David Brooks is one of my favorite columnists because of his thought-provoking social insights. He seems more a sociologist than a journalist. You could probably entitle a collection of his most important columns “Popular Sociology.”

On the Jim Lehrer News Hour, he has often expressed his fondness for John McCain, and now he has formalized his endorsement in a piece entitled The McCain I Know.

In it he attempts to demonstrate that although John McCain is not a sophisticated conceptual thinker, his long experience in the Senate forced him to take on issues one at a time in an inconsistent manner: “One day he’s a small-government Western conservative; the next he’s a Bull Moose progressive.”

Brooks argues that McCain has successfully established “a half-century of evidence” as a “good judge of character” and as “a serious man prone to serious things.”

David Brooks believes that if John McCain is elected “he will run the least partisan administration in recent times.” He believes that although he is not able to express himself well and is inconsistent, McCain will prove to be a man of character who will seek to work with a wide constituency.

The biggest problem with Brooks’ argument is its own internal incoherence — that is, since McCain is inconsistent, he cannot be counted on in any given circumstance. What Brooks therefore must actually mean is, experience teaches us we can usually count on McCain. That does not mean we can count on McCain for the big decisions! For example, David Brooks does not think Sarah Palin was a wise VP choice because she is not ready to step into the presidency — that is a major blunder. So even by Brooks’ own standards, McCain is not a dependable decision-maker.

The McCain David Brooks knows is a man of character who is not guided by thoughtful principles and who makes inconsistent decisions on a case by case basis.

The Obama I Know

We all have been so saturated by this presidential campaign that many of us feel we know these candidates and have images of them in our minds based on what we have read and seen over these months. I have written about Obama in several blog entries ( 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 ) .

For me, the Obama I know can be summarized in this sentence:

Obama is a leader with character who is guided by liberal beliefs, which include not imposing his will on those he leads, but rather seeking their participation in an inclusive democratic government.

What this means is that all people have to do is get involved and their voice will count and they will have an effect on the outcome of any given decision. This is what he has been encouraging: participatory democracy from the grassroots upwards as the only way to save our nation. It is not enough to leave leadership to Washington. But when Washington must be involved, it should hear from everybody!

In terms of staffing his administration, it might look very similar to McCain’s. In many ways Obama and McCain seem quite similar on many fronts. But on the interior they are quite different. Although they both appear to be men of sincere Christian faith and character, McCain is more volatile and temperamental, while Obama is more steady and thoughtful. The difference between the two men is that simple.

The biggest thing about being president is making decisions.

Whose temperament is better suited for the presidency?

Who made the best call on whether to go into the war in Iraq?

Who should be the next president if the one who is elected in 2008 dies in office?

Answering these questions will tell you a lot about which way you should vote in November

.

Everybody seems to be impressed with how evangelicals have become so much more socially conscious nowadays; but as someone who grew up in this tradition, I am as distressed as ever about what went on at Saddleback Church this past weekend.

What is so great about presidential candidates meeting in a church? The kind of religious group candidates meet with should not be an issue.

What horrifies me is the report card format used to measure the candidates, particularly when the issues are as significant and complicated as abortion. There really is a sense in which the medium becomes the message. The message must adapt to the medium, and therefore becomes shaped by it. In effect, moral questions become variations of asking for the meaning of life in 25 words or less.

The warts of the report card method for measuring political candidates are highlighted on the Jim Lehrer Online News Hour video excerpts which highlight the abortion portion of the proceedings at Saddleback Church.

To me it plays like a cartoon that creates the humor of grief — not the humor we usually think of as comedy.

Warren: At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

Obama: “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is I a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention.”

Warren: At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?

McCain: “At the moment of conception,” he answers promptly, with a slight “did I get it right?” inflection we can all recall from school days. Then the crowd claps as if he has just won a prize. McCain goes on to tell a touching personal story of his own adopted daughter; but this is irrelevant to answering a question about when human rights should be legally compelled in every case, which is what “getting human rights” is all about. But the crowd has been induced to produce more applause, and we are left here with a little vignette of the irrationalism that can be fostered in churches.

Shaping the Message

Notice there is a slight difference in these questions. The first question asks for a thoughtful opinion (“in your view”). The second one asks for a straightforward answer (“what… is”). In each case the requested answer was supplied. Perhaps this was because Pastor Rick Warren just responded to each man naturally because he really knew each one fairly well and wanted to make him feel comfortable. But the fact is that each one was “set up” to produce a different kind of response, and they produced it.

Much more significant, though, is the response of the crowd to Senator McCain’s precise and absolutist answer, which stands in sharp contrast to Senator Obama’s nuanced response. The crowd wanted the easy answer. Who cares about difficult cases? Let those people suffer in silence. The law of the land should enforce the right of a not yet implanted ovum to survive (since fertilization happens before implantation).

I suppose it would have been impolitic for either candidate to answer that “babies” should have human rights from the moment they are defined as “babies.” That would have been the Solomon-like answer; but we would not have accepted this response in our day. This answer would have pushed the issue into the kind of discussion it deserved, and the format did not allow for this kind of dialogue.

Ultimately such snippets of moral opinion by political leaders may have extremely little to do with their policy decisions. Only a more extensive discussion could have determined that. Apparently, from all reports I’ve seen, NOTHING was actually learned about how either candidate would actually lead the country on the abortion issue.

I did not see the complete televised discussion; but most Americans will not see it either. Most will not even see this News Hour excerpt. Those that care about the abortion issue will just erroneously hear that McCain does not believe in abortion and Obama does. There was no significant discussion of the abortion issue in this venue. When we read about the Lincoln-Douglas debates that focused on the moral issue of slavery in their era of American history, we see the candidates themselves conducted extended public discussions of this issue.

Now all we want to know is whether someone is Pro or Con.

Christians know Jesus said “If you are not on my side, you are against me. If you don’t gather in the harvest with me, you scatter it.” (Matthew 12:30) So we know that Jesus has drawn a line between faithful followers and those who are not.

But judging by how some Christians are reacting to the abortion issue it seems like some of us have let Jesus’ teaching form a paradigm in our mind for a host of other issues. This makes it easy, without even thinking about it, to identify following Jesus with following a political leader. If Obama is for abortion, then he must be against Jesus. We don’t even care if he really is following Jesus.

That really seems to be the template set in the brains of some Christians. Give credit to Rick Warren for trying to dispel that notion, even if at the same time he pandered to the majority that pays his salary.

Unfortunately this type of staging does not play well in the minds of many young people outside the Christian camp. They see these snippets and the mindless clapping in the name Christ, and they push further away. It’s hard for them to tell whether this is a scene from Saturday Night Live or if is it real.

Social action, yes. But social action characterized by love that draws people to Christ — not actions that push them away from him.

I think the message got distorted by the medium in this venue.