Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Four Christmases tops the charts.

Jeff Jacoby on the UN and Israel.

The Washington Post on Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

So what did religious and social conservatives get out of supporting the Republican Party all these years?

Let’s see…abortion? Still legal. Gay marriage? Almost no one under the age of 35 seems to be against it. Less secularism in American culture? Please! American culture is far more secular now than it was in 1980.

Other than Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, it’s hard to see what goodies religious and social conservatives were able to extract from the GOP. The “Religious Right” has far less power than it did three decades ago; in fact, looking back over the decades, one has to question how much real, tangible power religious and social conservatives really had in the GOP.

The “Christian right” certainly played a significant role in Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter. However, Reagan focused more on anti-Communism than he did on anti-secularism during his eight years in office. In fact, Reagan arguably double-crossed his religious- and social-conservative allies in 1981, when he nominated Sandra Day O’Connor to replace Potter Stewart on the US Supreme Court (Jerry Falwell famously noted that “Every good Christian ought to be concerned” with the nomination because O’Connor did not appear to be an opponent of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling). While Reagan later appointed Scalia, whose legal views were more in line with those of religious and social conservatives, he followed that appointment up with Anthony Kennedy (a substitute for Robert Bork, whose appointment to the High Court was shot down by the left in 1987). Kennedy’s legal views, of course, were quite similar to those of O’Connor’s.

(It’s interesting to note that before he became President, Reagan, the alleged slave of evangelicals and social conservatives, had a high-profile split with the “Christian right.” In 1978, Reagan came out against California’s Proposition 6, a ballot initiative that would have prevented homosexuals from being employed in the California public schools. Although religious and social conservatives supported the “Briggs Initiative”, Reagan felt that Proposition 6 was an improper infringement on privacy rights. Looking back, this was an early signal that Reagan would not necessarily march in lockstep with the social right.)

George H. W. Bush, to put it politely, didn’t give a whit about the “Christian right” agenda during his four years in office, becoming obsessed with foreign-policy considerations instead. Bush nominated David Souter to the bench in 1990 largely on the recommendation of liberal New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman, a decision that religious and social conservatives rue to this day. While Bush later nominated Thomas, whose views were closer to those of Scalia, Bush did little else to advance the social right’s cause. While religious and social conservatives weren’t thrilled when Bill Clinton defeated Bush in 1992, they weren’t shedding many tears for the ousted President either.

The social right’s influence began to wane during the Clinton 1990s: though the Republicans managed to recapture the House and Senate in 1994, they did so without specific appeals to religious and social conservatives (though the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” controversy of 1993 certainly fueled the social right’s anti-Clinton anger). However, religious and social conservatives were horrified by Clinton’s actions in the Lewinsky scandal—and Karl Rove exploited their enraged energy, positioning George W. Bush as a candidate who would restore morality and honor to the White House.

The social right put Bush into office, re-elected him in 2004, and staunchly defended him even when his actions did not merit a logical defense. For their efforts, they were rewarded with the appointments of Roberts and Alito. What else did they get, besides Bush’s vetoes of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Acts of 2005 and 2007? Not much. Bush and the GOP-led Congress became involved in the Terri Schiavo case because of the concerns of the social right, but the rest of the country saw the GOP’s involvement as illogical and illegal (the Schiavo matter, the fallout from Hurricane Katrina, the length and cost of the Iraq War, and the financial meltdown of 2008 were the four factors that fueled Barack Obama’s victory). Social conservatives, like the conservative pundit class, embraced Bush even when it may have been wiser to let him go. Even after it became obvious that Bush didn’t know what the hell he was doing, the social right still regarded him as heavenly.

Now, columnists such as Kathleen Parker are accusing the social right of destroying the GOP. However, that’s not exactly the truth. Religious and social conservatives actually destroyed themselves in the name of propping up the GOP—while deliberately ignoring the fact that Reagan and both Bushes weren’t that concerned with their interests. One can’t blame the social right for concluding that the Democrats were too influenced by secular concerns to respond to their needs. However, history will reflect that the country’s “culture warriors” should have come to the same conclusion about the Republicans.

Is #44 ripping off #41? An interesting article from E. J. Dionne Jr.

The fifth anniversary of President Bush’s visit to Iraq. (Who would have thought, five years ago, that Bush would be such a hated figure today?)

The Boston Herald profiles Boston talk-radio star Dan Rea.

Scot Lehigh on how to reinvigorate the GOP. (I can’t believe I agree in large part with a Scot Lehigh column!)

UPDATE: More from Jeff Jacoby and Patrick Ruffini.

Jonah Goldberg on Barack Obama and vouchers.

UPDATE: More from M. Stanton Evans, Rich Lowry, Roger Simon and John Gizzi.

I happen to think George W. Bush will be remembered as a man who harmed the American conservative movement more than he helped it–but not everyone agrees…

UPDATE: A brilliant Robert Robb column about the future of the GOP. Plus, more from Debra Saunders and Sophia Nelson.

William Kristol on the financial crisis.

UPDATE: More from Jed Babbin.

Twilight tops the charts.

Jeff Jacoby on religion and atheism.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we actually took John McCain’s advice and put the country first?

Barack Obama is the first person to be elected in non-controversial fashion since George H. W. Bush in 1988. (Pay no attention to the wingnuts and extremists who are questioning the validity of his birth certificate: those guys don’t, and won’t, matter.) As such, he deserves a modicum of respect. Why don’t we give it to him?

The right could never bring itself to respect Bill Clinton. It is an article of faith in conservative circles that Clinton would have lost to Bush in 1992 were it not for the machinations of one H. Ross Perot. Because Clinton only won with forty-three percent of the vote, conservatives figured he wasn’t worthy of the office, and attacked him accordingly for eight years.

Likewise, the left could never truly accept George W. Bush as President. To progressives, Bush was a pathetic politician who only received the 2000 Republican nomination by way of a smear campaign against John McCain, and only became the Commander-in-Chief thanks to Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and five Justices on the US Supreme Court. Even after Bush soundly defeated John Kerry in 2004, the left could never say “Hail to the Chief” to a man they considered a White House thief.

This time around, no one can question Obama’s legitimacy. Sure, some on the right have suggested that the mainstream media and ACORN stole this election for Obama, but such claims are not taken seriously in the arena of ideas. Obama’s win was a testament to America’s fundamental greatness: even if you detest his politics, you have to admit that his victory was a moment of national pride.

What if future generations could look back and say that this was the moment when reflexive partisanship ended in this country? Obama will make mistakes, and conservatives should not hesitate to call him on those mistakes. However, conservatives must realize that they cannot attack Obama the same way they attacked Clinton. The country will not stand for it.

The reality is that Obama will enjoy an unusually lengthy political honeymoon. Because of his broad victory, his charisma, his intelligence and—yes—his unique background, millions of Americans have a desire to see him succeed. Even those of us who dislike his liberal political vision know deep down that with the twin problems of economic disarray at home and still-simmering Islamofascism abroad, America cannot afford to have a failed, Carter-style Presidency.

Those of us who are opposed to Obama’s vision must be firm in our criticism, but we must be fair and civil. This applies not only to conservative politicians, but also to right-leaning talk hosts, pundits and bloggers. Right now, the whole world is watching us.

Obama’s staunchest supporters will be looking for any piece of evidence they can seize upon to prove that Obama’s political opponents are just extremists, racists, nutballs, new-age John Birchers. Why give these guys any opportunity to humiliate us? Let’s not empower our enemies the same way Don Imus empowered his enemies last year.

We can question the Obama agenda with diligence and decency. We can work with Obama in the name of advancing what’s in the best interests of the country, and we can respectfully confront him if and when his decisions run counter to common sense. We ought not to use Obama as a political piñata; if we do, we’ll be the ones who get bashed to bits.

Right now, many Americans see Obama as a good and decent man. If those of us on the conservative side focus on nothing besides scandalizing his name, we’ll come across as repugnant heels—not the sort of impression we want to give as we attempt to rebuild the Republican Party. Obama beat us with a smile on his face. Perhaps we should consider trying to do the same.

Conservatives and Republicans need to be happy warriors. We can’t come across as grumpy, embittered sourpusses unable to accept the fact that John McCain and Sarah Palin lost. We need to make it clear to the American people that we respect Obama—and that, when he’s wrong, we will respectfully disagree with him. In the words of the President-elect, this is our moment—a moment for us to demonstrate, once and for all, that conservatism and class are synonyms, not antonyms.

Karl Rove on President-elect Obama.

UPDATE: More from Steve Chapman.