I've been wondering if the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, like Barack Obama's victory last November, signal an end to the culture wars--and a strategic setback for the right. Then I received this email from Ruy Teixeira:

So why are all these culture wars attacks on Sonia Sotomayor going nowhere?  Here's what I argue in my new report, The Coming End of the Culture Wars.
 
Looking back on Barack Obama's historic victory in 2008, culture wars issues not only had a very low profile in the campaign, but where conservatives did attempt to raise them, these issues did them little good. Indeed, conservatives were probably more hurt than helped by such attempts—witness the effect of the Sarah Palin nomination.
 
Attempts to revive the culture wars have been similarly unsuccessful since the election. Sarah Palin's bizarre trajectory, culminating in her surprise resignation from the Alaska governorship, has only made culture war politics appear even more out of touch. And culture warriors' shrill attacks on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor have conspicuously failed to turn public opinion against her.
 
Is this just a temporary breathing spell in the culture wars due to the sudden spike in concern about other issues, first Iraq, then the economy, or is a fundamental shift in our politics taking place? I believe the latter is the case since, as this report establishes, ongoing demographic shifts have seriously eroded the mass base for culture wars politics and will continue to erode this base in the future. That means that the advantage conservatives can gain from culture wars politics will steadily diminish and, consequently, so will conservatives' incentive to engage in such politics.

In other words, there are fewer folks these days obsessing about gay marriage and abortion and feeling threatened by the legacies of 1960s. Rick Perlstein has a similar take on this, but from a different angle. He notes that conservative elites, gazing upon the unwashed anti-intellectuals who were at the center of the Republican campaign last fall--Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber--feel, well, embarrassed. And they're sick of these folks and their followers, perhaps realizing that this group is, as Teixeira contends, a declining population slice.

In politics, it's always perilous to pronounce a last hurrah. But as the Senate GOPers question Sotomayor about guns, gay marriage and other issues dear to their hearts and their shrinking base, their lukewarm efforts do have a retro feel to them. (Talk about retro: Senator Tom Coburn at one point said to Sotomayor, "You have lots of 'splaining to do".) It seems that time--and politics--is passing them by.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

The Democrats are planning something other than cook-outs for the Fourth of July. From Politico:

Democrats plan a July 4th ad campaign to punish House Republicans who voted against the $100-plus billion Iraq and Afghanistan war supplemental - emulating GOP attacks against John Kerry and other Dems who voted against Bush war bills.

A series of 60-second radio ads will run during drive time from July 1 through July 8, according to a script provided to POLITICO -- and they have the support-our-troops ring of GOP spots.

They'll target seven Republicans seen as vulnerable in '10, including Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), Jim Gerlach (R-Penn.), Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Joe Wilson (R-SC).

This will be an interesting test case, for one important political question these days is, does anyone give a damn about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

At the presidential news conference earlier this week, not a single reporter asked President Barack Obama about either war. This week there's been a series of deadly bombings in Iraq, killing about 200 people--as US forces prepare to withdraw from Iraqi cities. This horrific violence has received little media attention in the United States. And when was the last time you saw a full report on the war in Afghanistan on television? There's an important presidential campaign under way in Afghanistan. Its outcome could have a big impact on the US war effort there. Yet, it registers barely a blip on the US media landscape. (At Mother Jones, we post a daily "We're Still at War Photo of the Day.")

So can Democrats score points by whacking Republicans in Rove-ian fashion for "not supporting the troops"? Unfortunately, I don't have much time to ponder this; a report on Michael Jackson's autopsy is coming up after the next commercial.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

There was plenty of teeth-gnashing over Sarah Palin's no-show-turned-show at the GOP's Monday night gala in Washington, where Newt Gingrich spent an hour delivering a policy-laden speech that reportedly did not electrify the well-groomed crowd of Republican donors and did not send them pouring into the streets in search of pitchforks. Still, Gingrich stole the show from Sarah Palin, who couldn't give an hour-long address on policy without generating accusations of plagiarism.

But this silly episode demonstrated, yet again how the Republicans are in a pickle. Choosing between Gingrich or Palin? Would you rather have hemorrhoids or shingles? In reporting on this mini-controversy, The Hill noted

Sarah Palin has begun to get on the nerves of Republican senators who say the former GOP vice presidential nominee is taking her own White House aspirations entirely too seriously.

Could it be that the GOP is getting some sense? Fortunately for Democrats, the article did report that some Republicans in Washington remain enamored of Palin:

I'm still looking for signs that President Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court will split the right. Earlier, I reported that conservative strategist Grover Norquist was happy with Obama's choice because it has united conservatives in opposition. Longtime rightwing poohbah Richard Viguerie has said the same thing, and he's been calling for an anti-Sotomayor crusade. But so far Senate Republicans and Michael Steele, chair of the GOP, have refrained from beating any anti-Sotomayor drums. And that means Norquist, Viguerie and the conservatives could end up being disappointed if Senate GOPers decide not to go after the first Latina nominated to the highest court.

In an email, I asked Norquist if he thought the Senate Republicans share his enthusiasm for opposing her. His response surprised me a little. He wrote:

Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels tells GOPers in Washington to stop "whining.".

David Brooks complains that Republicans "are no longer the party of community and order" (as if they were ever the party of community) and that they "talk more about the market than about society, more about income than quality of life."

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney disses Sarah Palin for making Time's list of 100 most influential people: "[W]as that the issue on the most beautiful people or the most influential people? I'm not sure. If it's the most beautiful, I understand. We're not real cute." (Actually, Romney is kinda cute--certainly more handsome than influential these days.

It's already entertaining to watch how Republicans and conservatives are responding to the triumph of Barack Obama and the near-collapse of the GOP in Congress. Yesterday, I pointed out one extreme reaction: a letter sent to conservatives by Michael Reagan, talk show host and son of Ronald Reagan, who complained that a "new 'Evil Empire'...called Socialism" has "taken over our once-free nation." Reagan announced he was starting a new organization that would, among other things, expose the sexual "flings" of Democratic leaders.

I can't wait. That's exactly the sort of politics that independents and moderate Republicans want to see, right?

Not all conservatives are pulling out their hair in this fashion. My Bloggingheads.tv vlog-mate, Jim Pinkerton, reporting from the Republican Governors Association meeting, says all is well in GOPGov-land:

Here at the Republican Governors Association winter meeting, there is no great sense of defeat, but rather a sense of positive anticipation--and for good reason.

Despite the general GOP wipeout of 2008, no incumbent Republican governor was defeated for re-election this year; indeed, two Republican incumbents, Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Jim Douglas of Vermont, hung on, even as their states went for Obama. Indeed, the case of Vermont's Douglas is particularly striking: he won a fourth term with nearly 55 percent of the vote, while Obama was winning the Green Mountain State by more than 2:1.

So while the Grand Old Party's presidential candidate, and its Congressional wing, were both soundly repudiated at the polls earlier this month, Republican governors did well. Indeed, Republicans still have 21 governors--including a certifiably hot political property for the future, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who speaks here this afternoon.

The below item was posted shortly before the House voted against the $700 billion Big Finance bailout 228 to 225. Ninety-five Democrats joined 133 Republicans to bring down the bill. And Representative Brad Sherman was one of those Democrats.....

For my money, the $700 billion bailout plan is being rushed through Congress with too much haste. There's been little debate of the plan's basics and not much consideration of alternative approaches to the administration's preferred choice: buying up the bad paper of Big Finance firms that screwed up royally. Yet few in Washington--including John McCain and Barack Obama--want to go out on a limb. Any politician who stands up to Wall Street and opposes this thing has to fear being blamed should the plan not go through and the financial meltdown worsen. In politics, there's safety in numbers. So if everyone jumps aboard and this plan doesn't work out, nobody stands to lose politically. It's the safe political play: get on the train with everyone else.

But there are some legislators who are saying, slow down. House Republicans tried to put on the brakes last week. But their alternative--cut taxes--was a non sequitur. On the Democratic side, Representative Brad Sherman has pulled together a Skeptics Caucus. He drew 30 or so House Democrats to meetings on the weekend. Not enough to block the Paulson Express. But not an insignificant number. And Sherman released a memo detailing his objections to the bailout.

Since there's not much media coverage of the Slow-Down crowd, allow me--as a public service--to post the full document right here, The taxpayers need more, not less, of a debate, before allowing the Bush Administration to start a $700 billion spree.

From Rep. Sherman:

After the CNN/YouTube Republican debate last week, fellow CQ blogger Richard Whalen observed:

The verdict: a very disappointing “debate.” After the worst-ever week for the greenback in the past half century, not one of the presidential candidates had anything to say about the economy, the dollar, the falling real estate market, the erratic stock market – zip.

These rich and powerful men are not concerned about how Americans are just getting by from pay day to pay day. Why aren't these candidates addressing the economic issues that are troubling most Americans and better yet, offering concrete solutions? Even a Thompson who flashes down-home folksiness had nothing to say about jobs, security and the future of the economy.

There were other matters not addressed during that debate. Iran, for instance--and global warming. (No YouTubers asked Thompson why a few months ago he delivered a radio commentary mocking people who worry about global warming.) But Whalen's posting prompted me to go back and look at the Democratic debate, held in Las Vegas on November 15. A search of the word "job" produced ten times the candidates used the J-word:

* Joseph Biden: "The American people don't give a darn about any of this stuff that's going on up here....They're worrying about whether they're going to keep their job."

* Christopher Dodd: "We Democrats have a job to do, and that is to unite this party, attract independents, Republicans who are seeking change....The American people want results, they want the job done, exactly what Joe Biden talked about here. But people get up in the morning and go to work, they sit around and they worry about their jobs, their retirement, their health care, this kids' education, and they wonder if anybody in Washington is paying any attention to them and whether or not the job is being done on their behalf.

* Bill Richardson: "Are we creating jobs and economic growth?

* Dodd: "I believe part of our job is to discourage those who want to come here [illegally]."

* Dennis Kucinich: "So I'm the candidate of workers in this -- this campaign because I've stood for jobs for all, full employment economy."

* Hillary Clinton: "you need to weed out the teachers who are not doing a good job."

* Richardson: "[Musharraf] is supposed to go after terrorists on his border. And he has done a very weak job of doing that."

* Barack Obama: "[American troops in Iraq] are doing a magnificent job."

* John Edwards: "NAFTA...has cost us millions of jobs.

* Richardson: "The federal government wasn't doing its job in stopping the flow of drugs and people....We should speak frankly to our friends [in Mexico], and it should be something like this: Mexico, give jobs to your people.

Note that none of these references were a pledge to improve the jobs situation in the United States or a proposal to do so. Sure, conventional unemployment numbers are low. But plenty of Americans are--to use a technical term--wigged out by the prospect of economic insecurity. In today's globalized economy, practically anyone can lose his or her job tomorrow and have a tough time finding a new one with good pay and benefits. Once upon a time, many Americans--even those with only a high school education--could look forward to sticking with the same decent-paying job for decades. No more. And add the accelerating costs of health care and education to the picture, plus the iffiness of many retirement plans, and you get a mood of unease and worry. (And I'm not including in this mix the fear of dirty bombs being detonated in malls during the Christmas rush.)

None of the leading candidates are speaking much about this declining (or lost) economic security. The Dems uttered the word "security" when discussing border matters and foreign policy (and, of course, Social Security). But they have not raised the wider issue of economic security as a main subject. (Edwards has come close in his populist attacks on corporate power in Washington, but just close.) And the Republicans are not even within a country mile of the issue. They're too preoccupied with providing tax "relief" to millionaires.

Jobs--this used to be bread and butter for Democratic candidates. Not that it always worked. Remember Michael "Good Jobs at Good Wages" Dukakis? But the last Democratic candidate to win the White House--Bill Clinton (a.k.a. Mr. Feel Your Pain)--did so by addressing the economic anxieties produced by the recession of the early 1990s.

The international economic tidal forces that are battering American workers are not easy to alter. Even though Democratic candidates do have position papers outlining how they would straighten the middle class and create some jobs, they are skimming the surface. None have yet connected with the deep-seated anxieties of today--and connecting with the voters is their No. 1 job.

LET THE GOOD TIMES...COME BACK. This weekend I attended a fundraiser held by the Future of Music Coalition, a nonprofit outfit focusing on music and technology issues, and Sweet Home New Orleans, a nonprofit organization that supports New Orleans musicians who lost homes during Hurricane Katrina. Part of the proceeds from the evening are going to help Al "Carnival Time" Johnson, a New Orleans musical icon for four decades. His home of 40 years was destroyed during the flood when a barge landed on it. He lost just about everything he owned. At the fundraiser, Johnson played some old-time New Orleans R&B, and Mike Mills of R.E.M. did a short set of his own. If you'd like to help musicians like Johnson, please check out Sweet Home New Orleans.