The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, established in 1945 to honour Alfred E. Smith, the first Catholic presidential nominee, is known for its tradition of light-hearted humour and bipartisan camaraderie during intense presidential campaigns. However, this spirit was severely tested in 2016 when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump took the stage just weeks before the election, exposing the deep divisions of their campaign.
Trump's speech, which began with self-deprecating humour, quickly turned into sharp jabs at Clinton’s email scandal, accusations of corruption, and even jokes about his wife Melania, referencing her plagiarism controversy. His remarks were met with boos, breaking the event’s tradition of civility. Clinton responded by maintaining a more comedic tone, mocking Trump’s reluctance to accept election results, his treatment of women, and his debate performances. Despite her efforts, the event's mood remained tense.
By the evening's end, it was clear that the dinner had failed to provide the expected moment of unity, instead highlighting the country’s stark political divides. The customary handshake between Clinton and Trump felt more obligatory than genuine, underscoring the deep animosity that defined the 2016 campaign.
Fast forward to 2024, and the Al Smith Dinner is once again in the spotlight, but this time for a different reason. Vice President Kamala Harris has decided to skip this year's event, raising eyebrows and sparking questions about whether she wishes to avoid the confrontational atmosphere that characterised 2016. Harris’s absence is notable, particularly given the dinner's status as an essential stop on the campaign trail for those seeking national office. Her choice will likely be seen as a way to avoid being roasted by Donald Trump in an environment where she wouldn’t be able to control the narrative. While Harris wants to face Trump again in a debate, he is currently refusing. It’s fair to say that Harris came out on top during their ABC debate, but that was a highly moderated session compared to the free environment of the Al Smith Dinner, where Trump wouldn’t be expected to restrain himself.
Harris's decision not to attend comes at a time when American politics remains highly polarised, and the possibility of finding common ground seems increasingly elusive. Her campaign has stated that she will instead focus on swing-state campaigning in key battlegrounds, reflecting the intense demands of modern political strategies. However, many wonder whether Harris, recalling 2016, recognises that the Al Smith Dinner may no longer be the unifying force it once was.
The importance of the Al Smith Dinner lies not just in its role as a major fundraising event for Catholic charities but also in its ability to showcase candidates in a different light. It offers a chance for political figures to demonstrate humility, humour, and the ability to laugh at themselves—qualities that are often lost in the heat of campaigning. The dinner is one of the few remaining spaces in American politics where politicians from opposing parties are expected to share a stage and, for a few hours, at least pretend to engage in civil discourse.
Harris’s absence this year suggests that even this bastion of bipartisan engagement may be losing its relevance. As political campaigns become more focused on targeted outreach and less on shared experiences, events like the Al Smith Dinner risk being sidelined. The question now is whether this tradition can adapt to the changing nature of American politics or if it will fade into obscurity as candidates prioritise direct voter engagement over symbolic gestures of unity.
Kamala Harris's decision to skip this year's event underscores how dramatically the political climate has shifted since 2016. The Al Smith Dinner still serves as a rare opportunity for a more civil and charitable side of politics to emerge, if only for one evening. However, as the pressures of campaigning intensify and the desire for unity fades, one might question whether this once-vital tradition can continue to find its place in American political life. Perhaps Harris aimed to avoid a "Last Supper" type scenario, where tensions would overshadow any attempts at goodwill, leaving her vulnerable to an unrestrained verbal assault from Trump.
Trump's speech, which began with self-deprecating humour, quickly turned into sharp jabs at Clinton’s email scandal, accusations of corruption, and even jokes about his wife Melania, referencing her plagiarism controversy. His remarks were met with boos, breaking the event’s tradition of civility. Clinton responded by maintaining a more comedic tone, mocking Trump’s reluctance to accept election results, his treatment of women, and his debate performances. Despite her efforts, the event's mood remained tense.
By the evening's end, it was clear that the dinner had failed to provide the expected moment of unity, instead highlighting the country’s stark political divides. The customary handshake between Clinton and Trump felt more obligatory than genuine, underscoring the deep animosity that defined the 2016 campaign.
Fast forward to 2024, and the Al Smith Dinner is once again in the spotlight, but this time for a different reason. Vice President Kamala Harris has decided to skip this year's event, raising eyebrows and sparking questions about whether she wishes to avoid the confrontational atmosphere that characterised 2016. Harris’s absence is notable, particularly given the dinner's status as an essential stop on the campaign trail for those seeking national office. Her choice will likely be seen as a way to avoid being roasted by Donald Trump in an environment where she wouldn’t be able to control the narrative. While Harris wants to face Trump again in a debate, he is currently refusing. It’s fair to say that Harris came out on top during their ABC debate, but that was a highly moderated session compared to the free environment of the Al Smith Dinner, where Trump wouldn’t be expected to restrain himself.
Harris's decision not to attend comes at a time when American politics remains highly polarised, and the possibility of finding common ground seems increasingly elusive. Her campaign has stated that she will instead focus on swing-state campaigning in key battlegrounds, reflecting the intense demands of modern political strategies. However, many wonder whether Harris, recalling 2016, recognises that the Al Smith Dinner may no longer be the unifying force it once was.
The importance of the Al Smith Dinner lies not just in its role as a major fundraising event for Catholic charities but also in its ability to showcase candidates in a different light. It offers a chance for political figures to demonstrate humility, humour, and the ability to laugh at themselves—qualities that are often lost in the heat of campaigning. The dinner is one of the few remaining spaces in American politics where politicians from opposing parties are expected to share a stage and, for a few hours, at least pretend to engage in civil discourse.
Harris’s absence this year suggests that even this bastion of bipartisan engagement may be losing its relevance. As political campaigns become more focused on targeted outreach and less on shared experiences, events like the Al Smith Dinner risk being sidelined. The question now is whether this tradition can adapt to the changing nature of American politics or if it will fade into obscurity as candidates prioritise direct voter engagement over symbolic gestures of unity.
Kamala Harris's decision to skip this year's event underscores how dramatically the political climate has shifted since 2016. The Al Smith Dinner still serves as a rare opportunity for a more civil and charitable side of politics to emerge, if only for one evening. However, as the pressures of campaigning intensify and the desire for unity fades, one might question whether this once-vital tradition can continue to find its place in American political life. Perhaps Harris aimed to avoid a "Last Supper" type scenario, where tensions would overshadow any attempts at goodwill, leaving her vulnerable to an unrestrained verbal assault from Trump.
You may also like
When Max Verstappen could retire as Red Bull star makes feelings clear on quitting F1
I don't take pressure over succeeding Sunil Chhetri, says Mumbai City's Chhangte
'Terrifying flash flood chased me home before water burst through our barrier'
CM announces compensation of Rs 4 L each to families of victims as 8 killed in lightning strike in Chhatisgarh
