I'm not so sure that I would be ready to go around singing "Ding, dong, the religious right is dead" quite yet.

The influence of the religious right may be waning in some corners, but they still have some very powerful allies in very high places. The part that makes me a bit nervous is who or what steps in to fill that void if and when it becomes vacant.

Hooray for civil discourse. But what was Reed's response? If Dionne only reported his zinger without giving Reed's side, then he is not a particularly good advocate for bridging the ideological divide.

Ralph Reed has, in the past, compared the Republican party to a three-legged stool, with economic and foreign policy conservatives balancing out the religious conservative leg. It sounds like Dionne is getting his legs mixed up.

Now, if Dionne related an honest discussion between ideological opposites (himself and Reed), then Eric Black has done Dionne a disservice by making him sound snarky at the very moment he is calling for understanding.

Which is it?

I have to agree with John Olson, if indeed the religious right is leaving, who will take its place? When religion is removed, what is it replaced with? Either another similar religious ideology, or one void of god. In the case of Hitler, traditional religion (or faith in a divine god), was replaced by Nazism where people put their faith not in a higher power, but in the government. This is the ultimate meshing of church and state.
To Dionne's comment about the right being dogmatic, partisan and too certain of itself. They have every right to be that way, they are not there to make friends with liberals, or to work with them. No, they were elected by rightists to fight the left at the basis of what they believe, not agree with them. We shouldn't expect rightists to agree with someone who has a completely opposite world view, nor should we expect leftists to cross the isle and work with the right. Thats not what their constituencies elected them to do. And furthermore, if indeed a politician does cross the isle to work with the opposing side, he is probably just doing it to score cheap political points in an election year. Can anyone say McCain Feingold?

Ah, well. The dogmatic left declares the dogmatic "religious right" dead.

In real life, most people vote influenced by a number of factors, although it is a favorite political myth that anyone on the "other" side (whichever side it is) is an ignorant, unthinking dolt who is being led by the nose by some radical of the right or left.

As I see it, there has been no significant change in a country with 35% diehard left and 35% diehard right who both fight for the remaining 30% who move with the political winds.

We'll have to see how the wind blows this year.

The departure of the religious right from political influence does not necessarily mark the departure of God or religion from the value system people use when making political (voting) decisions.

For many people, they want their elected officials to show compassion for the hungry, the naked, the sick, and those in prison when establishing public policy and allocating resources.

Elected officials with an agenda to make the rich richer do not match the value system of the moral voter that has experienced the Great Awakening.

Let's get our terminology straight here. By "right" and "left" do you mean in a behavioral sense or a political-economic sense? I think that a lot of confusion results from a failure to distinguish these two modes.

A person can be behaviorally left-wing (for example, no restrictions on sexual behavior or drug use) and politically/economically right-wing (absolute freedom for business), as the Libertarian Party is.

A person can be behaviorally right-wing (strict sexual morality) and politically/economically left-wing (pro-union, anti-war) as many Roman Catholics are.

When you say that someone is "left-wing" or "right-wing," you're telling me nothing unless you specify whether they are left or right concerning personal behavior or concerning the way society is organized.

Evangelicals and fundamentalists have always advocated strict standards of personal behavior. Nothing new there.

What made the Falwell/Robertson types so pernicious was their playing upon the typical American's ignorance to claim that right-wing *political/economic* ideology was the only "Christian" way to view the world. In their ideology, to be Christian meant to be pro-war, anti-environmental, and for starving the public sector while giving tax cuts to the already wealthy--in other words, to adhere to the economic and political platform of the Republican Party.

In this country, people are free to hold any political ideology they want, but wedding Republican ideology to conservative Christianity had three harmful effects: 1) It made people afraid to question Republican ideology for fear that it would make them "un-Christian," 2) It led to an almost cult-like adoration of George W. Bush, and 3) It completely distorted the message of Jesus, who spoke of "loving one's enemies," who condemned those who prized money above righteousness, and who spoke of stewardship over the gifts that God has given us.

I'm glad that more and more evangelicals are learning the lesson summarized in the bumpersticker: "God is not a Republican---or a Democrat."