Quote of the Day: Jimmy Kimmel Being Intentionally Humorous & Sarah Palin Being Even Funnier

“Amazon announced plans for an amazing service called Amazon Prime Air. When you order something from Amazon that weighs five pounds or less, a robot will drop your package on your doorstep. It’s all part of Amazon’s pledge to drive your dog insane…

“You know in some countries seeing an unmanned drone means your village is about to be destroyed. In America it means you ordered Mad Men on Blu-ray.” –Jimmy Kimmel

Bonus Humor:

Check out Sarah Palin at Liberty University lashing out against “angry atheists” who want to “abort Christ from Christmas.” She also said:

If you lose that foundation, John Adams was implicitly warning us, then we will not follow our constitution, there will be no reason to follow our constitution because it is a moral and religious people who understand that there is something greater than self, we are to live selflessly, and we are to be held accountable by our creator, so that is what our constitution is based on, so those revisionists, those in the lamestream media, especially, who would want to ignore what our founders actually thought, felt and wrote about in our charters of liberty – well, that’s why I call them the lamestream media.

David Weigel Leaves Washington Post Following Leaks Of Criticism Of Right Wing

David Weigel provides a demonstration of how nothing on the web is really private–even on closed lists where such privacy is assumed. Weigel is a left libertarian whose views of the right wing seem to be similar to my own. It is not so much their views which repel myself and I believe Weigel, but that their actual policy positions turn out to be quite different from their limited government rhetoric. On top of that, there is the anti-intellectualism, adherence to conspiracy theories and revisionist history, xenophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism which, while not true of everyone on the right, is far too common for comfort.

Weigel was hired to cover the right wing for The Washington Post to some degree  I did question a major newspaper hiring him for such a position, suspecting from the start that his views might give conservatives more fuel for their attacks on the imaginary “liberal media.”

If this was the outcome, it wasn’t because of  any unfair bias being displayed in Weigel’s work. Even some conservatives were supportive of Weigel, such as at The American Spectator:

To start with, it’s important to note that all of the comments at the center of the recent uproar were made on a private email list that was supposed to be off the record. Just for a moment, think of the things that you’d say if you were joking or venting anger among friends, and imagine if they became public with context removed. If everything we said privately were public, I wonder how many of us would be able to maintain jobs or friendships. Weigel is being attacked for writing that the world would be better if Matt Drudge could “set himself on fire.” But people make off hand remarks like that all the time without literally wishing bodily harm upon other humans.

This and other private comments by Weigel have contributed to the charge that he’s hostile toward conservatives and a standard issue liberal, but I don’t think that’s accurate. I could just as easily report on private conversations in which he’s revealed a fondness for Ronald Reagan, a willingness to vote for Bobby Jindal as president, and agreed that Van Jones should have been fired for his 9/11 trutherism. Plus, it should be noted that in the past, he’s even contributed to the American Spectator.

It should also be noted that he went on Keith Olbermann’s show and shot down a story about Sarah Palin committing perjury that had been lighting up the liberal blogs and defended Cato’s Michael Cannon against a “dishonest and unfair hit” by the Center for American Progress.

I’ve disagreed with Weigel on a number of occasions, and have called him out when I’ve felt he’s placed an inordinate amount of focus on fringe characters or extreme statements made by conservatives. But I also know that he isn’t some “drive by” journalist. He knows his subject matter well, reads constantly, goes to lots of conservative events, maintains friendships with conservatives, and talks to a lot of conservatives for his articles and quotes them accurately.

Weigel’s resignation came not as a result of any signs of bias in his work but because of comments written on Journolist, a private email list, which were leaked. Unfortunately Weigel probably saw his comments as being the equivalent of private conservation when in reality any comments made on line can wind up being as public as anything posted on a blog.

It is unfortunate that Weigel is no longer at The Washington Post, but I am confident that he will find other sources to write for. I certainly hope so as we certainly need voices like his to help counter all the ignorance, hatred, and misinformation being spread by the authoritarian right.

Glenn Beck Spreads False Claim That First American Bible Was Printed By Congress For Schools

No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools from Chris Rodda on Vimeo.

With revisionist history denying our heritage of separation of church and state becoming increasingly popular in the right wing it is no surprise that Glenn Beck, who never lets the facts get in the way of his rants, has been promoting the views of the American Taliban. One false claim being spread by Beck is that t “the first bible printed in English was printed by Congress. Chris Rodda responds to this both in the video above and at Talk to Action:

For anyone who has been following the unholy new partnership between Glenn Beck and Christian nationalist history revisionist David Barton, no explanation for why I’m posting this is necessary. For anyone who hasn’t had the pleasure of watching Beck and Barton in action, here’s the background in a nutshell: David Barton, the pseudo-historian from Texas who’s probably more responsible than any other individual for spreading the erroneous belief that America was founded as a Christian nation, has now teamed up with Glenn Beck. Barton, who appeared on the radar recently as one of the history “experts” in the Texas textbook massacre, is also a former vice-chair of the Texas Republican Party, and, in 2005, was named one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America by Time Magazine. Barton has now made several appearances on Beck’s show, armed with his usual scholarly schtick and pile of impressive historical items from his extensive private collection.

One of the items in Barton’s bag of historical tricks is a rare Bible printed in 1782 by Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken. This Bible has been a mainstay of Barton’s presentations for years, and was, as expected, one of the featured pieces of Christian nation “evidence” whipped out on Beck’s show. Barton’s bogus claim about this Bible? It was printed by Congress for the use of schools — proof that the founders never intended a separation between church and state. Needless to say, Beck and his audience are just eating this stuff up. Barton’s appearances on Beck’s show have propelled his fifteen-year-old book of historical hogwash, Original Intent, to bestseller status, reaching as high as #6 on Amazon. Right now, as I sit here writing this post, this masterpiece of historical revisionism is ludicrously, and alarmingly, holding the #1 spot in the category of “Constitutional Law.”

I’ve addressed this Aitken Bible lie many times before — in blog posts, in a YouTube video after Barton trashed me on his radio show last year, and, of course, in my book, Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History. In fact, because the lies about Congress and the Bible are the most popular of all the Christian nationalist history lies, I made this subject the very first chapter of the book. The chapter, titled “Congress and the Bible,” debunks all the myths and lies regarding the printing, financing, distribution, or recommending of Bibles by our early congresses, most of which are variations of the same three stories — two involving the Continental Congress, and one an act signed by James Madison. The chapter also includes some related lies that have, quite disturbingly, made it into the opinions of Supreme Court justices in a few First Amendment cases.

Liberalism, Atheism, & Sexual Exclusivity Among Males Linked To Higher IQ

Here’s a fun fact reported by CNN to help make a few conservative heads explode:

Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

When we see the tea baggers how can there be any question that they are bringing down the average intelligence of their side? Even beyond them, it is hardly a surprise that there is some tendency for intelligent people to be the ones who accept ideas beyond those which are more conventionally held. The more intelligent might come to different answers as to belief in God, but it is the more intelligent who will even consider such questions as opposed to following what they have been taught.

There’s no question that there are intelligent people who are conservative and religious. However, being conservative at present by the American definition generally means accepting many claims that are factually untrue, believing a revisionist history of the United States, accepting “Voodoo Economics” in place of actual economics, and rejecting modern science. While there are clearly limitations to this study, there really should be no question that there will be a tendency, even if not absolute, for intelligent people to tend to be more liberal.When many in the conservative movement reject intelligence as elitism and pride themselves on their know-nothing attitude, this can only lead to the results seen.

These results are also not surprising  as numerous studies have demonstrated that more educated people are now voting Democratic as opposed to Republican. Education has become the strongest predictor of  partisan preference over the past decade. The correlation to both political and religious views is consistent with polls showing  that frequency of church attendance also predicts support for Republicans. Studies have also showed that scientists support Democrats over Republicans by large margins.

Sexual exclusivity is harder to explain by evolutionary science:

For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.

On the other hand, haven’t some of the actions by Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, and John Edwards ever caused you to question their intelligence?

Update: A commenter has provided the link to the actual study which has a far more blunt title than the CNN report: Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

Gingrich Warns of Paganism, Cherry Picks Jefferson

Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee continue to pander to the religious right, oblivious to the fact that this is what has turned the Republican Party into a regional party of the south and Mormon Belt of the west, while losing a generation of voters. From The Virginian-Pilot (Hat tip to Think Progress):

“I think this is one of the most critical moments in American history,” Gingrich said. “We are living in a period where we are surrounded by paganism.”

They and other speakers warned about the continuing availability of abortion, the spread of gay rights, and attempts to remove religion from American public life and school history books.

Gingrich and Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, argued the rights of Americans stem from God and to ignore that connection is perilous. The two were among several speakers, including former U.S. Senate candidate Oliver North, at the three-hour “Rediscovering God in America” event. The event was closed to reporters but was broadcast live on God.TV, an evangelical Web site.

Huckabee told the audience he was disturbed to hear President Barack Obama say during his speech in Cairo, Egypt, on Thursday that one nation shouldn’t be exalted over another.

“The notion that we are just one of many among equals is nonsense,” Huckabee said. The United States is a “blessed” nation, he said, calling American revolutionaries’ defeat of the British empire “a miracle from God’s hand.”

The same kind of miracle, he said, led California voters to approve Proposition 8, which overturned a state law legalizing same-sex marriages.

Voters “did it because some things are right and some things are wrong and they had to make a stand,” said Huckabee, who enjoyed some early grassroots support in Hampton Roads during his unsuccessful run for the GOP nomination last year. He may run again in 2012.

Gingrich, now a consultant and author, said the ties to religion in American government date to the Declaration of Independence, when Thomas Jefferson wrote that men are endowed by God with certain inalienable rights.

“I am not a citizen of the world,” said Gingrich, who was first elected to the U.S. House from Georgia in 1978 and served as speaker from 1995 to 1999. “I am a citizen of the United States because only in the United States does citizenship start with our creator.”

The Declaration of Independence might refer to God but it is also notable that the Constitution does not refer to God or religion except for prohibiting a religious test for holding office and the First Amendment. Such intentional lack of basing government on God was a revolutionary act for its time. It is interesting that Gingrich mentions Jefferson with regards to the Declaration of Independence but ignores Jefferson’s writings regarding separation of church and state. It has been common on the right to promote a revisionist history which denies our heritage of separation of church and state and the intent of the Founding Fathers to establish a secular government.

Christian Nation Falsehoods

I’ve already had a number of posts debunking claims from the religious right that the United States was founded as a Christian nation while promoting a revisionist history which denies our heritage of separation of church and state. Ed Brayton debunks many of  the claims made by some Republicans while calling for 2010 to be the Year of the Bible here and here.

The Failure of The Republican Party And How They Might Recover

Writing obituaries for the Republican Party, or predicting how they might recover, has become a very popular topic. As Bob Barr told CNN, “The Republican Party is in very deep trouble right now.” Bruce Bartlett has written about The Dismal Failure Of The GOP for Forbes.

Bartlett took a historical view of the two major political parties, showing how their relative power has varied over the years. After looking at eras which have little relevance to our current political situation, Bartlett discussed how the Republicans became the majority party after the Democrats became “a more purely liberal party no longer restrained by a conservative Southern wing.” What the Republicans failed to recognize is that you can either have a majority party or a party which consistently supports a single ideology. You cannot have both. Bartlett wrote:

After winning control of Congress and the White House in 2000, Republicans were as full of themselves as Democrats had been after achieving the same goal in 1976 and 1992. Cooperation with the other party was viewed as a sell-out by partisans of the party in control. The dominant element of each party–liberals in 1977 and 1993, and conservatives in 2001–moved quickly to implement long-cherished measures that had been blocked by a lack of unified control of the executive and legislative branches.

As the Republicans moved to the extreme right and purged those who did not follow the party line, the Democrats built the big tent:

At this point, Democrats finally accepted that applying ideological litmus tests was self-defeating. If some moderate or conservative wanted to run in a district that would only elect a moderate or conservative, then it was stupid to insist that they endorse every liberal item in the Democratic agenda. Moderates and conservatives were permitted to dissent from the party line on issues such as gun control if that was what it took to win.

This “big tent” approach was highly successful and greatly helped Democrats retake control of Congress in 2006. What probably hurt congressional Republicans the most, however, was their down-the-line support for every action by George W. Bush, no matter how ill-conceived, poorly implemented or at odds with the party’s basic philosophy, such as when he insisted on a massive expansion of Medicare in 2003.

As a consequence, the Republican brand was destroyed. The party is now widely viewed as corrupt, incompetent, ideologically rigid and out of step with the American mainstream. It should be engaging in self-examination, developing an agenda that addresses the real problems faced by Americans and reaching out to the millions of voters who have left the GOP in recent years. Instead, Republicans are pushing out the last of the party’s moderates as if that will somehow make them more popular with the very moderates whose votes are essential if they are to regain power.

I think Republicans desperately need a group that will do for them what the DLC did for the Democrats. Unfortunately, I see no such organization or any resources available for those that might start one. Those with such resources are either turned off by Republican pandering to its right wing and have left the party or they agree with it. Either way, no one in the Republican Party seems to have any interest in victory, and they prefer to wear defeat as some kind of badge of honor.

Eventually, Republicans will tire of being out of power just as Democrats did, and they will do what it takes to win. But I fear that Republicans will have to at least lose in 2010 and again in 2012 before they start to come to their senses. Perhaps by 2014, some leader with maturity, resources, vision and discipline will find a way of leading the GOP out of the wilderness. But I see no one even in a position to start that process today.

I have often argued that the Republicans must either change their views or go the way of the Whigs. While there is no guarantee of this happening, I also tend to think that at some point we will have a restoration of a two party system, either by the Republicans coming to their senses and recovering or by a new party developing from splits in the Democratic majority.

There are a number of potential ways to see the Republicans coming back into power. Hopefully this will be from them coming to their senses and moving back from the extreme far right. There are also other possibilities.

The Democrats might commit political suicide by following the path of the Republicans should they move to the far left and act to oust those who fail to show ideological purity. At present this is contrary to the direction the Democrats have been moving in, but there are some who do show such tendencies. As I noted a few days ago, it is also possible that Democratic successes could also lead to people no longer having the same reasons to vote Democratic in order to achieve plans offered by the Democrats such as increased access to health care once this is accomplished.

Conditions in the country and the world will play a part in the fortunes of the two political parties. Democratic prospects will be far better if the economy improves over the next few years. Often unpredictable events have a tremendous influence over politics. When George Bush was (questionably) elected in 2000 we could not have predicted that the Republicans would benefit from a terrorist attack in 2001, despite the fact that they mishandled it so badly. When Bush was reelected in 2004 we also could not have predicted that his poor response to Katrina would so quickly demonstrate the incompetence of the Republicans even to many former Republican voters.

Time could work to the benefit of the Republicans. An increasing number of Democratic House and Senate seats are now from areas which have been Republican until recently, making them harder to defend. Historically the party out of office does better in off year elections. Americans tend to both have a short memory and a tendency to grow tired of the party in power. At present this might not help the Republicans as they continue to remind people of why they were voted out as they claim they lost because they were not conservative enough.

Republicans might also return to power based upon their rhetorical ability and tendency to distort the truth. As people forget the disasters of past Republican rule, Voodoo economics might again look attractive. While Republicans policies don’t work in the real world, it sure does sound attractive to be able to cut taxes and simultaneously bring in more revenue. While Republican scare tactics about what Democrats will do are repeatedly contradicted by reality, there’s also a sucker born every minute. There are still many who believe that Democrats want to take away their guns and Bibles, with some conservative claims, such as those spread by Glenn Beck, becoming even more paranoid

The best chance for the Republicans would be, as Bartlett says, to “come to their senses.” At present Bartlett is right that this appears difficult. The general trend of history has been towards freedom and reason while the Republicans try to fight these trends. A party which has many members which support creationism over evolution and modern biology, fights stem cell research on religious grounds, and denies the scientific consensus on climate change will not be taken seriously by most educated and intelligent people in the 21st century.

In order to survive in the modern world, the Republicans must acknowledge both that abortion rights is a settled issue and that the state has no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Republicans must realize the government should not intervene in other personal decisions, ranging from contraception to end of life decisions (as in the Terri Schiavo case). Republicans must realize that although they were able to capitalize on homophobia in 2004 with votes to prevent gay marriage, the attitude of the country is rapidly changing on gay marriage and other social issues.

Republicans must realize understand the significance of the decision of the founding fathers to create a secular government characterized by separation of church and state, as opposed to promoting a revisionist history which denies this and falsely claiming that the United States was established as a Christian nation.

Some Republicans would claim that saying Republicans should abandon these views is to say they should not be Republicans as they consider these views to be essential components of conservatism. In actuality there is no contradiction between rejecting the extremism of the religious right and conservatism. Doing this would be a return to the philosophy of Barry Goldwater, which many contemporary conservatives falsely claim to be following.

Chuck Norris, Revolutionary and President of Texas

Liberals often complained that George Bush had committed a variety of infractions including restrictions on civil liberties, ignoring Constitutional checks and balances on the presidency, and lying the country into a war. Conservatives responded by declaring that liberals had Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Despite this supposed derangement, the most that liberals advocated was utilization of Constitutional measures such as impeachment. On the other hand, Chuck Norris takes objection to a president’s actions to a new level.

On the Glenn Beck show (figures) Norris quipped that he might run for president of Texas. At WorldNetDaily he further discussed the need for violent revolution. This is primarily in protest against Obama’s spending measures, but he also throws in the usual conservative revisionist history which denies our heritage of separation of church and state with a secular government. (If you need to cherry pick a statement by John Adams as reason to ignore First Amendment rights you are getting pretty desperate.)

If liberals showed derangement for opposing Bush’s violations of the Constitution, what do we call someone who calls for violent revoluton because the oppose the president’s spending policies and oppose our First Amendment rights?

Conservatives Discover Separation of Church and State

The creation of an atmosphere in which basic Constitutional rights were ignored under during the Bush years might be contributing to this bizarre measure introduced in the Connecticut legislature which would “remove control of Roman Catholic parishes from bishops and place them instead in the hands of lay panels.”

Despite the many efforts by elements on the right to promote a revisionist history denying separation of church and state, conservatives did not manage to make the entire Constitution irrelevant during the Bush years, no matter how hard they tried. There is little doubt this measure would quickly be declared unconstitutional if it ever passed and went to court.

There is one benefit from this. While historically it was often religious groups which most strongly defended the principle of separation of church and state as intended by the Founding Fathers, in recent years part of conservative dogma has been that separation of church and state is an anti-religious attitude. In reality, separation of church and state is essential to guarantee the rights of all to worship, or not worship, as they choose.

By linking to any particular conservative blogs I do not intend to suggest that any particular individuals or blogs were involved in the promoting the revisionist history which denies separation of church and state. Conservatives, like liberals, hold a variety of views. Still, there is some value in readers of conservative blogs seeing support for the concept of separation of church and state in conservative blogs such as here and here. Perhaps this will remind them of the importance of this principle.

Of course some conservatives continue to promote their revisionist history thinking you can defend basic rights when you agree with them while denying such rights when you find them inconvenient to your political beliefs. Such selective support for civil liberties risks loss of such liberties by all.

Can The Culture Wars Be Ended?

The right wing has been waging a culture war against the modern world for decades. Some date the culture war as beginning in the 1990’s with Pat Buchanan announcing the existence of the war at the 1992 Republican National Convention and with the Republicans taking control of Congress. I would consider the culture war as starting with the Nixon administration, where Buchanan also worked, but this is a conflict which as been waged at various levels throughout history.

Social conservatives share two traits: opposition to the modern world and a belief in using the power of the state to impose their views upon others. Therefore we have seen phenomenon such as the culture war whenever the culture has changed, such as in the Roaring 20’s as well as in the 60’s and today.

Ed Kilgore has a pair of posts speculating on whether the culture war can come to an end (here and here) with the discussion spreading to several other blogs. Two possible end points for the culture wars were discussed in some blogs: 1) left and right coming to an agreement over the issues and 2) social conservatism becoming such a rare viewpoint that the have essentially lost the war from the perspective of being able to influence public policy.

The term culture war has as many problems as the term war on terror. Neither is a true war and neither is likely to have a clear end point. The current culture war might seem to end at some point but whenever their is change in society there will be social conservatives who will once again wage war against modernity and who will try to impose the values of the past upon everyone else.

Besides societal change, the other factor which determines the prevalence of the culture war is the relative importance of other issues. When conditions are good, conservatives can get out the vote by raising hot button social issues. People were less likely to vote based upon such issues in 2008 as the economy was deteriorating. People wondering whether they will keep their job are less likely to worry about whether two men or two women can get married. If Obama can end the culture war it won’t necessarily be because he can reach out to the right and get everyone to agree, but possibly because people become more concerned with other issues when voting.

The culture war can  seem to end when the zeitgeist has shifted to the point where certain conservative views are no longer held by anyone beyond the extremes. While some views dominate the culture wars at present, other views are only argued by the extreme right and will no longer motivate a meaningful number of voters. For example, while feminism was once considered a major component of the culture wars, conservatives are far less likely to achieve electoral success by fighting for lower pay for women or other discriminatory measures.While there might be disagreement over specifics, and not all problems are yet solved, the basic ideas of feminism are no longer seen as controversial.

People do not necessarily need to abandon their personal views. What is necessary for the culture war to end is for enough people to abandon the idea that they can use the power of the state to impose their personal and religious views upon others. As

Unlike some liberals, I think people who feel differently deserve a certain amount of respect. But they don’t deserve to have a veto over other people’s rights. If that makes the religious right angry, well, that’s what happens in a liberal democracy.

While the culture war has encompassed additional issues in the past, the current discussion has been centered around three main issues: separation of church and state, gay and lesbian rights, and abortion.

While the goal of the Founding Fathers to form a secular government has been a major part of our national heritage, supported in numerous court decisions along with being clear in the writings of the Founding Fathers,  the religious right has been promoting a revisionist history which denies this. This is one aspect of the culture wars where Obama has the greatest chance at brokering a peace. As Obama pointed out in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, historically it was often religious leaders who were the strongest defenders of separation of church and state, realizing that this was the best way to ensure that they could practice their religious beliefs free of government intervention.

The acceptance of gay rights appears to be largely a matter of time as younger voters are far more tolerant. It still might take several years, but one day the idea of preventing gay marriage will seem as absurd as many racial ideas of the 1950’s seem today.

The most difficult issue is abortion. Damon Linker has an unexpected recommendation for liberals to end the culture war suggesting “supporting the reversal or significant narrowing of Roe.” The argument is based upon the belief that the primary objection by the religious right is not to abortion itself but to having the issue settled by a ruling of the Supreme Court as opposed to by the legislatures. He believes that if not for Row abortion would cease to be a major issue dividing the country.

I believe the opposite would happen. Without Roe v. Wade abortion would be on the table in a tremendous number of races both for state and national office. We’d have a constant battle as each side would seek to have a majority for their side to change the law, and abortion could become an issue in a tremendous number of races. At present a candidate’s views on abortion are not necessarily a deciding factor since Roe v. Wade prevents legislatures from denying the fundamental right of a woman to control her own body.

Linker makes a mistake in believing conservative rhetoric as to how they justify their positions. Conservatives work backwards from their ultimate goal and then latch upon concepts such as Federalism or opposition to what they see as judicial overreach only when it supports their viewpoint.

Conservatives support states’ rights only when it serves their ends. If state government can be used to impose their views upon others while the federal government backs a more tolerant policy, conservatives will defend states’ rights. If we had a federal government which was trying to restrict freedoms while state governments objected, conservatives would side with the federal government.

Conservatives sided with southern states to prevent integration. On the other hand, when the federal government raids those using medicinal marijuana in states where it is legal conservatives will argue that federal law trumps state law. Conservatives had no problem when the Supreme Court ignored Florida law and ignored basic principles of federalism as well as democracy in making George Bush president. Eliminate Roe v. Wade and the conservatives will lose one talking point, but will push just as hard to impose their views upon others.

If we are to end the culture wars, it will happen because too few people care about the issues of the social conservatives to vote based upon them. This might occur due to shifts in opinion over time, or it could occur because bigger issues dominate the elections. This will not necessarily mean a total end to the culture war as there will always be those who oppose the modern world and those who believe they have the right to impose their social views upon others.