Is Barack Obama the new Al Smith?
That might be heresy to some in the Catholic universe, but the argument has much to be said for it–though don’t expect Cardinal Edward M. Egan to be making that claim at tonight’s Al Smith Dinner. The quadrennial white-tie gala fundraiser at New York’s Waldorf Astoria is a glitzy affair and a rare combat-free zone on the eve of the presidential vote. That will be especially welcome given the tenor of the current campaign (and one must put the onus on the McCain-Palin camp–there is no “pox on both houses” equivalency here). It will also be tough for the candidates’ speechwriters to come up with the usual jokey banter given the state of affairs in the nation and abroad. If I were Obama, I’d stick with conclave jokes about white smoke coming from McCain’s ears…And maybe David Letterman can give McCain some Top Ten pointers tonight when McCain has his make-up visit to the show after his earlier bailout over the bailout…
But there are at least a couple of ironies here. One is that the political bloodletting in the Catholic Church has reached such a point that a dinner honoring the first Catholic presidential candidate–and a man reviled for his faith–is virtually off-limits to Catholic candidates. For the last Al Smith dinner, in 2004, Cardinal Egan refused to host John Kerry because he is a pro-choice Catholic. Instead he invited former Republican President George H.W. Bush and former New York Gov. Hugh Carey, a Democrat, as this CNS story explains.
Problem is, according to much of the “pro-life” rhetoric, Obama is the most “pro-abortion” candidate EVER, to the point that he supports “infanticide.” (Yes, “scare quotes” are necessary given the nature of allegations.) So how is it that Obama gets to appear and Kerry doesn’t? Putting up a “No Catholics Need Apply” sign at the Al Smith event may be the ultimate paradox.
It wasn’t always so…Time was when churchmen and candidates worked together for the Catholic good and the common good, such as when Smith was attacked in The Atlantic Monthly in a open letter by Charles C. Marshall. A reluctant Protestant apologist (he was drafted for the task by the magazine’s editor), Marshall still recycled various dubious claims about Catholicism’s incompatibility with democracy, and Catholics’ standing as loyal Americans, as demonstrated (he said) by various papal encyclicals. Smith’s first response–possibly apocryphal, but certainly true in a larger sense–was the memorable line, “What the hell is an encyclical?” Rather than castigating Smith (as would happen today), he received help drafting a response from the World War I hero Father Francis Duffy. (Cardinal Patrick Hayes also reviewed Smith’s response and pronounced it “good Catholicism and good Americanism.”) Smith’s actual response re the encyclicals was: “So little are these matters of the essence of my faith that I, a devout Catholic since childhood, never heard of them until I read your letter.”
The second irony is that Obama’s views may certainly be closer to Catholic social justice teachings than McCain’s. (And hey, why didn’t Obama point out in last night’s debate that the Catholic bishops have closer ties to ACORN–to the tune of $1 million in grants–than he does?) His community-based activism and his views on justice and peace are far more consonant with Catholic social teaching than McCain’s. Michael Sean Winters made that argument in The New Republic, and it occasioned a lively debate at this blog.
Moreover, Obama is the first presidential candidate of a prominent minority community and he has faced ugly abuse not only for his race but also for his faith–much as Smith did. Will 2008 be a replay of 1928?
Or, put this way, is Obama the “real” Catholic candidate? Perhaps a useful thought experiment would be this: Imagine that Al Smith had been elected in 1928. Instead, we got Herbert Hoover. And I think you know what came next…
BTW: The photo of Al Smith (second from the left, with the “Sachems of Tammany Hall, 1929, including Mayor James J. Walker”) is courtesy of the Museum of the City of New York, where an excellent exhibit, “New York Catholics: 1808-1946,” organized for the bicentennial of the diocese, continues through the end of this year. It’s worth checking out if you’re in the city.
David, your comments on Al Smith/Barack Obama have sent me on a tangent to the primary. When Al Smith emerged as the best-qualified Democratic candidate in 1928, many party leaders were distressed. They knew a Catholic couldn’t win. They also knew they’d risk losing the Catholic vote if they denied Smith the nomination. Were they wrong to nominate Smith? In Obama’s case, many party officials worried that a black candidate could not be elected. They also knew they risked losing the black constituency if they undermined Obama. Hillary Clinton had a lot of trouble blurting out “Yes … Yes” to a debate moderator’s question on whether she thought Obama could win, as I recall.
Regarding whether or not Catholic leaders stand up for Catholic officials, you’ve sent me back to a favorite clip of mine in the historical New York Times database. A story on Jan. 29, 1928 recounted a speech given at a Republican club by Smith’s “ecclesiastical advisor,” the great Father Francis Patrick Duffy, he of the Fighting 69th and the statue in Times Square. “If the Pope were a civil ruler and there were a conflict, I would go to war against the Pope,” he declared. “The 69th regiment would ask to be sent over first.”
With talk like that, you have to wonder if Al Smith would be welcome at the Al Smith Dinner today.
He continued: “I will tell the leaders of the Republican Party that if they have any complaint against any priest for talking politics in the pulpit, even though he advocate the election of Al Smith, if they bring the case to the attention of Cardinal Hayes or Bishop Molloy, he will be trimmed down.”
Paul, that’s great stuff. I noodled around a bit before posting, and in “American Catholic,” Charles Morris notes that there is a question as to whether Smith’s Catholicism actually hurt him in terms of votes. (There is a sense that any Democratic candidate in 1928 was soething of a sacrifical lamb, givn the booming Republican economy.) I think the argument is that Smith gained as much in the Northeast (among Catholic strongholds) as he lost in the South and elsewhere. An interesting Catholic precursor to the Bradley Effect?