Undermining a venerable tradition | City Journal

Kamala Harris recently made headlines when she declined Timothy Cardinal Dolan's invitation to the annual Al Smith Dinner, which will be held on October 17 at the New York Hilton in Manhattan. Some say Harris' move was a denigration of Catholics and a sign of her uncertainty about how she would be received or whether she would be able to give a good-natured speech. Others defend the vice president's decision not to appear at the podium with Donald Trump because of his treatment of Hillary Clinton at the 2016 dinner.

Whatever the merits of Harris's decision, it raises the question of why, in most presidential election years, attention is focused on a Manhattan dinner named after a long-dead presidential candidate and attended by prominent politicians, business people and media figures participate .

The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner has been held every year since 1945. Named after the popular New York governor and first Catholic major-party presidential candidate, the dinner was the brainchild of Francis Cardinal Spellman, archbishop of New York from 1939 to 1967 and by far the most influential American bishop in the country's history. The Al Smith Dinner, which he founded, brought together America's political, business and military elite each year to raise money for various Catholic charities. The cardinal had connections in all of these sectors, and his “powerhouse,” as the chancery was called, represented the pinnacle of Catholic power and influence in America.

Most early Al Smith dinners were attended by New York politicians and military officials. Dwight Eisenhower made two appearances and Richard Nixon made one, giving early Cold War dinners a distinctly Republican flavor. The event featured both presidential candidates for the first time in 1960, when Nixon and John F. Kennedy took part in the midst of a tense race debating whether a Catholic (JFK) could lead the country. Kennedy, who had given a speech at the 1959 dinner, was initially reluctant to appear again in an election year, fearing it might harm his chances.

At the start of the campaign, Kennedy declared that if elected president he would not take orders from bishops or the pope. It was smart policy, but Kennedy's comments put some distance between him and most American bishops. Ironically, Spellman felt he would have better access to a Quaker Nixon White House than to a Catholic Kennedy. Spellman's quarter-century-long friendship with Joseph Kennedy ended bitterly during the 1960 campaign, as the Kennedy family believed that the cardinal was tacitly supporting Nixon for president and was using the Al Smith Dinner to support his campaign.

But JFK finally agreed to appear, after hesitating about Spellman's invitation – and apparently trying to persuade the cardinal to invite the vice presidential candidates instead.

Spellman himself expressed ambivalence about Kennedy's performance. “I wouldn't have been dissatisfied if he had declined the invitation,” he told a friend, “but he would have been stupid if he had.”

However, despite the behind-the-scenes controversy, the dinner went off without a hitch, and Spellman later said that it “was and will be the biggest dinner of the series.” The cardinal beamed at photos with the two presidential candidates, Nixon in white tie and tails, Kennedy in a simple tuxedo with black tie. The cardinal showed no partisanship that evening. Both Nixon and Kennedy were “men of goodwill,” he assured the crowd, “with brilliant minds and the ability to manage and resolve crises.”

Despite his ambivalence, Kennedy had the best lines of the night. Now that he had appeared at the Al Smith dinner, he was expecting an invitation to a Quaker dinner in honor of Herbert Hoover. Only Cardinal Spellman, JFK continued, was “so respected in American politics” that he could bring together two politicians “who are increasingly concerned about the November election, who have long viewed each other with suspicion, and who have viewed each other both publicly and privately.” ” ” Kennedy then delivered the punchline: He was not referring to himself and Nixon, but to Nixon and New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who was also present.

The underlying theme of the dinner was that religion should not play a role in the upcoming election. Although Kennedy did well, the well-heeled, predominantly Catholic audience favored Nixon over his co-religionist. This proved to be a sore point for the Democrat, who later told Arthur Schlesinger that he was irritated by the dinner guests' pro-Nixon bias. “Everything shows,” said Kennedy with the silver spoon, “that when it comes down to it, money counts more than religion.”

Even after 1960, many election year dinners did not feature the two main candidates for the White House. In 1964, Spellman specifically declined Barry Goldwater's invitation and extended the offer only to Lyndon Johnson. Evangelical Jimmy Carter accompanied Ronald Reagan to dinner in New York in 1980, but Walter Mondale declined the invitation in 1984, citing tensions within the Democratic Party over abortion. In 1996, John Cardinal O'Connor did not invite Bob Dole or Bill Clinton because of the latter's stance on late-term abortion; Vice presidential candidates Al Gore and Jack Kemp were introduced instead. Likewise, the archdiocese did not invite George W. Bush or John Kerry in 2004, likely because Kerry, a Catholic, supported abortion rights.

Declining an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner generally didn't help the candidates. When Adlai Stevenson rejected Spellman's offer to run in 1956, it hurt the Democrat with Catholic voters. Back then, the Catholic electorate was still thoroughly Democratic, as it had been in Al Smith's day. However, with increasing post-war prosperity and strong anti-communist sentiment, it became increasingly conservative.

Today, it is difficult to determine a unified “Catholic vote” because any attempt to do so must reflect the diverse views of Hispanic and non-Hispanic Catholics, as well as regular churchgoers and cultural Catholics. So it's hard to gauge how much, if any, Harris' absence from this year's Al Smith Dinner will hurt her in November.

As for Donald Trump, who knows what he will say this time? As Kennedy showed in 1960, sticking to the dinner tradition of light, self-deprecating humor is the wisest strategy, but that is not Trump's preferred approach.

The Al Smith Dinner is a relic of a bygone era in New York history. The event still sells out and attracts big names from the American establishment, especially in election years, and it still raises millions of dollars to fund the archdiocese's good works. But the dinner is a far cry from its heyday when it symbolized Cold War America, a time when the Catholic Church was the dominant institution in New York City and its influence extended to mayoral appointments, the NYPD and even enough films could be shown.

Today, the Church's political influence in New York and across the country is, by comparison, negligible. Still, relics have their place, and the Al Smith Dinner reminds us of a different time in New York's history and a courtly tradition between rivals that has all but disappeared in our deeply polarized political environment. Harris' decision not to stand at the podium with Trump undermines what's left of that tradition, and our politics are worse for it.

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images