The leaders and leading organizations of the religious right are actively courted by GOP candidates for president and the movement continues to play a major role in the politics of the national Republican Party -- dominating many state parties. It also enjoys the fruits of its many years of significant political success -- since there are so many people in public office at all levels of government who if not members of the religious right itself, owe their election to this movement.

In any case, dominant or not, the religious right is far from "finished." What should be finished is anyone taking Jim Wallis seriously on this subject. Let's review his similar pronouncements from over the years. (This is adapted from a post I did last time one of Wallis's `mistakes' came to my attention.)  

In a February 16, 2007 essay in Time magazine,  Wallis declared: The Religious Right's Era Is Over.

And what evidence did he have for this remarkably sunny assertion?  

Well, none.

Wallis claims:

We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.

As usual, Wallis wrote movingly of his desire for a "revival" to address the social concerns that most progressives would share. But he presents no evidence that the religious right is in any way out of the picture. Really. Absolutely none.

I have written before, that as much as I admire Wallis' good works over many years, his analysis of the role of religion in American politics is screwy, at best. Now, I feel I have been far too generous. He has a pattern of making big, unsupported assertions, as if his saying them somehow makes them true. This kind of thinking is not progressive, but deeply reactionary; discouraging people from actively thinking about the religious right and what to do about it, and thereby hampering our ability to understand, describe and consider some formidable adversaries. It does the cause of progressivism, and that of the Democratic Party (in which Wallis is increasingly influential) a disservice to overlook his astoundingly uninformed and misguided thinking.

Here is more:

In October 2000, just prior to the election, Wallis, writing at Beliefnet, declared in an article headlined "The Rise and Fall of the Religious Right" that "the influence of the religious right is in steady decline." His evidence? That George W. Bush had declined to appear at Christian Coalition's annual conference -- and that the Coalition had other organizational difficulties. A short time later, the world got to see how radically wrong Wallis was. His error was a mix of wishful thinking, and conflating the misfortunes of one, albeit important, organization with the vitality and power of the religious right as a whole.  (Unsurprisingly, I had a different take on the prospects of the religious right at the time. I think the history of the past 8 years has borne me out.)

Most of Wallis' Time essay is about how he sees stirrings of religious revival and that these may lead to movements of social reform. Few would disagree that there are interesting stirrings among more moderate evangelicals among others, but this is not the same thing as saying that the era of the religious right is over -- only that some other people who are not the religious right are doing and saying some interesting things.

But in a post '06 election article on BeliefNet; Wallis claimed:

In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard.

While I would agree that the 2006, election was a set-back for the religious right, it was far from the thorough "defeat" Wallis implies. But meanwhile, what was his evidence that the election was a defeat for the secular Left? (whatever that is.) Well, none.

It is difficult to discern what in the world he is thinking when he makes these preposterous pronouncements. But it does seem to be reasonably clear that Wallis is busy positioning himself and his designees as the "voice of the moral center." And to do this, he sets up the religious right and the ever-mysterious, unnamed "secular Left" as strawmen for him to position himself between.

Just before the '06 elections, Chip Berlet, writing here at Talk to Action observed  that premature predictions of the demise of the religious right, a biannual event in American politics, were already creeping into the media:

I don't know how the Republicans will do in the upcoming elections, but I do know that the Christian Right as a social movement will survive, and remain a powerful factor in the social, cultural, and political life of the United States. Every few years--following an electoral defeat of Republicans, the collapse of a Christian Right organization, or a televangelist getting caught with his pants down (literally)--the death of the Christian Right is announced in the media...corporate or alternative.

I wish I had a dime....

Christian Right groups come and go, the Christian Right as a social movement remains strong. For example, the Christian Coalition replaced the Moral Majority. The Christian Coalition collapsed several years ago as a national network. Now it is being replaced by the FRC Action coalition, which will do highly targeted voter mobilization among conservative Christian evangelicals using sophisticated techniques that will go under the radar unless you are enmeshed in the conservative Christian evangelical subculture....

Win or lose, skilled Christian Right activists will emerge with stronger grassroots organizations and longer lists of names of potential recruits.

Wallis concluded his Time essay, having presented not a word of evidence that the religious right has been dispatched, declaring:

The era of the Religious Right is now past, and it's up to all of us to create a new day.

Huh. That sounds an awful lot like what he said to Jon Stewart on the Daily Show this week. Apparently he has learned nothing since that last fiasco. Either that... or....

Anyway, this is the kind of wishful thinking that has too often guided progressives and Democrats.  The religious right remains one of the most powerful political forces in the United States. I do not know why Wallis makes wildly unsupported and demonstrably false declarations with such apparent frequency.  But I am quite certain that smart, well-informed political strategies are more likely to be effective than those guided by ignorance and unfounded assertions.