Centerfield

Were it not for "overreaching," there wouldn't be a political pendulum. I have no doubt that the euphoria conservatives are feeling (never-ending top of the world delusion) will not last forever. Anyone who thinks it will are ignorant of American history. It's as simple as that. The biggest question is: How long will it take for a sizable backlash to form against the overreach? And will any political party ever learn that extremist governance is not an effective long-term strategy?

Perhaps there's a political Peter Principle. Just as managers rise to the level of their incompetence, political movements persist until they become counterproductive. Indeed, it may be that the moment they really pick up steam is in fact the moment they are going too far.

I do think there was a need in the late 1980's to emphasize values, what with the crack epidemic and gang violence. Things are better now, so there's really no need to overdo it.

This is why the insane fear of so many in the Democratic Party that a President Bush victory would mean the end of civil liberties and freedom as we know it was just that -- whacko and insane. President Bush ran to the right in each of his elections largely because he had to overcome the distrust the religious right had for his father.

Both he and Karl Rove are well aware that this presidential election turned on terrorism, and his policies will reflect that. The right will be pleased with his judicial appointments. Judicial activism will continue to be curtailed by the democratic process through the appointment procedure, but that doesn't mean we'll see significant social legislation aimed at pornography or other social issues. At least, no significant legislation that actually passes.

Look at it this way. Was there more or less pornography available in this country at the end of Attorney General Meese's tenure than there was at its beginning?

What, the religious right over-reaching? Never!

OK, sarcasm aside, of course they're over-reaching. They were silly enough to believe the same thing some on the left did--that "values" means their particular ideological values, whether secular or religious. When it actually means the disconnect between the cultures of the extremes versus the Great Middle. Most Democrats hold the exact same "values" that most Republicans do. They want to live in decent neighborhoods and raise their kids in a safe environment with good educations and not worry about being thrown into poverty, etc. They just differ on how to accomplish those ends, and who they believe can accomplish them best.

"Just as Reagan was not content to contain communism but announced a rollback, pro-family organizations are not content to protest the latest outrage anymore, but will seek legislation and will punish sponsors of lewd entertainment," he said.

"Lewd," as defined by them, of course. By the way, who died and left them in charge of our conscience?

It's disturbing, first that conservatives decrying the intrusion of government into our lives are quite willing, apparently, to have government decide what adults can pay to watch.

I've always had a problem with the hypocrisy of social "blessed are the peacemakers" conservatives. They love the government when it comes to pouring money into its violent apparatus (DoD); and when it comes to intruding in our personal lives.

Of course liberals, who rightfully hate government intrusion into our personal lives, apparently have no problem asking the same government to dig ever deeper into the pockets of productive Americans.

That's why I remain an independent. The hypocrisy of both political parties disgusts me. Although, right now, I'm despising the GOP just a tad more.

Of course, Christian conservatives are not libertarians and I suspect (and hope) that a lot of conservatives would not agree with what seems to be a call for censorship.

You might be surprised. This is a blood-thirsty, reactionary group. If you stir up their passions sufficiently, they might be capable of rationalizing censorship.

I'll stick my neck out here. I'm a Christian and a moderate. The Christian right doesn't speak for all Christians, certainly not for me. Many Christians feel uncomfortable with the vocal leaders. However, I see their function in the political process as similar to say the "radical feminists" (quotations intentional). While not speaking for the majority (of that particular group) they can tend to "push forward" issues that are important to the larger group, even when the larger group disagrees with their intensity and extreme views.

This process is a double-edged sword. On the positive side it can lead to "compromises" that actually appeal to the more moderates within the group. On the negative it can "taint" certain issues. By that I mean if you use the phrase "abortion on demand" (did anyone ever say that) you're viewed as a "radical feminist", if you rail against indecency in Hollywood you may be viewed as a "radical right Christian censor".

Finally, there's no doubt the Christian right over-read the polls just as the left wing of the Democratic party did.

Chris:

It would be a welcome change of events for more moderate religious forces to become vocal and outspoken to the point of standing up to the Religious Right bullies -- e.g. Jerry tele-tubby Falwell, Bob no-interracial-dating Jones, Pat i-can-stop-a-hurricane Robertson, etc.

I was watching a debate program the other night where a moderate Christian (MC) voice was contrasted with a more narrow-minded Christian (NMC) viewpoint. The MC was challenging the NMC on the definition of values -- saying that values include far more things than abortion and homosexuality. Issues of homelessness, poverty, hunger and war/peace also deserved to be included in a discussion of values. That it is past time to challenge the Religious Right in their self-appointed role to define what "family values" mean.