Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Holy Ship!

Evan Almighty debuts on top. More from Leonard Klady.

Ghost Rider

I'm not sure what to make of this new trend I call "atheist chic."

Social conservatives have been up in arms over a series of new books (the most recent of which is Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great) that are harshly critical of organized religion. Earlier this month, evangelical Christian activist Charles Colson suggested that these new books are part of a coordinated attack on faith in America.

While I certainly understand the concerns of social conservatives who find these books objectionable, I'd suggest that the real motivation behind the publishing of these books has less to do with an anti-faith conspiracy and more to do with the Almighty Dollar.

Let's be honest here: NONE of these pro-atheism books would have been published were it not for the success of Dan Brown's 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code. The authors of these books and the publishing houses that have put these works on the shelves know there's a huge market out there for material that appeals to skeptics of organized religion.

Also, one can't ignore the role that anti-Bush sentiment plays in the decision to produce these works. The publishing industry knows that most Europeans and half of the American electorate view the President as a religious fanatic who considers himself a friend of God. What better way to make money than to pander to those who believe that religion is ultimately responsible for Bush's allegedly nefarious actions?

In addition, by producing these books, the publishing industry is trying to tap into American nostalgia for the 1990s. One can charitably describe the 1990s as a "secular" decade in American politics, just as one can fairly characterize the 1980s and 2000s as a "religious" decade in American politics. Those who hated the religiosity of the Reagan and Bush eras, and who miss the easy-going, non-judgmental Clinton years, can point to the books as "proof" that mixing religion and politics is inherently dangerous for our political system.

I fear that, once again, we will have a situation in which social conservatives overreact to a perceived threat, allowing that threat to become mainstream. The book and film versions of The Da Vinci Code never would have gained as much popularity as they did were it not for social conservatives' high-profile criticisms of both. Sometimes I wonder if the social right realizes how dependent "anti-establishment" figures are upon their criticisms to help move product. Who would have ever heard of Elvis if 1950s-era preachers didn't denounce him from the pulpit?

As hard as it may be--because their values are, of course, being directly attacked--it would be much wiser for social conservatives to ignore these books instead of giving them so much attention. They put millions into Brown's pocket by going after Code. Why would they want to help these atheists hit the financial mother lode?

"Cancel My Subscription To The Resurrection..."

If most Americans really agree with Sen. Barack Obama's view of the religious right, the Republicans could be in trouble next year. More from Redstate.com.

The Farewell Broadcast

Boston talk-radio star Paul Sullivan announces his retirement. More from the Boston Herald.

Boiling Point

Can the Republican Party survive a 2008 election loss?

The GOP was obviously dispirited over George H. W. Bush’s 1992 defeat, but the party managed to recover relatively quickly, capturing the House and Senate in November 1994 and returning to the White House in 2000. The 2006 midterm debacle has seemingly sent the GOP into a tailspin; will the potential loss of the White House in 2008 be a deathblow for the party?

Not necessarily.  Even if the GOP suffers a second major defeat (i.e., a Presidential loss plus a failure to regain control of either the House or the Senate in 2008), the party could return to power in the 2010s—so long as the party finally manages to figure out exactly what it stands for.

The party has to decide which faction of the GOP will “take the lead.” An argument can be made that social conservatives called the shots during the 1980s, fiscal conservatives set the terms in the 1990s, and national-security conservatives controlled the agenda in the 2000s. So who will run the show in the 2010s?

The party seems to be backing away from 1980s-era social conservatism, and after the financial buffets the party attended between 2001 and 2006, it’d be ridiculous to market the party as the home of fiscal conservatism. Despite the alleged deleterious influence of “neoconservatism” on the GOP, it seems that the party’s only real option is to maintain a focus on national security issues.

Let’s face it: no matter what happens in Iraq, the threat of terrorism will not abate anytime soon. We’re only a few years away from the 10th anniversary of 9/11—and when that bitter anniversary is marked, the attention of the American people will again be focused on the risks posed to American security.

The run-up to the 2012 election will coincide with the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The Republicans would be negligent if they did not remind the American people that over the last three decades, the party repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to confront threats to the United States—from Ronald Reagan’s efforts to dismantle the Soviet Union to George H. W. Bush’s initial fight against Saddam Hussein to George W. Bush’s multi-tiered antiterrorism efforts.

This is not to say that that the interests of fiscal and social conservatives should be completely ignored; taxation and “culture war” issues will still have seats in the arena of ideas. However, issues pertaining to the War on Terror must remain in the GOP’s VIP section.

While Republicans should never get lazy, they should be confident that it will take some time for the Democrats to overcome their perception problem with regard to national security issues. The party’s foreign policy vision is still generally associated in the public mind with the failures of President Carter, a negative image that has been virtually impossible to remove. So long as the Democrat Party is seen as an entity that believes in reasoning with reactionaries and discourse with demagogues, the GOP will remain the default choice for those concerned about national security.

A 2008 GOP loss could well prove to be a fluke, a one-time aberration brought on by the electorate’s contempt for the current president’s missteps.  A Democrat could win next year because the voters have had enough of Bush—but by 2012, Americans could decide that the problem was only Bush, and not the party he represented. 

Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself

Do the conservatives who now abhor President Bush because of his support for “comprehensive” immigration reform really think about how their criticisms of Bush will look years from now?

Sometimes I wonder if those on the right who now lambaste Bush over his admittedly questionable view of immigration bother to think about how history will record their current actions. Do they not realize that, as a result of their harsh criticism, left-wing historians will declare that Bush was such a despised president that even his own base couldn’t really stand him?

Bush’s conservative critics may be right on the merits, but in terms of their rhetoric, they remind one of Prince’s parents in “When Doves Cry”—too bold, and never satisfied. Do they not realize that there is not now, and likely never will be, any motivation in Washington to engage in mass deportation of illegal immigrants? Do they not understand that branding Bush a traitor, a RINO or a liberal is unlikely to change his mind?

For all the talk about how wrong it is to “cut and run” in Iraq, it seems that some on the right don’t realize how dangerous it is to “cut and run” from an administration conservatives so vociferously supported in 2000 and 2004. It appears that anger over Bush’s vision of immigration has blinded some conservatives to the risks their condemnations pose to their credibility.

How do conservatives expect non-Republican voters to buy anything they say about Republican candidates in the future? The right worked double-time to sell the notion that Bush—who was never a “Reagan conservative”—was admirable. Now, conservatives are trying to argue that he’s abominable? Who will they flip-flop on next—Fred Thompson?

It’s one thing for conservatives to say that the President is misguided on this issue. It’s quite another for conservatives to argue, as they have argued on countless talk shows and blogs, that Bush’s support for “comprehensive” immigration reform is evidence of his arrogance, idiocy, etc. Say what you will about the Republican pundits who share Bush’s vision of immigration, but at least they are loyal to and consistent about Bush.

The conservative dispute over immigration is not occurring in a vacuum. Bush’s liberal opponents are enjoying the conservative attacks on the President, reveling in the fact that so many on the right are now questioning Bush’s intelligence. Of course, the left is laughing behind conservatives’ backs, saying: “We knew Bush was intellectually incapacitated from the start. What took the right so long to figure that out?” 

The attempt by some on the right to rewrite history by declaring Bush a cerebral cruiserweight severely damages the credibility of the conservative movement. It’s obvious to outside observers that the real motivation behind these attacks is to separate the conservative movement from the unpopular, exhausted president. However, this tactic is likely to fail. Having backed Bush when he was popular and powerful, the right looks pretty silly trying to convince folks that their judgment was fundamentally wrong earlier in the decade.

Bush’s conservative critics are simply looking for life preservers, because they consider his presidency to be a political Titanic. However, what will happen the next time they try to suggest that a Republican president is unsinkable?

Welcome To The Machine

The optimistic side of me says Boston's new superintendent of schools will be a true reformer who will finally close the so-called "achievement gap." The cynical side of me says she'll ultimately be just as much of a failure as the last three Boston superintendents. 

UPDATE: More from Adrian Walker.

Hello, I Must Be Going

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg leaves the Republican Party. More from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

The Rockefeller Resurrection

Whether the Republicans win or lose in 2008, there are clear signs that, over the next decade, there will be an attempt by the Republican "establishment" to steer power away from the party's social-conservative base.

The intense criticism of the party base for its refusal to support "comprehensive" immigration reform is just one indication of what's to come. Another sign that social conservatives are being marginalized within the party is the GOP's apparent reluctance to address the base's desire for a Federal Marriage Amendment, a desire that has intensified in the wake of the Massachusetts legislature's decision not to allow a ballot initiative that would effectively end same-sex marriage in the state.

Why would the party want to reduce the influence of the social right? The Republican establishment apparently believes that, due to demographic changes, the GOP is at a long-term disadvantage. Unless the party diversifies its political portfolio, the logic goes, the GOP will ultimately end up bankrupt.

The party's "powers that be" are concerned that there are more and more Americans who simply cannot relate to social conservatives--especially those sarcastically described by Boston talk-radio host Jay Severin as "skinny religious white guys named Chuck." In an increasingly diverse, increasingly libertarian country, Americans will theoretically find themselves less willing to support a party whose leaders draw lines in the cultural sand.

We are living in a time in which the popular culture has linked social conservatism to bigotry--rank racism, scurrilous sexism, hardcore homophobia. Those who have been immersed in anti-social- conservative imagery will find it all but impossible to vote Republican.

Thus, the party has apparently deemed it appropriate to begin the process of ignoring social conservatives. What used to be an asset has become a perceived liability.

While the left strongly criticized Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell in the 1980s, the GOP could afford to stand by both clergymen: at the time, most Americans either didn't care about Robertson and Falwell or felt that both men were fundamentally right on the social issues. However, numerous cultural and political changes since the 1980s have resulted in the GOP establishment now being worried that the "Falwell-Robertson image" will harm the party over time.

The party lost ground with blacks in the mid-1960s after the late Barry Goldwater refused to endorse the 1964 Civil Rights Act; while the party managed to win seven subsequent elections without a significant black vote, the last two elections would have been blowout wins had the party been perceived as a viable option for a "critical mass" of blacks. The party apparently fears making the same mistake twice.

Thus, the party's reluctance to secure the borders (lest the GOP run afoul of Latino voters who might consider an illegal-immigration crackdown a "racially tinged" action). The GOP's unwillingness to push for a Federal Marriage Amendment is seemingly borne of a desire not to alienate straight independent voters who may regard such an effort as either thinly veiled homophobia or homophobia with a quasi-religious imprimatur.

By the 2020 Presidential election, social conservatives might be fully marginalized in the Republican Party, and the "country club"/"social moderate" wing of the party could once again dominate. Will this experiment work? It doesn't look like anything can stop the GOP establishment from trying to determine the answer.

Countdown To Ecstasy?

Wouldn't it be something if, after all the problems the Republican Party has faced over the past few years, the GOP still managed to win the 2008 Presidential election?

Three years ago, I was concerned that the GOP's problems at the time would result in a narrow win for John Kerry in the 2004 contest. The economy was generally viewed as tepid, the controversy over the Iraq War had only intensified, and Kerry was a more formidable candidate than he originally seemed when he first announced his bid for the Presidency. Nevertheless, President Bush managed to win, defeating Kerry by three million votes. Could the GOP have the same luck again?

Despite the public's declining confidence in Bush, it's not beyond possibility that such negativity could be confined to the 43rd President and not extend to the party he represents. If, in 2008, the electorate still feels that the GOP is better on national security, economic, and "values" issues than the Democrat Party, the elephants will not need to fear extinction.

If Hillary Rodham Clinton does become the Democrat nominee, will she really be able to attract independent voters who are still mindful of security issues? Will she really be able to compete for the votes of the "traditional values" crowd? Will she really be able to out-GOP the GOP, as her husband did in 1992 and 1996?

While the Republican base is still uneasy about its chances for victory, the Democrat base should also be wary. Other than Clinton, the Democrats have no real contenders: John Edwards is profoundly unelectable, and Barack Obama seems to have peaked. The other Democrat candidates are unlikely to become serious contenders for the party's nomination.

The GOP is feuding over immigration, the war and other crucial matters, but it seems less likely now that the party will split apart as it did in 1992. Back then, Republicans didn't really fear Bill Clinton; they didn't work aggressively against "Bubba" because at the time, they didn't truly believe that Clinton, as a so-called "New Democrat," would attempt to move the country in a radical-left direction. (Anti-Clinton sentiment on the right in 1992 was based not so much on ideology as it was on the belief that Clinton simply wasn’t qualified to be President.) However, if Hillary becomes the nominee, it's a near-certainty that the right will come together to secure her defeat.

For years, conservatives have regarded Hillary as the ultimate statist, a woman whose soul is animated by hard-left ideology and a hatred for all things traditional. It's hard to imagine conservatives being unmotivated if she becomes the Democrat contender. While the Republican base has raised questions about the various GOP contenders' commitment to conservatism, such questions will be set aside once it becomes obvious how hard the party must work to prevent the Clintons from returning to the White House.

Has America really changed that much between 2004 and 2008? If the answer is no, then the GOP has cause to be confident. The 2008 GOP contender may not be a political Superman--but we must remember that Clinton is not exactly a Wonder Woman. 

UPDATE: Could the GOP regain control of Congress too?