he dust is finally beginning to settle in the wake of last week's elections which resulted in a startling setback for Republicans, and major changes in the party's leadership. Newt Gingrich is out as Speaker of the House, impetus for impeaching President Clinton seems to be declining, and the final results from the voting suggest that the Christian right in America could be losing some of its hefty clout. What's ahead?

    John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron, told reporters yesterday "It is premature to write them off but there is no question that the Christian Coalition has taken a very major defeat." Green noted that "a lot of the candidates they backed lost." Exit polls and votes tend to bear this out.

   ¶    In the past, the Coalition -- even in the midst of defeat at the ballot box -- was able to spin itself as representing a unified, coherent and active block of voters which Republicans especially were urged to court. Polling data from the Washington Post, however, shows that "white Christian conservatives" participating in the elections declined from 15% in 1996 to 13% in last week's contests. Even Pat Robertson's organization admitted that 54% of Christian conservatives voted for the GOP, while 31% crossed over to the Democrats. Five years ago, the picture was remarkably different; then, 67% of those identified as Christian conservatives were pulling the level for the Republicans, and only 24% backed Democratic candidates.

    It is premature to suggest that "Christian conservatives" are no longer a powerful voting block, or in the future cannot be herded to the polls by groups like Robertson's, or other organizations such as the political action committee established by Gary Bauer of the powerful Family Research Council -- disingenuously called the Campaign for Working Families. But despite a last- minute distribution of over 35 million voters guides and other materials, and a $2.7 million "get out the vote" effort by the Christian Coalition, a number of key races were lost. The picture is even grimmer when examining the record of former Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed, who resigned his position as Robertson's second-in-command to establish Century Strategies, Inc., a political consulting firm based in Atlanta. Reed -- considered one of the most astute religious right operatives in the country -- has little reason to rejoice after last week's results. Key clients lost races, including Alabama Governor Fob James, Indiana House hopeful Gary Hofmeister and Kentucky contender Gex Williams. Local and state candidates being handled by Century Strategies fared poorly as well, loosing races in states like California, Ohio, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.

    Gary Bauer's Campaign for Working Families was also bloodied in the November 3 shoot out. Clouds appeared on the horizons early for CWF when a key candidate, California Republican Tom Bordonaro, failed to win reelection against the widow of Democrat incumbent Walter Capps who had died in office. Despite $230,125 in CWF funding, Lois Capps bested Bordonaro in the March primary, and went on to win her seat on November 3. Most of the Campaign for Working Families money was used for lurid anti-abortion ads which attacked Ms. Capps for her pro-choice record. A similar strategy was used in Illinois in support of Pete Fitzgerald.

    CWF-backed candidates for the Senate, though, lost in Arkansas, North Carolina, Washington, South Dakota and Louisiana. Five gubernatorial hopefuls -- Lungren (Ca.), Millner (Ga.) and Lightfoot (IA.) failed in their bids, as did incumbents Fob James of Alabama and David Beasley in South Carolina. On top of that, 36 House hopefuls backed by CWF lost their races as well.

   ¶    So-called "pragmatic Republicans" like New York Gov. George Pataki and Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci won their contests, though, in normally Democratic areas. Races like this tend to undermine the claim made by Christian Coalition spin doctors like director Randy Tate after the November 3 debacle who argued that "The Republicans put forth no agenda besides the Johnny-one-note approach of dealing with the (Clinton-Lewinsky) investigation." Tate added, "some agenda beats no agenda every time..."

Pat Roberton"s Christian Coalition fared poorly in the recent elections, losing key races in several states.

    But it has been the religious right on and off Capitol Hill which has been focusing in recent months on the Lewinsky affair. Clinton's bedroom and oval office antics have been daily targets for Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Gary Bauer and others. James Pinkerton, a former GOP White House operative, told the Los Angeles Times that in light of the results from the November 3 election, the GOP has to distance itself from its religious right faction. "If the Republicans want to compete in 2000, they will have to loosen the stranglehold of their ideological fringe..."

   ¶    With Gingrich out as Speaker, the job seems to be firmly in the pocket of Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La.. Should he be selected, he has the unenviable task of holding together the GOP's tissue-thin six vote majority in the House, and trying to quell the ideological battles that are sure to erupt when the 106th Congress convenes in January.

    Livingston is a Roman Catholic, anti-abortion and a social-fiscal conservative. He is also a bit of a pragmatist, though, and has denounced the strategy employed by the party's religious right wing of using riders and bill amendments to advance its social agenda. He has shown flexibility in working with key Democrats such as Rep. David Obey, the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. USA TODAY notes that Livingston does not have "much patience for fellow Republicans who tried to load his bills with riders meant to restrict abortion, cut back regulation of work places and the environment, and gut the lobbying power of liberal nonprofit groups..."

    There could be tensions between GOP leaders like Livingston, and the religious right hierarchy of Dobson, Robertson and Bauer when congress heads back to Foggy Bottom in January. Republicans have even fewer votes to muster when it comes to issues like school prayer, abortion, vouchers and other issues dear to the heart of the religious right. A spokesperson for the Family Research Council told Associated Press earlier this week that the group was "not necessarily going to go out and fight every battle," but added "We don't want to signal that we're dropping issues." Religious right leaders such as James Dobson (Focus on the Family) have been frustrated since 1994, over what they see as the betrayal of key social issues by the GOP in favor of tax cuts, free trade and fiscal conservatism. There is no indication that the Republicans could deliver on most of Dobson's list of political demands after January. Expect to hear more threats from Mr. Dobson and other fundamentalist- evangelical activists to split the GOP ranks.

   ¶    GOP candidates looking ahead to 2000 may have to adjust to a new political reality. Today's Washington Post notes ("Spirit of the Body Politic Worries Religious Right") that, "In private, some GOP operatives acknowledge that if the country is becoming more tolerant on moral issues, including sexual infidelity, it could mean trouble for Republican presidential candidates planning on making a call for moral revival the centerpiece of their campaigns." In this category, include Sen. John Ashcroft (Mo.) who is the rank-and-file favorite within the Christian Coalition, former Vice President Dan Quayle and publisher Malcolm "Steve" Forbes. This does not mean, though, that separationists can take comfort in the positions of other GOP contenders. Texas Gov. George Bush, who easily won reelection on November 3, is considered a "pragmatist" and "compassionate conservative," but maintains a firm position in support of vouchers, banning abortion, and in favor of the use of government money to subsidize faith-based social programs.

   ¶    The fault lines between libertarians and religious conservatives may, increasingly, dominate the discussion within the Republican Party. While agreeing with the fiscal conservatism of their religious counterparts, libertarians generally eschew the social agenda enunciated by Robertson and others within the party's extreme right. Libertarians may oppose government funding of abortion, for instance, but generally consider the matter to be one of personal choice for the woman. They remain opposed to efforts to ban pornography or exclude gays from the military, and take similar view on matters involving "personal rights" and civil liberties.

    Atlanta-based GOP pollster Whit Ayres told the Post that as a consequence of the recent elections, he now sees "two competing strains in the country" -- religious conservatism and, "on the other hand, a libertarian strain: 'I can determine for myself right and wrong and I certainly don't need politicians determining this for me." He adds that these tendencies have coexisted "side by side, but we are seeing a resurrection of that libertarian strain," and that voters may be "defining morality down."

    The Post continues that James Dobson, reflecting the opinion of other religious right leaders, "fears the electorate may have crossed a dangerous moral tipping point" by not disapproving more vehemently of the Clinton "zippergate" scandal, and rejecting referendums in two states which would have banned late term abortion.

    But instead of crossing a "dangerous" point in evaluating morals, voters may have simply gone back to emphasizing the one issue they traditionally have embraced -- economic policy. Randy Tate and others continue to declare that "moral issues are winning issues in America," but that might be so much religious right fantasy.

    Ironically, the most insightful observation about this shift both within the Republican party and the culture at large came from a disgruntled Andrea Shelton, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition. She argued, "we live in a post-Christian culture. People say they go to church, they pray," all the while living by standards of "live and let live, do whatever feels good attitude." This is not new with the American experience, of course, and periods of public probity and religious extremism -- Prohibition, for instance -- often gave way to more open and tolerant times where people focused on economic prosperity and leisure.

    Has the era of religious right activism peaked? Any prediction is sure to be risky. At the September 19 Christian Coalition "Road to Victory" conference in Washington, DC, Pat Robertson declared that "I'm as sure as I'm alive that in the year 2000 we're going to see a born-again Christian sitting in the White House." Major religious right operatives signed a petition backing Sen. John Ashcroft for that White House job; they included Donald Wildmon (American Family Association), Tim La Haye, founder of the old Moral Majority and hubby to Concerned Women for America maven Beverley LaHaye, Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Fund, Jay Sekulow of Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, and key political strategist Paul Weyrich. According to Church & State magazine, even Gary Bauer's name was discussed as a potential running mate for Ashcroft -- this over a year before the GOP nominating convention scheduled for the summer of 2000 in Philadelphia.

    What can separationists and atheists expect when Congress meets in January? Here's our call:

    On the plus side of the ledger, the smaller GOP majority means difficulty in renewing interest in a Religious Freedom Amendment or some other proposal to institute prayer in public schools. Abortion remains a hot issue, but the GOP leadership -- looking ahead to 2000 -- may also choose to duck that issue, and even shy away from trying to enact a "partial birth" abortion ban. That could change, however, as groups such as Bauer's Family research Council, and even the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, demand action.

    Vouchers remain trendy, and may have received a boost from Monday's US Supreme Court decision to not examine the Milwaukee program which funnels tax money to private and religious schools in the form of tuition subsidies.

    We see a downside, though, within the 106th Congress on two issues: a version of the Religious Liberty Protection Act, and government aid to religious groups in the form of "faith-based" or "privatized" welfare. RLPA, based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, has the votes on the hill if it can be fast-tracked without further public hearings. In the House, an amended RLPA is ready to be sent to the floor for a vote; the Senate version, though, could be a problem as backers argue over the watered-down compromise House writing, or the original legislation. The biggest threat to the RLPA agenda is more public hearings on the matter which could allow opposition to organize.

    We also predict more pressure and support for some kind of government aid to religious groups, particularly "faith-based" social programs. Already, the bulk of monies for religious charitable groups is provided by government grants; those programs, though, must in theory meet certain guidelines limiting their use. They cannot be used to proselytize or advance a religious agenda. Rep. J.C. Watts' American Community Renewal Act would abolish those First Amendment restrictions, though, and permit public funding of faith-based drug and alcohol rehab programs and other outreaches.

   Liberals and political moderates might not go along with so blatant a measure, but they will continue to support government grants for religious groups which operate social service outreaches. The problem is that there is not any monitoring program which investigates and systematically reviews these operations to ensure that they are maintaining proper separation guidelines. Religious groups already reap the benefits of being perceived as "charitable" or philanthropic, despite the reliance on government. The nation's largest operations, National Catholic Charities and Salvation Army, obtain the bulk of their funding from government grants at all levels. Expect this trend to continue, and enjoy the support of religious groups across the ideological spectrum.

    Whatever the meaning of last week's election, it remains certain that religious right groups will continue their efforts to maintain a lock on the Republican Party, and use the GOP as a vehicle for achieving political power and instituting their program for "one nation under god."

[text only]