E.J. Dionne has an article asserting that the era of the Religious Right is over:

The era of the religious right is over. Even absent the rise of urgent new problems, Americans had already reached a point of exhaustion with a religious style of politics that was dogmatic, partisan and ideological.

I don't buy it.

[More:]

Now... I believe that the above statement is somewhat true. Americans have reached a point of exhaustion with the "religious style of politics." I do not deny that at all.

I also would argue that more and more Christians are starting to "get it." They are starting to realize that the grand world of politics is much large than abortion and gays. And especially younger Christians are starting to mobilize around other issues that they view as important: the environment, poverty, AIDS, war, etc.

With that said, I still think that the Religious Right is alive and well, and will be for a while. Let me be clear what I mean by the Religious Right. When I refer the Religious Right I am referring to the politically conservative Christian establishment. I am not necessarily referring to all politically conservative Christians, but am instead referring to the leadership and organizations that push conservative policy with religious language. Some examples:

• Family Research Council (Tony Perkins)
• Focus on the Family (James Dobson)
• American Family Association (Donald Wildmon)
• Christian Coalition (Jerry Falwell)
• Concerned Women for America (Beverly LaHaye)
• Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schlafly)
• Moral Majority Coalition
• American Values (Gary Bauer)

These, and others, make up the Religious Right. Now... don't get me wrong - there are many, many conservative Christians who fit under these organizations, either as direct supporters/members or as those who are heavily influenced by these groups. These people often DO vote in lock-step with the Religious Right leadership.

But the question is whether or not these groups are "over." And I say no.

There is a reason that Mike Huckabee stayed around so long in the Republican primaries. And it isn't because he is a funny, likable, and lost a lot of weight. His support from religious conservatives was clear. His campaign, essentially running as the "Christian" candidate, was effective, and he won several states on this platform.

Ironically the Religious Right did not mobilize around him, largely for two reasons:

1. They didn't think he was electable
2. They thought he was too "liberal" on certain issues

The first reason points to the shrinking influence of the Religious Right (though this does not mean that the influence is gone). It used to be that the Religious Right believed that they could mobilize their millions of voters around one candidate and play a significant role in getting that candidate elected. But with a shrinking influence, they no longer can focus on the best candidate, but instead focus on the best "electable" candidate.

I use the same argument about labor unions - it used to be that labor unions endorsed their best candidate, and then helped that person win. Now labor unions do not always endorse the best, more labor friendly, candidate, but instead look at who is electable and then determine how they can make that person more electable. Lets be honest. If Labor wanted to endorse the best candidate, it would have been Dennis Kucinich in a landslide.

The second reason points to the sham that the Religious Right is. I have long said (and even presented a paper about it) that the Religious Right is more "Right" than "Religious." They care more about conservative policy than Biblical policy. They care more about strengthening the Republican Party and spreading Conservatism than they do about being pro-family or anti-abortion. That is why, while there is always some effort to push anti-abortion and anti-gay legislation, it rarely goes as far as the Religious Right claims to be able to push it. And this is why the Religious Right had concerns about some of Huckabee's policy positions. They were concerned that he might actually think that there is a governmental role in fighting poverty, or obesity. They were concerned that he may actually be willing to raise taxes if necessary. They were concerned that he may actually care about AIDS and want to spend money on it. They were more concerned with what he wanted to do in those areas than with his very strong support for anti-abortion and anti-gay policies.

So with all of that said, it would seem that I am making an argument that the era of the Religious Right is over, agreeing with Dionne. But that is not what I am asserting. I am asserting that there are significant problems with the Religious Right, and its influence is shrinking. I also believe the organizations that I mentioned above no longer have as much influence over as many people as they once did.

But I think it is quite clear that these groups (and in turn many of their followers) are not going away anytime soon. A significant portion of them kept Mike Huckabee in the race for so long, and helped him win several states. And they absolutely will mobilize to help John McCain get elected, even with their laughable concerns that he is too "liberal." They will mobilize against the "evils" of the Democrat Party. They will mobilize against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, without question.

Now... can the Religious Right get a candidate elected on their own? No, but I am not sure that they ever could. I am more than dubious about such a claim that the era of the Religious Right is over.

It simply isn't true.

---