Nothing like the Church to bring people together
I haven’t had enough coffee yet to process the photo on the front page of NYTimes.com — you can see it here, accompanying their story about last night’s Al Smith Dinner. Cardinal Egan in the middle, with Obama on one side and McCain on the other, and they’re all laughing. What country, friends, is this? (The formalwear just adds to the weirdness: white ties and tuxes for the candidates, and a bright red cape for His Eminence. Not a flag pin in sight.)
The NYT story has some highlights from their speeches, including a few cracks that would have made me laugh, too. My favorites:
Mr. Obama, noting his age, said he did not have the pleasure of knowing Al Smith, but added: “From everything Senator McCain has told me, he was a great man.”
Then, he gave a shout out to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. “The mayor recently announced some news that he would be rewriting the rules and have a third term, which prompted Bill Clinton to say: You can do that?”
It did gladden my heart to read this story, I must say. Though I much prefer cynicism, of course. I realize the Smith Dinner is so vital for this kind of interlude–a reality check, perhaps? Are the these “real” candidates? Or is it the guys doing the stump speechifying? The emotion I had was akin to (however limping the analogy) the sign of peace at mass–the sudden realization of the others around you, the larger presence, and a break in the intensity of inner focus. (I hope they don’t move it.)
But that’s blather, yes. The real story is that there were some good lines–McCain on Joe the Plumber, and this from Obama:
“It is often said that I share the politics of Alfred E Smith and the ears of Alfred E. Newman.’’
Rocco has another good picture on his writeup at Whispers, although that one is a little less disorienting. In that one the candidates are shaking hands, with Egan looming benevolently between them, and all are grinning congenially. But it looks less genuine and more political and posed. Still, interesting that McCain couldn’t, or wouldn’t, fake it on Wednesday night as well as he did on Thursday night. Perhaps that comes from feeling confident in front of what he perceived as a more favorable audience? (If you watch the embedded video, you’ll find his speech is less “self-deprecating” than the NYT account suggests.)
I’d like to think these are the “real” candidates, David, but the presence of their speechwriters is just too palpable. This appearance does point up the artifice of the stump speeches, but it just replaces that with more prewritten and carefully calibrated content. I always find events like this uncomfortable — I like knowing that politicians have senses of humor, but I don’t want to think they see it all as one big game.
There were some fine laugh lines and McCain has a eral future in stand-up, but the visuals overwhelm me! Cardinal Egan still in those scarlet robes and cape and looking mighty uncomfortable with Obama given his pro-choice position and the white-tie dress-up of both candidates — though I’m glad to see something other than blue suits! I’m reminded of the scenes of that out of “True Confessions” set in the fifties, I think. Would Al Smith still smile as a “Happy Warrior” on this antiquainted and patently artifical exploitation of his legacy even with his tradtional Catholicism?
Artifice may be the point of the red Cardinal seated between the candidates. This dinner may be named for charity but it is a symbol of power. Notable that as long as you are not Catholic you get invited to the party. In the old days the Catholics were either tortured or guillotined rather than non-invited. Like that famous pope Damasus who had his hoods murder the supporters of his rival Ursinus who were holed up in the major cathedral in Rome. Estimates range from 125 to a 175 who were killed. Damasus also made sure that women would lose their place completely in the church while suddenly declaring that Rome was the boss of all the other churches. He was known to be bejeweled and gluttinous. For all this he was even honored as a saint. Now since he was always considered a saint does that really make him a saint? For more fiction look here;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04613a.htm
Maybe this later appearance by Obama will put us all in a better frame of mind:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/the-boss-the-piano-man-and-the-candidate/?hp
A majority of people commenting on the NYT story and elsewhere seem to feel that McCain’s Al Smith speech was better than Obama’s. I don’t agree at all — Obama’s material seemed funnier and more good-natured to me. But McCain seemed more prepared, for sure; his performance is definitely more polished. Obama seems to be reading his speech for the first time. But I wouldn’t say that reflects badly on Obama — I get the impression McCain spent time getting ready for this talk that might have been better spent prepping for Wednesday’s debate.
I don’t think he spent more time – I think he’s just funnier.
Obama may have a lot of strengths as a public speaker, but warmth and comedic timing are not included in them.
Mollie: I think McCain won on graciousness. I think he said some really nice things about Obama. Of course, it is VERY difficult to square that with the robocall that is making the rounds. Obama won on self-deprecation. My favorite line went something like this, “Fox News reported last week that I fathered two black children in wedlock.”
Am I mistaken to think that COMMONWEAL is meant to be a Catholic journal? I ask this because so many of the recent comments seem to be mere politicking. And rather one sided.
From the clips I saw, I thought McCain was funnier, and I am most definitely not a McCain supporter.
This is proof of my objectivity.
Gabriel,
Look up at the top of your screen, or at an issue of the magazine. See the words “Commonweal: A Review of Religion, Politics and Culture.”
Yes, Joe, that line about the “two black children” made me laugh out loud (I watched the video after I wrote the post). I thought Obama’s material was written better; he scored stronger points and did so less bitterly. I certainly wouldn’t say McCain was more gracious, Joe — Obama said nice things about McCain, too, no less sincerely.
I don’t know if I agree, Sean, that McCain is funnier, though I will agree he likes to joke around more. Sometimes he’s funny, and sometimes (as in the debates) his jokes are awkward and uncomfortable to watch. But I think he was in his element here in a way that Obama was not, and that he prepared more precisely because he enjoys appearances like this more. Not a value judgment, just an observation.
Mollie: For the record, I did not say that Obama was not gracious. I just think McCain was more so. He said a lot more than he needed to. Personally, I think he was trying to put on the best post-election image possible, and that is certainly understandable.
McCain is a natural comedian (well, he was last night … good timing and all)
Dubya is someone you’d want to drink a beer with .
And Obama ….. darn, just intelligent, in control and thoughtful.
We can end up with an ongoing “Laugh In” at the White House … or a President who will restore dignity to the office.
Am I then to take it that COMMONWEAL no longer claims to represent a Catholic viewpoint, but only religion in general?
The question came to me after reading a posting on the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER which it seems to me contains a well-thought out consideration of the complaint about a “single issue” position. While attempting to vote fore the positives in a political platform [minimum wage, help to the poor, avoidance of war], one cannot a hegative which obliterates the positives: This was in answer to a position outlined by prof. Cahill of Boston College.
Submitted by CT on Fri, 10/17/2008 – 03:13.
“Professor Cahill’s reflections miss an essential dimension of Catholic moral analysis, namely, the difference between negative moral norms and positive ones. Negative norms, so-named because of what is “not” to be done, bind on consciences semper et ad semper, that is, at all times and in every instance. Positive norms, by contrast, bind at all times but not in every instance. It is never morally permissible to kill an innocent, but the conditions of what constitutes a just wage, or fair housing, or support for the unwed requires the exercise of prudential reasoning and thus admits a variety of responses.
To suggest that the negative prohibition against the killing of the innocent is to be considered as equally compelling as the positive obligation to provide a liveable wage is to grotesquely confuse the matter. They are not equally binding on consciences in any case and thus not in matters concerning the coming election. Good people can differ on how to meet our positive obligations to meet the needs of the poor. There can be no difference among good people when considering the murder of the innocent, because such people, by willing even indirectly what is objectively grave evil, exclude themselves from the category of the good.
Any political party which deliberately facilitates the killing of innocent life on a routine basis thereby excludes itself from the realm of viable political options concerning the positive obligation to promote the common good”.
Mollie:
“but I don’t want to think they see it all as one big game.”
It IS a game. Candidates and politicians have to know that going in.
That doesn’t mean that it isn’t important for our community life nor that it shouldn’t be apporached with appropriate sobritety. But appropriate sobriety is the key here. There are larger things that unite us as a human family. More light hearted venues like this provide an opportunity for everyone to see that. To have fun – to play. In order for that to happen there needs to be some recognition that at some level we are engaged in a game and that what unites us is far, far greater than our ideological leanings. Our leaders need to model that. Events like this are opportunities for them to do precisely that.
Present your vision, your positions, argue your differences passionately but be sporting about it. Sometimes in the game, things get rough, people make mistakes and do things they regret (Obama admitted that the whole clinging to guns and religions was the dumbest thing he ever said. I am sure McCain has made his mistakes too).
Bill:
“This dinner may be named for charity but it is a symbol of power.”
Yes. As I said above I agree with the concept but I don’t agree that the Church should be hosting it. I understand that it is a tradition but every time I see things like this I think of Dostevsky’s The Grand Inquistor with the Bishops playing the role of the Grand Inquisitor who says to Jesus who he is interrogating. He is criticizing Jesus for his rejection of the tempations presented to him by the great Tempter – especially the tempation of power (symbolized by Caesar).
“Mankind as a whole has always striven to organise a universal state. There have been many great nations with great histories, but the more highly they were developed the more unhappy they were, for they felt more acutely than other people the craving for world-wide union. The great conquerors, Timours and Ghenghis-Khans, whirled like hurricanes over the face of the earth striving to subdue its people, and they too were but the unconscious expression of the same craving for universal unity. Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar’s purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal state and have given universal peace. For who can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? We have taken the sword of Caesar, and in taking it, of course, have rejected Thee and followed him. Oh, ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their science and cannibalism. For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, “Mystery.” But then, and only then, the reign of peace and happiness will come for men. Thou art proud of Thine elect, but Thou hast only the elect, while we give rest to all.”
George – indeed, politics and campaigning is a game. I’m happy when government leaders take a step back and acknowledge that. But sometimes I think the serious stuff gets swept up in it — think of Bush’s goofing around about “Those WMDs must be here somewhere!” The White House press corps dinner can be especially nauseating — the theme seems to be, “The important thing is that we can all have a good laugh at ourselves.” That seems pretty warped to me. I’m not sure I want the press and the politicians to be putting their differences aside.
In this case, as you say, it’s the Church-as-host that I find especially troubling, especially given the tortured double standard David G. outlined in an earlier post. In particular there’s something really uncomfortable about the tacit agreement not to mention that unpleasant subject of abortion… The Church’s role in the public sphere should never be reduced to abortion politics, but that should also apply every night, not just at the Al Smith dinner when neither candidate is Catholic.
Mollie:
American politics, especially at the presidential level, is always somewhat contrived. Whether it is humour or stump speeches and the bullet talking points to underscore themes.
There is a desire, therefore, to get to know who these candidates really are. But, naturally, those personnas have usually been developed and crafted for years.
Humour can reveal certain underlying traits and attituded (how of the truth is spoke in jest!!!). But these canned performances aren’t it.
Of the two, I think Obama is much more guarded and highly attuned to personna. As I recall there was a moment in the primary when his youngest daughter (the precocious one) said something like daddy doesn’t like sweets. Even at that Obama embarrasedly laughed and moved to hush her in a way. She didn’t say anything wrong, and it was endaring, but it was a glimpse that he didn’t want the public to see,
In a way I admire Obama because I think he understands that the only people he can really trust are his wife and children. They are not appendages to him for the purpose of campaigning and I respect that.
There really needs to be debates that are much more free flowing and allow more room for canidates to directly address each other. And there should be much more debates. I think that would minimize the whole media spin and manipualtion. Canada’s debates sometimes are good examples of that. You do get a sense of people when they have to speak to each other, unscripted, debating points with each other.
…and what is better you see humour come out naturally in the process!!!! Then you see whether candiates REALLY have a sense of humour.