The Al Smith Dinner

So, Kamala Harris has turned down an invitation to the Al Smith dinner of the New York Archdiocese. Now some have asked what Kamala Harris may have lost  – or gained –  by not attending this event. I believe she has lost nothing and has avoided some not insignificant political risks. 

The Al Smith dinner, which saw the light of day in 1946,  is a classic relic of the “Age of Spellman.” The Catholic Church after World War II sought to demonstrate its alignment with – and acceptance by –  the governing powers of the United States. Catholics have arrived and are now respected by all  – that was the message. And that alleged newly won Catholic influence was firmly under the direction  of the hierarchy. The dinner took on additional significance when, starting in1960, it became customary in an election year for the two presidential candidates to jointly appear. (There have been several instances since 1960 when they did not.) 

But even in 1946, apparently overlooked by the leadership of the Catholic Church,  the total secularization of the United States government and society was well underway. (e.g., Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and its “wall of separation between church and state”). As the years passed, Cardinal Spellman himself was forced into conflicts with the rising secularist tide. He even lived long enough to see himself demonized as a reactionary by the media. By 2024, what with the “devout” Catholic President Joe Biden fighting for abortion (amid the subdued voices of the American Catholic hierarchy), the notion of any specifically Catholic political influence had become a sick joke.  

Clearly,  Kamala Harris’s presence at an event like the Al Smith dinner, although it may be important to the prestige of the Archbishop of New York,  will have no effect on the actual voting by Catholics. We read that the views of Catholics today on issues traditionally seen as “Catholic” – abortion, “LGBT,” contraception, etc. – track those of the general population.  This moral indifferentism is also implicit in the format of the Al Smith dinner, which attempts to simulate an aura of good feeling, of equivalence between the candidates of the two parties. The message is that their differences may be, after all, not that great. Indeed, did not Pope Francis just recently declare the same thing himself (Catholics should vote for “the lesser of two evils”)? 1) The “seamless garment” has become the de facto ideology of the Catholic Church. 

If Kamala Harris gains nothing by attending the dinner, what risks does she avoid by skipping it? Various commentators have focused on the danger of an unscripted exchange with Trump that could prove damaging to her. For the key to her campaign strategy  is maintaining a totally controlled outward appearance. This point has obviously been raised by the Trump camp. But progressive Catholic commentators devoted to Kamala Harris say essentially the same thing. They assert that Trump would violate the rules of the game of the Al Smith dinner (as he allegedly did in 2016),  go on the attack,  and put her on the spot.1)

Reading carefully this progressive Catholic commentary, however,  I sense there’s a more profound reason why Kamala Harris might have been well advised to avoid this event. The entire focus of this year’s campaign of the Democratic party – and of the American establishment  –  is to depict Trump as an untouchable, a demonic figure, an enemy of democracy. One does not engage in friendly banter with such an adversary! Thus, this strategy directly contradicts the image that the Al Smith dinner seeks to project: that, at some level, there exists an underlying unity between the two candidates and between them and the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, regarding the last point,  Harris might be reluctant to participate in an event with this Church that could raise doubts among her supporters regarding her militancy in favor of abortion.

Is it not a strange outcome? The party of unrestricted abortion is making the (unexpressed) case that, contrary to what the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is explicitly or implicitly teaching,  there is a profound and unbridgeable gap between the two candidates. This remains so even after the recent waffling of Trump and Vance on abortion. For it is one thing to be lukewarm on this issue, it is another to be a fanatic advocate of unrestricted abortion. Kamala Harris is thereby unwittingly but helpfully pointing out the underlying fallacy of the Al Smith dinner itself.

1. Of course, it is ironic that Pope Francis’s recent statement on the American election, along with his repeated gestures in favor of Joe Biden, raise exactly the issue of papal interference in American politics that the opponents of Al Smith alleged in 1928!
2. Winters, Michael Sean, “Why it is smart for Kamala Harris to skip the Al Smith dinner,” National Catholic Reporter (9/24/2024); Spang, Thomas, “Harris meidet Kirchen-Dinner: Verpasste Chance oder kluger Schachzug?” katholisch.de ( (9/27/2024) (From Germany (!) but quoting a professor from Fordham) (Both accessed 9/29/2024)