What does Saddleback Politics say about America?
Commentators and pundits in the US continue to pick over the performance of both presidential candidates at Saddleback Church. Some view the entire episode as extraordinarily weird. Given that this is the first time the American public got to see both candidates facing the same questions in a live television event, why was the venue a church and why was the moderator a pastor? It perhaps says much about the continuing role of religion in American political life that Pastor Rick Warren is taken so seriously by both campaign teams. Justin Webb wonders why the candidates felt the need to enter the 'evangelical bear-pit' at a time when 'evangelical Christians are a fading force in US politics'.
One possible answer to that question is that the candidates recognise the growing influence of Rick Warren. Warren is no ordinary evangelical. He is the author of one of the world's best-selling books, The Purpose Driven Life, and he has built not only one of America's biggest churches, but is already building a global social justice ministry that has won support from the Bono, Bill Clinton, Billy Graham and many others. (See TIME profile .)
Rick Warren's interviewing style has itself become an issue since the event. Were the questions too spiritual? (An odd question given that he's a pastor, surely?) Did he press Obama more than he pressed McCain? Why didn't he follow-up when the candidates revealed something personal (e.g., McCain's admission that his greatest personal 'moral failing' was his first marriage -- what did he mean by that?) And some Obama supporters now wonder if John McCain was able to hear questions being put to Barack Obama before it was his turn to answer the same questions, since his subsequent answers were punchier, more concise, more interesting, more structured, more colourful, and more illustrated with anecdotes. Few doubt that John McCain had a very good evening at an event that may be seen as the start of the general election campaign after a seemingly endless primary process. Barack Obama's performance was, by comparison, less than inspiring and oddly less confident given that he probably has more reason to feel comfortable a church than John McCain.
, [former] editor of the Catholic magazine 'America', wonders if a Catholic equivalent of the event is even conceivable:
'As a Catholic priest I found the Civic Forum at Saddleback Church a bit weird. I kept wondering what would have been the response if the event had been hosted by Cardinal Francis George in his cathedral in Chicago. (Jewish and Muslim believers might ask the same question about a similar event in their houses of worship.) The public and the media more easily accept political activity by Evangelical clergy than by Catholic clergy. Catholic clergy are held to a higher standard. For example, Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson can run for president, but imagine what would happen if a Catholic cardinal ran for president. Don't get me wrong. I do not want Catholic clergy publicly getting involved in partisan politics. I am happy that church law and tradition restrict political activity by Catholic clergy. I am happy that we do not let politicians speak in our churches. I just wonder if there is a double standard here.'
Comment number 1.
At 20th Aug 2008, smasher-lagru wrote:William, Fr Reese is no longer the editor of "America" - resigned after the Vatican got fed up listening to his dissenting views.
Mc Cain's views were punchier and sharper because he wasn't lying. Obama, in contrast, was trying to phrase everything he said to please his immediate evangelical audience but protect his liberal pro-abortion base - an impossible task, particularly when he was reduced to lying about his voting record and then accused pro-lifers of lying about his voting record.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 20th Aug 2008, William Crawley (³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ) wrote:Thanks for the correction, Smasher. My embarrassment is even fuller for the fact that we covered the resignation of Tom Reese from America at the time, and I've interviewed him about it. I'll try to check my facts more carefully in future!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 20th Aug 2008, smasher-lagru wrote:I did recall that, and realised you had lifted the sentence from the article quoted. It starts with fiddling phone in competitions. Where will the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ end up we ask?
One thing about America - leaving aside the problems of campaing financing and the almost fixed in stone two party system - the long campaign and primaries certainly gives you a chance to see the candidates under pressure. Compare this with the way Great Britain and Ireland recently ended up with new Prime Ministers - neither of whom had to fight for it - and it shows in their lack of leadership ability.
For all America's faults, they get to elect separately their executive (President) and legislature. We have no genuine separation of powers here, given that the executive is joined at the hip to the legislature.
Would it be worth considering for future NI Assembly having separate elections for the Assembly and executive?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 21st Aug 2008, gveale wrote:Smasher
Only if they have a debate in the Met Tab
GV
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)