at 11:21am
Pastor Rick was able to summon sides of the candidates we can't usually see in standard debates.
- Anonymous
August 18, 2008 at 11:23am
equal parts self parody and misconception to one part perecptive: www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008081702080.html
- basman
August 18, 2008 at 11:27am
ok lets now give equal time to the pope to question these two candidates. since when can this only be done by this protestant. what is going on here? who wants the candidates to have this debate with a religious personage of dubious religious stature for many of us. it is unamerican in the most extreme and for me mccains bbehavior has totally soured me on his campaign. let him and his mrs now go on to lead this country. i am so fed up at this time with all the religious crap out there. are we electing a president or what? the smugness of these people and shame on mccain for forcing this on obama.
- check
August 18, 2008 at 4:05pm