The Purpose Driven Presidential Dialogue
Jim Babka on Aug 19th 2008
Some random thoughts…
Purpose Driven Dialogue
Rick Warren, pastor of mega-church Saddleback and author of “The Purpose Driven Life” and “The Purpose-Driven Church,” was declared by one news outlet (I cannot recall who now) to be the new Billy Graham. Why? Is it because he preaches the gospel? Not really. It’s because he’s friends with presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle — friend of the next president. It’s also because he’s perceived as being less partisan and less divisive than the likes of the late-Jerry Falwell, the late-D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and David Barton. It’s because he seems like, and probably is a nicer guy.
I, for one, would like to see a new kind of evangelical leader — one who sees his role as “afflicting the comfortable, and comforting the afflicted.” There may actually be a couple of them. I’m aware of at least one such individual. But it’s a lot harder to climb the prestige ladder if that’s your attitude. People call you a radical, a liberal, and unpatriotic.
American Evangelicalism has become hotter and stinkier than the Gehenna dump.
Being Rick Warren gets you on all the right shows. Being James Dobson raises you an army and lots of money. Being a critic gets you neither.
Does this mean we can see Rick Warren’s purpose?
I don’t know. Actually, there are some things I like about Rick Warren. I’ll conclude this piece by mentioning one of them.
Brayton’s Reprobation
Our PL colleague over at his real big blog wrote,
“My one criticism is that I wish he [Warren] had asked more follow up questions and really pressed both candidates on the details rather than allowing them to give vague and general answers.”
Ed Brayton and his commenters went on to critique McCain’s style and blunt answers — proving that such immediate follow-up really isn’t necessary.
This was a nationally televised interview. It was, for many Americans, their first full exposure to the candidates now that the primaries are over. In debates, they only get 30 seconds or a minute to answer question. It was like giving a politician enough rope to hang himself.
The review of the answers begun in earnest on CNN. It’s also being blogged in lots of places. The similarity of the questions provided the contrast. And the follow-up will come.
Oh yes, and that follow-up might be a doozy. Remember Bernard Shaw’s question to Michael Dukakis on the death penalty?
There is no need for intelligent design here — the campaign is still underway, and this forum fits into an evolving tapestry. You see, even more people will watch the televised debate. And the panelists for those debates will “study the film.” So too will enterprising reporters along the campaign trail. And they will ask the Bernard Shaw-like follow-up questions.
At that point, both candidates, but especially the knee-jerk McCain, are likely to want get back some of their answers to Warren. It is possible to live to regret one’s victory.
Who Won?
In fact, one reason punditry is so bad is that today’s wisdom is tomorrow’s foolishness. We’ve already seen this happen.
Not too long ago, Barack Obama traveled to the Middle East and Europe. The cream of the mainstream media followed him and hailed his travel as if the messiah had arrived. The large crowds and ancient backdrops made for excellent television. And people remembered that McCain has badgered Obama to visit some foreign nations and get to know their leaders. They said, “John McCain should’ve been more careful in what he wished for,” and “Obama sure looks presidential.” Poor John; Barack did look presidential.
There was one problem though. Obama’s lead in the polls shrunk. There’s no need to analyze why here: The point is, no one is calling that trip a splendid success anymore.
But that doesn’t mean the trip wasn’t a brilliant maneuver. If Obama loses, that move might get some blame for his failure. If he wins, it might get some credit. So right now McCain might’ve scored the most points at Rick Warren’s event. But let’s wait and see if everyone still feels that way when the Presidential Debates are over.
Thank You for Smoking
That said, I’ll play pundit for a moment and declare McCain the winner (for now).
Politics often involves speaking in code or euphemism. Commentators and candidates do it all the time. So when people talk about McCain appearing decisive and Obama being too intellectual, they may mean different things.
1. Obama was too verbose and his statements unmemorable.
2. Obama seemed like he was shading his answers.
3. Obama looked as if he was still trying to determine what he really thinks.
4. Obama came across as too liberal.
Of course, if you like Obama, he was thoughtful, emotionally intelligent, open-minded and probing, and principled. McCain, on the other hand was “knee-jerk,” doing what his handlers told him, simple-minded and unaware of his contradictions, and a neanderthal right-winger.
But Obama was definitely #1 and #4, and a little bit of #2. He made few declaritive statements you could hang your hat on. This is, by and large, a conservative country. And he was in a minefield and it required him to be very careful.
McCain played a strategy described in the movie, “Thank You for Smoking.” A spin doctor for Big Tobacco played by Nick Naylor takes his son Joey to an amusement park and explains to him how to win any argument.
Joey: So, what happens when you’re wrong?
Nick: Well, Joey, I’m never wrong.
Joey: But you can’t always be right.
Nick: Well, if it’s your job to be right, then you’re never wrong.
Joey: But what if you are wrong?
Nick: Okay, let’s say that you’re defending chocolate and I’m defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, “Vanilla’s the best flavor ice cream”, you’d say …?
Joey: “No, chocolate is.”
Nick: Exactly. But you can’t win that argument. So, I’ll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?
Joey: It’s the best ice cream; I wouldn’t order any other.
Nick: Oh. So it’s all chocolate for you, is it?
Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.
Joey: But that’s not what we’re talking about.
Nick: Ah, but that’s what I’m talking about.
Joey: But … you didn’t prove that vanilla’s the best.
Nick: I didn’t have to. I proved that you’re wrong, and if you’re wrong, I’m right.
Joey: But you still didn’t convince me.
Nick: Because I’m not after you. I’m after them.
I heard it noted, by more than one pundit, that Barack Obama talked with Rick Warren but John McCain talked past Rick Warren. John McCain was not after Rick Warren, he was after Warren’s audience, both present and nationwide.
So Why did Obama Do this Event?
Because Obama is engaged in “margin-chopping.” Over 80% of Evangelicals voted for Bush in 2004. In order for McCain to win states like Indiana and Virginia, both red states that Obama is presently pursuing, McCain will need to match that level. But if Obama can show up and get just 10% of that Christian crowd to either choose him instead or just not vote for McCain, he’ll probably cost McCain those two states. Without Virginia and Indiana, it’s very unlikely McCain can win.
Obama didn’t need to win this event. He just needed to keep McCain’s support amongst this constituency at the same level it is today — about 10% below Bush levels. It’s really all he needs to do to win this race.
Obama won by a) showing up and b) not screwing up. And that was why he was so deliberate in his answers.
Funniest Double-speak Moment
Last month, in a post titled, “Sociopaths and Politicians (but I repeat myself),” I gave Barack Obama a hard time for an instance of amusing double-speak, and explained why politicians engage in talking out of both sides of their mouth.
This time it was John McCain who did it. When asked, “What is rich?” McCain began by saying that some of the most miserable people he knew were also the richest. Just a few sentences later, he said like, “…and that’s why, I’m opposed to tax increases — I want everyone to be rich.”
If we took that answer holistically and literally then John McCain believes his tax policy will make you miserable!
One Final Point: Rick Warren did a great job.
Rick Warren has media savvy. He’s sharp. You don’t sell 25 million books and build a 24,000 member church if you’re not sharp. So it’s no surprise that the questioning method he chose allowed CNN to get a lot of mileage out of the program. Anyone could simply slice up the video, and place the answers to the same questions side by side — and CNN did just that. Because the candidates didn’t see each other answer (despite the stupid rumors), they didn’t respond to each other directly, and the resulting footage was more compelling.
Rick Warren, IMHO, proved we don’t need reporters to ask questions. Rick was, on balance, balanced. He did a better job than the bubble-headed TV types, who only care who’s up or who’s down. His questions were real and probing. They were so good, he actually got answers to some of them.
You could actually learn something watching this show. No polls were mentioned. And there were no stupid Chris Matthews questions like, “Do you want Bill Clinton back in the White House?”
Filed in The Basement, The Bookshelf
Jim, you make it sound as though I bashed Warren in my post. In fact, as the quote implies, that was my one criticism of him - and it could be said of most reporters as well. Rarely do you see anyone in politics ask a good follow up question. I’m not a Rick Warren fan, but I was actually impressed with how he handled the forum. I was also impressed with how gracious his audience was to both candidates. My review of Warren was one of pleasantly surprised admiration, not reprobation.
I decided to use it for style — for flair. Simple, Reprobation sounded good next to Brayton. I looked up the definition before I used it. Here’s what it said: “A comment expressing fault.” Also, I used the term in the singular form.
Your comments about Warren were indeed, fair and gracious. Please, don’t take offense.
Are you calling me a reprobate? LOL. No offense taken, my friend.
To Ed’s observation regarding the lack of follow-up questions; Warren himself on Larry King Live last Monday evening made the very same point. King was questioning Warren on what he found frustrating and Warren replied that he understood that some answers begged for a follow-up but he stuck to being broad v. deep and that was his single biggest frustration.
Like Ed, I too personally thought the interview was a good one and would have easily stuck around another 30 min./candidate so Warren could have asked follow-ups, especially on the abortion question where both candidates gave questions begging for follow-up.
Regarding the crowd’s response that Ed brought up; Warren did communicate that each candidate got an equal number of tickets for the event, what percentage those tickets represented relative to the total audience was not communicated in that Warren interview. I falsely assumed it was SaddleBack members while watching and was also pleasantly surprised at their reaction.
Yes, but dividing up the tickets speaks well of how Warren handled things as well. I think this is a very interesting pilot project, and I hope it’s the beginning of a trend of non-professionals asking questions. I’ve seen candidates interviewed by “amateurs” before, and normally, they do a better job than the Inside-the-Beltway types. Did you notice that while some of the questions were tough, there were no real “gotcha” questions? I want more Rick Warren-like events and fewer events with Chris Matthews or anyone from FoxNews interviewing.