I think the "Religious Right", as a political movement was always the wrong way for the church to be involved in politics. I do believe that conservatism and Christianity are compatible, but I think that Christians should be more focused on building up the church and making it more active in society (more active in building multi-racial/ethnic community, more active in serving the needy, more active in fighting oppressive acts like human trafficking).

Jeffry
"...making it more active in society (more active in building multi-racial/ethnic community, more active in serving the needy, more active in fighting oppressive acts like human trafficking)."

Very good idea. I'm sure everyone agrees, but sadly the institutionalized system of church that requires a special building and at least one hired expert WILL consume 75 - 86% of the "giving" just to pay for those two items per LJ's own article on Normal Church Budgeting. That leaves almost zero resources for what you suggest, and believers hearts will not go out the door in this system except in mediocre ways because "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." It's an axiom of where the heart will go. I gave up that system so 100% of my giving goes beyond "meeting my needs at church". Nobody needs a weekly Bible lecture in a special building. God asked for something very different to happen when the saints gather and it does not require a hired expert or a special building. Heb. 10:24,25 Believers almost never do what this says in their special building with pews and a pulpit.

Who ever says conservatives are only interested in abortion and gay issues is pushing a straw man. We care about religious driven energy policy, insane debt, pathological dependency, executive law breaking and lying and on and on. It is more closer to reality that progressives are one or two issue voters on abortion and gay issues or whatever is "right in their own eyes".

I think there is more to the Religious Right Wing Conservatives (RRWC) motivation than just the aforementioned "wedge issues" which I discover are completely and totally foreign to what Y'shua taught.
Don't get me wrong, the "wedge issues" were vetted because those are the one's they felt were popular enough to get the "traditional values", religious, and christian people to get out and vote.

But, I cannot deny the genius of the employment of the "wedge issues" as an effective means to drive two camps further apart, and intercept and poison any and all attempts of political or social compromise. The other genius employment of wedge issues of the RRWC was to get it's base to vote against their own best self-interests.

The shocking, and often times jaw-dropping statements of the RRWC's base indicates how brilliant the misinformation campaign was waged..."Government out of my medicare" and "Obama is a threat to my Social Security" are all incredibly brilliant deployments of people demanding security from a threat to their benefits[or as known in RRWC's terms, "pathological dependency" and "entitlements."]. When the very real, and plainly outspoken threat to their benefits came not from the Democrats, but from their own candidate that they lovingly feted over!

So, fortunately, this election cycle, 52% of Americans said, "Ah...no." to the Republicans and the RRWC's shrill call to save their own dying cultural world-view, but as far as RRWC being finished....I don't think so.

They still have a pile of desire and motivation to be on top of the heap, and this election cycle will only increase their deep seated hatred of anything that doesn't conform to their personal world-view.

RRWC will be back in 2014 working at disunity, and further fractionating of the United States.

I think, the more appropriate question then, is not whether the Religious Right is dead, but rather have enough people of G-d come to recognize the RRWC as having nothing to do with G-d, and everything to do with Satan.

I believe Christians voted for Obama because above all he is a Christian ~ Romney is NOT. If Romney had won it would have been the first time that our country, that was founded on Christian principles, would have a non-Christian as President (and leader of free world.) That is something to be avoided at all costs! What you believe most definitely influences everthing you do and America needs to be led by a Christian if we are to continue to enjoy God's blessing and protection.

To the question in this article's title, my answer is:

We can only hope and pray it is so.

It is time to re-define the word "evangelical." These "evangelicals" who voted for what they voted for, were not voting as a Bible-believing and Bible-practicing Christ follower would vote or think. I thought that an evangelical was someone who had received Jesus Christ as the Lord of their life, had repented of their sins, and was adhering to God's Word as their infallilble rule of practice and life. It is obvious that millions of Americans who say they are "evangelicals" really have no idea what that word means. What is true is that there is only a small remnant of true Christ followers, who are neither ashamed of Him nor of His Words, left in our country. We have gone the way of England and Scotland and many other European nations, nations that once gave us the greatest Christ following and Bible believing preachers and reformers.

Thanks Kahn - that was perhaps the finest explanation of the current insanity of our political situation I have ever read. In particular this bit, which I have been saying for years (although not here):

"The other genius employment of wedge issues of the RRWC was to get it's base to vote against their own best self-interests. "

In the end, I think we can all agree on something: whomever you vote for, if they get elected there are definitely Christian issues over which you are going to have to hold the feet to the fire.

"We are heading for a fiscal and moral crisis. we have people in leadership who do not believe that we can be better than what we left in Europe. Many are willing to give up our great land for bread and circuses and the problem is we are going to reap what we have sown possible in the next few years."

Mr. Fairchild,
You are not the first, nor, I suspect, the last to say this, but alas, history is on your side.
Unfortunately, this has happened already...in 2003.
The moral and ethical, and fiscal policies of tax-cut and spend, two wars have body-slammed this nation are still in play, and will take years to undo, if not decades.

The moral compass, of which I'm sure you feel strongly about has also been slowly undone, but that started long, long ago when the Church split into two camps in the United States.
The first camp decided that despite the allure and intoxicating mix of being able to bring legislative force to the voice of G-d they decided to remain humble, faithful, and work at the people level of living for G-d and thus revealing to a fallen world what life is like as a follower of G-d.
In short...they chose to be G-d's signature to their neighbors.

the other group decided "screw this humble crap, we're going for the brass ring!" and embraced raw political power.
And as you so aptly pointed out with...

"Remember, we may have gotten what we wished for. We could have a a country that lives in obedience to God and instead we are getting a country controlled by satan. Satan's bargains are no bargain's."

That hasn't worked out so well for the the second group.

Abortions are still occurring.
"Gay Marriage" is becoming normative.
Injustice is still increasing.
Greed has influenced all levels of American Society.
Materialism has a choke-hold on all levels of American Society.
Racism is still appearing.
Legislating morality has been one of the RRWC's colossal failures...and still, the lie persists..."If only more Americans..."

If only what?
Just because someone says, "I'm an American" doesn't mean they know anything about G-d, and just because someone says, "morality is disappearing" isn't an indication of G-dliness either.

The RRWC has changed since it first arose with Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in 1980...I don't see anything remotely resembling Christ in it...sure, it started off as Christian, but now...not even in the same ball-park as Y'shua.

Sheerahkahn,
I am going to respectfully disagree with you that the fall of our nation started with President Bush. I think you give way too much credit to the so-called religious right's power and influence on Bush and the wars. The so-called religious right is just a bogey man that does not really exist.
I believe that while we should not have gotten tangled in these two wars that no one will be able to solve until Jesus comes, that does not mean our spiritual mess is his fault. Most of the blame rests squarely upon Americans themselves for sacrificing our birthright for a cup of lentel soup. We are spoiled and we demand more and more. We totally disregard God's Law against sexual immorality, abortion, greed and all the other stuff we are guilty of and then we elect like Obama who love to promise bread and circuses. The trouble is that while he may have inherited a mess he has created a bigger one and now we are going to pay the price for it.
Christians must stand up and do three things: one, humble ourselves and pray and seek God's face and above all turn from our own wicked ways and two, we need to get out there and be salt and light to a dark and decaying world as Jesus commanded us to do. And then three, we need to be about the great commission baptizing and making new disciples. Then and only then will we ever stem the tide of corruption.
As I said before the devil's bargain is no bargain. We have chosen as a nation to continue to pursue evil of every kind and even allow it to continue in the highest offices in the land and we do not so much as raise a whimper and we keep electing and reelecting these people.

Jeff,
You can disagree all you want, but facts are facts, and history isn't kind to those who disagree with it.

But that's for another thread.

I want to focus on something you have written which you have mentioned before, and I wasn't really paying attention to it; but, now I'm going to focus in on it...

"Americans themselves for sacrificing our birthright for a cup of lentel soup. We are spoiled and we demand more and more. We totally disregard God's Law against sexual immorality, abortion, greed and all the other stuff we are guilty of and then we elect like Obama who love to promise bread and circuses."

Please clarify your thoughts here as I have highlighted key words so you can see what I'm looking at...are you saying American=Christian, and/or are you saying that Christians should be the government force by fiat?

Interestingly, Cal Thomas declared the "campaign against gay marriage" to be over. (in this week's column) The implication being that with the legalization of it by several states that it was clear that continuing the campaign would simply put the campaigner on "the wrong side of history."

I agree with Kahn that an incredible number of people voted for Mr. Romney and against their own self interests. Why should any of us who are not in at least the top 2% of our country's wealth holders be in favor of continued and even more rapid concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. This concentration is messing up the country and does not contribute to the production of jobs.

Those who make jobs put their capital at risk. Those who have so much that they can live comfortably without putting it at risk will not put it at risk. There are exceptions to this--and sometimes they make lots of money and often they go broke and have to try again.

If abortion is not an example of 'human trafficking' then I don't know what is. And as for Christians not being in favor of adoption? I know many families with adopted children and with the exception of some high-profile celebrities who adopt children to leave with nannies, all of the adopting families are conservative Christians. I know a great many people who are pro-life activists. Though some are Evangelical, most are Catholic. Many are quite wealthy. These people put their money where their mouth is - in providing a home to live in for pregnant girls who have no place to go; by supporting adoption agencies that work together with pro-life organizations.

The reason that so many young 'Christians' criticize the 'Christian Right' for their stance against abortion is that they feel guilty about their own sexual promiscuity and have themselves been party to abortion. Unrepentant of their own sin, they look for some other sin to focus on and are highly critical of those who would stand up for the completely innocent. Human trafficking, greed, poverty - all of which the god of government will fix - are issues easily spoken of which grant the speaker a sense of self-righteousness while he sips his latte and pontificates at the coffee house.

Elegance,

You don't know me. You don't know what I pontificate about in coffee houses and you don't know what issues I believe the Church has a direct role in addressing. You didn't even get my drink right. You don't know my sexual history. You don't know my degree of repentance. You don't know my righteousness nor my self-righteousness. And you don't know where Kingdom work is happening in my context.

You claim that "the reason" why young Christians would criticize the Religious Right for their pro-life stance is from all of those things above. In the Bible, there are continuous warnings against listening to those who would prophesy falsely. By claiming you know my heart (and the hearts of those like me- none of whom fit the profile you created), you are navigating into dangerous territory, that of bearing false witness against your neighbor (and brother and sister in Christ).

In conclusion, while I am skeptical if there will be a change, I would invite you to revise your comment to reflect what you know and not what you think you know about me. The earlier stuff about people you know stepping in to help others is really quite good. I am excited to see people laying themselves on the line to value human life. Unfortunately, the second paragraph undermines the good point from above.

Elegance, accusing people of immorality is a longstanding rhetorical move in cultural disputes that goes all the way back to ancient Rome. It's the citadel of scoundrels. You should publish a general apology for your general slander.

FWIW, I'm happy to criticize the CR simply because they've reduced the Church (in the eyes of our culture) to nothing more than a dependable voting bloc that has pimped itself out to a political party. (and everyone can save the whining about the "left" on this point. There is NO comparable coalescence around the Left with evangelicalism despite any claims to the contrary. Evangelicals are overwhelmingly in bed with the political Right, and that's where the concern is because that's where we live.)

Here's my point:
The Church should be the advance action of the Kingdom. It's work is to proclaim a better way and better day is coming under the rule of King Jesus. NOT be aligned with a particular human political/economic perspective.

When Christians come down the halls of power, both political parties should tremble, but they don't. And that is a sign of our failure to prophetically remind us that all human systems of endeavor stand under judgement (even democracy and capitalism) and all these systems will be swept away under the rule of King Jesus.

Our "comfort" with trying to be "kingmakers" in politics is a blasphemous betrayal of King Jesus. I would go so far to say that in this we honor God with our lips, but hate Him in our hearts.

This is a different question than just simply combating abortion and defending marriage.

It's about the loyalty of God's people AND the fact that the Bride is being used.

"When Christians come down the halls of power, both political parties should tremble, but they don't. And that is a sign of our failure...[to]...Our "comfort" with trying to be "kingmakers" in politics is a blasphemous betrayal of King Jesus. "

That is probably the most damning statement I've ever read...and I'd be hard press to argue against it except...

...that I have pretty much written off those people who have sought worldly power as CINO's...they use the all the cool biblical buzz words, even know the Ten Commandments and a few Mosaic Laws out of Leviticus, but once they get beyond the initial buzz words into the heart of their desire...there isn't a trace of G-d, Y'shua, or the Spirit in any of their words.
Not even a remote comprehension of the enormity of what it means to follow Y'shua, and to OBEY Y'shua's basic commands.

Hence, the reason why I dismiss them as CINO's...and I can't hold someone to a Christian standard if they don't know what that standard is to begin with, much less expect them to comprehend what Y'shua meant by Peace, Love, Mercy, and Grace...which is easier to understand than when we get to what Y'shua mean with Shalom and Justice.

Anyway, I know most people disagree with me on this, but I feel that if a person is completely ignorant of Y'shua...even if they call themselves "Christian" and know all the cool buzz words...I can't hold them accountable to a standard that they have no comprehension exists...sorry, Nathan...maybe this is my weakness with non-Christians and CINO's...I just can't hold them accountable to the standard of a follower of Y'shua if their actions and spirit clearly point out that they are not followers.

"Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but you...who are you?" Acts 19:15

I' sitting here laughing:

Nathan says, "You should publish a general apology for your general slander." followed immediately by, "...I'm happy to criticize the CR simply because they've reduced the Church (in the eyes of our culture) to nothing more than a dependable voting bloc that has pimped itself out to a political party."

I love liberal double standards for behavior, they are consistently inconsistent.

@Sheer,

I hear you, but what it seems you're saying is that the people I speak of aren't really followers of Jesus. That's not a statement I'm willing to make.

@Anon,

You know nothing of my political views, nor my theology, and "liberal" isn't a label that can be applied to either.

However, if you would be interested in knowing my views, you can just ask. I'd be happy to have the discussion.

Between you and me I see three potential other areas for conversation:

1. If you dispute that evangelical Christians are viewed by the wider culture as a dependable bloc for the GOP, then let's have the discussion.

2. If you don't think that the politically organized entities that cohere together as the CR haven't contributed to the activities that have built that reputation, then tell me why you think that perception exists.

3. Here's my point:
The Church should be the advance action of the Kingdom. It's work is to proclaim a better way and better day is coming under the rule of King Jesus. NOT be aligned with a particular human political/economic perspective.

If you don't agree with this, then tell me why. And tell what the Church is, in your view. If you do agree, but think it is best expressed by focusing on the culture war, then tell me why.

@Sheer,
I hear you, but what it seems you're saying is that the people I speak of aren't really followers of Jesus. That's not a statement I'm willing to make.

Nathan,
I know, it is really uncomfortable to toe that line, and for the longest time I've struggled with this issue...but...of late...dude, there are a lot of wolves in sheep's skins around us and it requires us to make that decision whether we want to or not.

I've come to learn that just because someone tells me their Christian doesn't mean they're Christian. It takes time, and patience; but after a while...the truth comes out.

A CINO can't hide the truth of their true nature no matter how hard they try, and a Christian can't help but reveal the truth of Christ in their life no matter how much of a jackass they act.

The difference between the two is that CINO thinks they're always right no matter what evil they commit or ignore, and the jackass Christian is open to correction regardless of their personal world-view.

You see...after a while...I just started seeing the truth...and it wasn't pleasant for me as I was willing to give people the benefit of the doubt even when it was plain as day...so, since my purpose laid out to me by G-d is not for the non-believer but for the believer, though I often find myself talking non-believers about G-d because they seem more open to the discussion than believers...I also find myself drawn, inexplicably to believers...and though I would love to correct the bad theology [i.e. the focus of the faith is not about "acting good" or being moral, but rather engaging in an intimate relationship with G-d incarnate] the CINO's have been inundated with...the mind has to be receptive to the truth before the heart will follow.

There appears to be a growing body of evidence that Evangelicals are following a different set of leaders, different both in content and style and that they have realized that politics wouldn't change America. Remember Richard John Neuhaus said "religion produces culture and culture produces politics". Working on the politics end didn't change religion and didn't change the culture and therefore didn't change politics. The evidence is indicating that Evangelicals are going back to what they do best--changing their neighborhoods and local communities through the Gospel--that changes hearts..

See From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin--Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism by D. G. Hart, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2011.