A Civil Forum? Maybe We'll Learn Something

Pastor Rick Warren's Civil Forum with John McCain and Barack Obama tomorrow could be the most exciting event of the political season. Why? Because the pastor of Saddleback Church isn't a member of the press, and he might not act like one.

That means he might not ask questions that have already been covered ad nauseam by the press. That means that he might give the world a picture of what the great majority of evangelicals are truly like.

They aren't like Jerry Falwell. Or Pat Robertson. They aren't like James Dobson. They aren't like the John Hagee or Ron Parsley. They aren't like the fundamentalist leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The great majority of evangelicals don't even believe the most fundamental tenets of traditional evangelical faith.

And that's no big change. They haven't believed those things for decades.

I don't think Rick Warren will reveal the truth of that Sunday, but by his manner, his intelligence, his attention to matters of importance, he may show the nation a truer picture of evangelicals than we've had in the past twenty years.

The mainstream press will never show that picture. They're too busy copying each other's stories and chasing the latest lurid, extremist story that shows evangelicals to be malign, stupid and all-powerful. In that goal, they have plenty of allies within the evangelical and political community. These allies are people who benefit by that portrait. They get their power from exaggeration. And the reporters, who try not to notice what they're doing, go along because that's the way the game is played.

If you don't play by the rules, you don't make the front page.

But the biggest reason Rick Warren's not-a-journalist interview with McCain and Obama could be the most exciting event of the season is that he's already said he won't be adversarial.

I'm hoping that doesn't mean that he will play nicey-nice to the point that we won't learn anything. I'm so hoping he won't ape the Oscars by introducing them as "my personal friends." Aren't all friends personal?

But being adversarial means hammering people, scoring off them, cutting them off, putting them on guard. It means more of the snide. More of the cheap shot. More distortion. Fewer answers. Less true grappling with important issues in sincere ways.

Maybe I'm starting to sound like Obama here, but we deserve better. Democracy needs better. Warren's new approach might shame the journalists into getting out of the pack and into doing stories that offer true understanding instead of a facsimile called "balance."

Comments

[c64audio]

I wonder if anyone will pick up and run with the possibility that the GOP were so scared of John McCain messing this up that they managed to secretly get hold of the questions beforehand to allow him to "cheat"? Apparently he let the cat out of the bag when he asked when he was going to be asked about Supreme Court Chief Justices..­.

[Horace McMillon - Huffpost Blogger]

The questions were what one would have expected from a Pastor Rick. Given that the majority of evangelicals take the position that life begins at conception and consider overturning Roe the key objective, everyone knew the supreme court questions were coming. McCain gave all of his standard stump answers to the questions asked. There really is no conspiracy here. Both sides got a fair hearing. I believe Obama did well. (Not well enough to win many votes-but well enough to dampen the intensity of his opposition. He came across as a sincere Christian interested in the social gospel aspects of the Bible. McCain came across as a pol who will support the conservative Christian agenda. I believe both view are accurate.

[mhaven]

Rick Warren admitted that McCain was not in the building while Obama was on air.

[mediamarv]

So, you gonna ask Warren to explain his lie bout McCain being in a cone of silence or will you just accept that Warren got punk'd by McSame's campaign????

Can;t have it both ways, can you?

[lewes17266]

From what we are told, both candidates have problems with evangelicals so this forum is an important one in this race. To be honest though, I don't think either man is especially interested in evangelicals or their issues, just their votes. They both associated with crazy pastors and that tells me they don't even listen.
I just want to see an end to a Republican presidency and this war and the spending so I hope Obama does well at Saddleback. I think many people still have to be convinced he is more than just words. Also, because of the gossipmongering going on right now about his background, he needs to convince many that he is not an extremist muslim, the "anti-Christ," for goodness sake.

I like your "not-a-journalist" reference to Warren. I don't know much about Warren other than he wrote a successful book, but in an interview I watched this morning he seemed down-to-earth, not another holyman mongering fears and dire warnings from God, so I am glad about that.

[kjdwyer]

That's all well and good, but in my opinion, the problem is not "balance." It's the lack of vetting not only in the MSM, but in all political commentary and reporting.

This "better" "non-adversarial" approach will allow McCain to continue his campaign of misinformation and, in some cases out-right lies, uncontested.

The other day on this website, I saw a video where he had the temerity to say that he fought for the MLK holiday. How does one non-adversarily challenge such a statement?