Notes From D. R.

The Hart Foundation

Popular cartoonist Johnny Hart passes away at 76. More from the AP and Washington Post.

Weekend Box Office: Glory Hog

Blades of Glory stays on top for a second week.

The Separation Of Church And State

Would the Republican Party really be better off if it decided to divest itself of the so-called "religious right"?

Ever since religious conservatives began to acquire a degree of influence in the GOP, progressives and moderate Republicans have argued that the party has been damaged by their presence. The common argument is that religious conservatives scare off independent voters with their "judgmental" attitude and supposed desire for "theocracy," and that the GOP will never become a truly dominant party so long as the "Bible-thumpers" are around.

While moderates and progressives can certainly point to past high-profile examples of unpleasant behavior from “religious right” figures to make their case, the argument in favor of tossing Christian conservatives from the GOP rests on a faulty premise: that the Christian right completely dominates the GOP.

While the Christian right does have a loud voice, it’s certainly not the 800-pound gorilla it’s often made out to be. The influence of “secular conservatives” is actually far greater.

There are plenty of Republicans who aren’t evangelicals or even devout churchgoers, but who are fiscally and socially conservative in their worldview. Some of them are even as skeptical of organized religion as the most strident agnostic—but they share the Christian right’s concern about questionable elements in American culture, judicial activism, abortion on demand, etc.

“Secular conservatism” is almost never addressed by the mainstream press, since the media would rather promote the notion that the GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of right-wing Southern fundamentalist snake-charmers named Chuck.  The last thing the Fourth Estate wants to acknowledge is that there are folks who look upon the church with a skeptical eye but who are just as concerned about where America is headed culturally and morally as the most devout Christian Republican. These folks may not personally like James Dobson, but their vision of the world is far closer to that of Dobson than it is to, say, Ted Kennedy.

Many of the folks arguing for the dismissal of the “religious right” from the Republican Party would like to see the party return to the Rockefeller era, and mistakenly believe that jettisoning Christian conservatives will accomplish that goal. They simply don’t realize that the Christian right is simply one faction of the modern conservative movement, not the whole enterprise. “Secular conservatives”—those who believe, as a matter of general principle, that abortion as a form of birth control is a social ill, that marriage is, was, and always should be one man and one woman, that vouchers are not some nefarious plot to get around Supreme Court injunctions against school prayer but a necessary tool to advance educational equality, and that American culture is excessively profane and sleazy—have much more power and influence in the GOP than the progressives, moderate Republicans, and mainstream media care to admit.

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush succeeded in part because they were able to appeal to both religious and secular conservatives. To the extent that the GOP is facing problems headed into the 2008 election, it’s because the party has yet to find a candidate who appeals to both groups. (One reason why Fred Thompson has generated so much interest as of late is the belief that, like Reagan and Bush, he has the ability to unite the religious and secular right.) If the party does find such a candidate, the GOP will likely emerge victorious once again—without having to send the Christian right into the den.

The Gambler

Can John McCain regain momentum by strongly defending the American effort to establish a functioning democracy in Iraq?

Don't Mess With Bill

What explains the profound love many African-Americans have for Bill Clinton?

Black support for Clinton has always been vexing to conservatives, who once harbored hopes that people of color would finally break away from the Democrat Party. All one has to do is recall the ovation Clinton received when he spoke at Coretta Scott King's funeral last year to know that the odds of that happening anytime soon are slim and none, with slim having left town.

Most black Clinton supporters are fully aware of his faults: his rampant adultery, his failure to confront the nascent threat of terrorism, his demonization of media and political opponents. Yet, Clinton could still walk through virtually any African-American neighborhood and receive a hero's welcome.

Black support for Clinton is not based on acceptance of these faults. It stems from deep-seated anti-conservatism among communities of color, specifically anti-Reagan sentiment.

Hatred of Reagan may have been feverish among liberal whites, but it was practically an epidemic among liberal blacks. Reagan was viewed by black progressives as a Klansman in a suit and tie, a smiling serpent who represented the views of reactionaries and bigots who desperately desired to turn the clock back to the pre-civil rights era. The black left not only despised Reagan, they also loathed people of color who regarded Reagan's ideas as correct: thus, minority Reagan Administration officials such as Samuel Pierce and Clarence Pendleton were deemed enemies of black America.

Clinton is held in high esteem by African-Americans because he is seen as the anti-Reagan: compassionate instead of "cold," mellow instead of "mean-spirited," honorable instead of "hateful." Clinton is viewed as an enlightened figure with a sympathetic view of black America's struggles, not as a "bullheaded" right-winger telling the oppressed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Those who saw Reagan as black America's drill sergeant see Clinton as black America's therapist.

The strong anti-Reagan/pro-Clinton sentiment that exists in the black community destroys any hope of effective GOP "outreach." How can Republicans possibly attract larger numbers of black votes, when the man most Republicans view as a hero is perceived by so many blacks as a villain--and the man most Republicans consider amoral is seen by so many blacks as amiable? A few Republicans still believe that blacks will return to the party of Lincoln--but considering the way most blacks view Reagan and Clinton, such hopes are destined for sinking.

01-20-09

Let's face it: when George W. Bush leaves office, the way you remember him will define the way you remember the 2000s.

This is an unusual occurrence: there are plenty of people who fondly remember the 1980s but who can't stand Ronald Reagan, and quite a few folks who are nostalgic for the 1990s but who despise Bill Clinton. It's clear, though, that most Americans who have a negative opinion of Bush will also be contemptuous of the 2000s, and vice versa.

Bush was fated to become the most hated President of modern times. Left-wingers loathed Reagan, to be sure, but such hatred was tempered by the fact that neither of his victories were controversial. While the right had plenty of scorn for Clinton, conservatives always conceded that his wins over George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole were undisputed.

However, the left was never going to give Bush an even break--not after 2000, not after Florida. The fact that Bush scored a decisive victory over John Kerry in 2004 is ignored in progressive circles; his Presidency was, in their view, an illegitimate birth delivered by Supreme Court midwives, and thus he could never, under any circumstances, receive their respect.

Even if Bush never went into Iraq, he would still be considered a Satanic figure by liberals. More so than Reagan, Bush symbolizes everything the left finds distasteful: family wealth, conservative Christianity, skepticism of the "intellectual class," the embrace of what is viewed as a "cowboy" ethos.

The left also thought of Reagan as a wannabe John Wayne, but even the most fervent hater of the "Great Communicator" had to give him credit for bringing an end to the threat of Soviet Communism. However, those who loathe Bush will never give him credit for reducing the threat posed by extremist Islam. The axiom that Bush's actions have "created more terrorists" is considered gospel among progressives--and trying to convince them otherwise is like trying to convince a fan of classical music to listen to hip-hop.

The left's contempt for Bush is far deeper than their hatred of even Richard Nixon and Clarence Thomas: the novelist Philip Roth once claimed that Bush wasn't even fit to run a hardware store, much less the United States. The left has never been able to accept the fact that the supposedly dim Bush defeated the alleged genius Al Gore. Progressives knew that Jimmy Carter was weak in 1980, and that Walter Mondale was simply a not-ready-for-prime-time-player in 1984; however, Gore was in his prime, at the top of his game, the man of the hour, two sweet to be sour. How could some frat-boy Bible-thumper defeat him?

The left can't wait for this decade to be over. They'll regard the 2000s as one big fluke, the way some people on the right regard the Clinton '90s. Ignoring the real reasons why Bush won both elections, they'll simply declare that the American people fell for slick marketing and empty rhetoric delivered by a real-life Forrest Gump and his wicked right-wing henchmen. It will be easier to look back in anger upon the Bush era than to examine the Democrat mistakes that allowed Bush to triumph in the first place. They won't examine the American mood in 1999-2000, and analyze why Bush was more appealing to the electorate than Gore: they won't study 2004, and realize why the American people embraced Bush's arguments instead of Kerry's. That's too hard for the left. It's much easier to take John Mayer's advice, and just keep waiting on the world to change.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal on Bush.

Most Valuable Player

Former New England Patriots star Darryl Stingley, a true hero on and off the field, passes away at 55. More from Bob Ryan.

Shiny Happy People

Are Republicans more optimistic than Democrats?

Generally speaking, the Republican Party is, as of 2007, the "optimistic" party, and the Democrat Party is a bastion of pessimism. Most Republicans believe that a functioning democracy can be established in the Middle East; most Democrats do not. The right tends to believe that America is, on the whole, a fair and just country; the left tends to find that concept laughable.

However, the right is not entirely optimistic, and the left is not entirely pessimistic. There are areas where conservatives are dour, and trends that liberals find less than sour.

There isn't much room for happiness on the religious right nowadays. Despite the left's oft-stated fear of "theocracy" and "Christianists," current American social trends are clearly headed in the "secular" direction. The debate over abortion has seemingly reached a stalemate, and more and more folks--even self-described conservatives--are embracing the concept of embryonic stem-cell research, ignoring ethical and moral questions about the destruction of embryos.

The move away from "conservative" religiosity in America inspires optimism in the gay-rights left. Most of the opposition to same-sex marriage and adoption comes from religious traditionalists, and as Americans increasingly eschew the religious arguments against both concepts, the gay-rights left will gain much more traction in accomplishing its political goals.

The right is also profoundly dispirited over illegal immigration. It is now obvious that neither party is willing to take steps to combat the problems posed by lax border security. The American political establishment has decided that illegal immigration should be a "settled issue"--settled, that is, in favor of those who believe that the benefits of open borders outweigh the burdens. The right has long asserted that unchecked illegal immigration poses a mortal threat to national security and cohesiveness. Conservatives aren't wrong to abhor the fact that their arguments have been summarily ignored.

The left is surely positive about their prospects for 2008. There has been an unusually large amount of intra-party sabotage in the GOP, as almost every major contender for the Republican nomination has been attacked by other Republicans for allegedly being incapable of living up to Ronald Reagan's legacy. What's going on in the GOP right now is a strange circus, as one contender after the other rises up to claim the Reagan mantle--only to be accused of not being anywhere near good enough. Hillary Clinton is obviously sitting in a recliner somewhere, smiling.

Yet, the left still has cause for concern in the years ahead. Despite the Democrats' House and Senate wins last November, it's still unclear as to whether the American people as a whole accept the notion that the Democrats are stronger on national security than the Republicans. If Clinton does win the Presidency next year, and fails to respond with strength and wisdom to a possible second terrorist attack, she could doom her party's Presidential chances for at least the remainder of the 2010s. Extreme partisanship in the House and Senate on the part of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could result in another 1994-style Congressional loss. In addition, Americans are still deeply suspicious of "progressive" concepts such as economic growth created by higher taxation and government-run health care. (The anti-conservative conspiracy theories of such prominent liberal pop-culture figures as Rosie O'Donnell do little to help the Democrats' political credibility among non-partisan voters.)

For both conservatives and liberals, depression and elation are a part of political life. Seemingly intractable social trends prevent both sides from gaining total victory in America. Thus, the only reasonable goal is to advance as much of one's philosophy as one can. Over the next decade, we'll see which side is better at accomplishing that task.

Last Christmas

Filmmaker Bob Clark, best known for directing 1981's Porky's and 1983's A Christmas Story, passes away at 65. Also, legendary college football coach Eddie Robinson passes away at 88. More from Booker Rising.

What's The Catch?

Iran releases fifteen captured British sailors. More from Michelle Malkin, Jules Crittenden, the Wall Street Journal and Dean Barnett. 

UPDATE: More from Hugh Hewitt, Jules Crittenden, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Stranger Than Fiction

What the hell is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing in Syria? More from Power Line, Wall Street Journal and Human Events.

UPDATE: More from the AP, the New York Times, Robert Bluey, the Wall Street Journal, David Limbaugh, Fred Barnes, the Washington Times and Human Events.

O Lucky Man!

Former Massachusetts State Senate President William Bulger avoids federal obstruction of justice charges. More from Howie Carr.

Not Easy Being Green

The Supreme Court expands the role of the EPA. More from Human Events.

School Ties

Ideological conflict at Dartmouth College.

Pop Life

I remember reading a Susan Sarandon interview years ago in which the outspoken Hollywood liberal was asked if she had ever received any hate mail for her condemnation of the political right. Sarandon claimed that she didn't receive much negative feedback, and in fact had received positive mail from self-professed Republicans who disagreed with her views but respected her work.

I wouldn't waste time writing to Sarandon, but I can understand where her GOP groupies are coming from. Sarandon is an extraordinary actress--but I do have to make a conscious effort to block out her offscreen behavior when watching one of her films.

There is a long-held stereotype that folks on the center-right are divorced from modern popular culture. There's a belief that conservatives want to bring back the days of Lawrence Welk and Pat Boone, and get rid of everything created on film, in music and on television after 1960. This stereotype is patently absurd. Most folks on the center-right consume as much of the popular culture's output as folks on the center-left. While the center-right has been somewhat critical of modern popular culture, most conservatives are not, in fact, disengaged from it.

One reason why the center-right gets so bent out of shape over harsh anti-conservative rhetoric from prominent actors and musicians is that many of the artists attacking the GOP happen to be some of the most accomplished individuals in their respective fields. Conservatives are big on excellence, and thus respect the talents of such artists in the same way they respect the talents of top athletes.

When a gifted comedian, actor or musician explodes in a tirade against Republicans, it causes folks on the center-right to shake their heads in disbelief. The residents of the red states are also attending these artists' shows, buying their DVDs and listening to their songs: why would these artists insult a portion of their fanbase in this manner?

It's obvious why the center-right embraces folks in the entertainment industry who identify themselves as Republicans (even if, like Bo Derek, they have certain liberal social views). The center-right wants to see at least some portion of its values affirmed in the popular culture. Conservatives appreciate the fact that there are at least a few people in the entertainment industry who don't regard them as cretins.

Perhaps overall partisanship would decline in this country if artists were more mindful of the true extent of their popularity. For years, I have seen Chris Rock praised on conservative websites and blogs for his humor, despite the fact that Rock has been vehemently slamming Republicans since the Clinton impeachment saga. Imagine how much more successful his films would be if he hadn't alienated the center-right members of his fanbase with his rhetoric.

It's difficult, though not impossible, to enjoy the work of artists even if they've expressed ideological intolerance in the past. As much as I'm disgusted by Robin Williams' anti-GOP potshots, I still recognize him as a brilliant comedic mind. Sheryl Crow's Bush-bashing credentials are impeccable, but her talent as a musician cannot be ignored. I don't need to hear political advice from Paul Newman and Meryl Streep, but I'll always respect what they brought to the table in their films.

Contrary to the usual stereotype, the center-right actually respects the entertainment industry. If only the center-right could receive such respect in return.