I caught most of Rick Warren's "Civil Debate" Saturday night. Both liberals and conservatives mumbled about it before hand. The liberals no doubt thought Obama was selling out to be associated with an evangelical church like Warren's. The conservatives didn't like even the suggestion that Obama might have something Christian about him. I read one fundamentalist lobbyist's debrief from the night. He apologized for fearing that Warren would not give abortion and gay rights the moral centrality they deserved.
This response belies the fact that McCain was clearly the political winner of the night. "One or two issue evangelicals" who had doubts about McCain before the debate, left assured that he was their man. Meanwhile, I have no question that Obama will be roasted alive in certain conservative media machines, not least for his answer on non-discrimination in relation to U.S. faith based funding. This comment, I think, will undermine any gains Obama made by supporting faith based funding in the first place.
At the same time, Obama's attempt to "meet in the middle" will certainly alienate his own base. Many in his party will rail at his understanding of marriage proper as between a man and a woman, despite his support for civil unions.
My take away, though, was that--political positions aside--the way you respond to the two individuals themselves probably breaks at 40 years old. Those over 40 will think, "That McCain knows what he believes, unlike that Obama who ponders and talks on and on. McCain didn't have to think about his answer--he knew it and could rattle the points off boom, boom, boom before Warren could even get the questions out.
"McCain understands that you don't compromise. You defeat evil, you don't talk to it. Obama didn't know his Theology 101. He couldn't even give a clear answer to when life begins."
Those under 40, on the other hand, might think, "Man, McCain didn't even need to show up because he gave all the party line answers he knew would play in an evangelical setting. 'Oo, oo, I know the answer to that one. Can I tell you all the other things your audience expects to hear from a Republican candidate?'
"Obama sounded authentic. We were hearing what he really thinks rather than some stump speech. McCain may have been a maverick who bucked the party in the past, but that man is long gone.
"And anyone who thinks there is a simple answer to the complex issues of the world is a dangerous person, voted most likely to get us involved in some royal dukie at home and abroad. You don't solve anything by making rules. You solve things by meeting the other side half way and coming up with concrete paths to alleviate problems."
For what it's worth, I thought it was a great thing for Warren to do. I don't think he completely succeeded at what he was aiming for. But I think it was very honorable and Christian of him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I had a slightly different impression of the event. I didn't see the whole thing, but I was left convinced that there really is not much difference between Republicans and Democrats. I was amazed at how similar their answers often were (despite how long it took for them to give them). It seems to me that the difference between Democrat and Republican (note I didn't say liberal and conservative) is just a matter of emphasis or where one shifts the weight when standing, but they ultimately stand in the same spot.
I did and do applaud Rick Warren for not favoring one candidate over the other (at least publicly), giving them an equal time and equal questions.
I would have liked to see more about immigration.
I did not see the debate. I have read a bit about it; and have been interested to note that some people felt that Obama was much clearer in giving a "testimony" of faith than McCain. Of course, this is nothing new, but it is the one place where Obama "did better" in some peoples eyes.
There is good coverage of this over at Terry Mattingly's Get Religion blog.
Re: comment: Though I appreciate the intent in wanting to distinguish between Democrat/Republican and liberal/conservative, I think that it's faulty to suggest that there's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. To see the difference, it's best not to listen to a public forum, but to compare platforms side by side, and to compare philosophies of government, foreign policy, and the histories of the parties.
Re: 40 split. I think what you're touching on partly is the preferred interaction style, not necessarily the end political persuasion. Idealogically, I align more with McCain's values in most areas; communication-wise, I love listening to Obama. I'm 27. I'd rather have Obama in the passenger seat on a road trip, talking and picking out music. But I'd rather have McCain assessing the map, and I think he'd be better at helping to change a flat tire, checking the oil, or the radiator. I hope that doesn't sound cliche. I like the Starbucks quality of Obama's campaign. I just can't support some of his positions - ones that, to me, are important.
I think it'll be telling to see how domestic policy vs. foreign policy is represented here: I think McCain voters will signal that their concern about foreign policy remains high; I think that Obama voters will highlight domestic policy as the primary responsibility of the next president.
The images that were painted by the two candidates could not be more distinct...
Obama's understanding of the complexity of governing a diverse people was his strength, while McCain's understanding of conviction being the foundation of governing exemplified both condidates "positives".
But, whle this is true, there were some issues that are important in evaluating when it comes to selectin the indivdidual candidate that one will vote for..
Obama made it seem that he was against the "war on terror", meaning to the undiscerning that he had voted against the war in the Senate. He was not in the Senate when the vote was taken. He was in Illonois representing that state, not at the national level. Other democrats who voted pro or con should and probably were outraged at his "misrepresentation of the facts". Even though Obama's conviction about the war might be valued, his integrity in fully representing his experience is misleading.
On the other hand, McCain's confidence was based on his experiences as a political prisioner. While some may dismiss his personal experiences, he seems to understand the values that Americans hold most dear; freedom, honor, duty, and country.
Who would be the best to serve our country? That depends on the values the individual deems most important. And since globalization has hindered a "unity" in interests, then "freedom" cannot be an ultimate value. What then can be our ultimate?
the way you respond to the two individuals themselves probably breaks at 40 years old.
So all over 40s have lost there minds? Do they all (probably) perceive McCain's performance so favourably? Not in my neck of the woods. The only confidence we have is in Obama. Mind you, we're the part of the rest of the world so we don't count.
There's also a good review of the debate at "confessingevangelical" blogspot, sam andress
Post a Comment