THEOCRACY HYPE. Scott, I agree with you that Amy Sullivan's prescriptive arguments about Democratic outreach to evangelicals are thin. (And for a small-but-perfect illustration of the limited efficacy of even the rather ostentatious rhetorical gambits that Hillary Clinton has attempted in an effort to reach religious voters, see here.) But I do feel compelled to take Sullivan's side on the broader issue of liberal "theocracy" narratives. You're right that the "religious right taken for suckers" notion is widely understood by plenty of liberals, that it is central to Thomas Frank's argument, and that it renders David Kuo's book more banal confirmation than explosive revelation.
But I think Sullivan's right that there is some real tension and dissonance between that understanding of Republican political dynamics and works such as Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming, Jesus Camp, to a limited extent Garry Wills's latest in The New York Review of Books, and many many more. The reality is always complicated and contradictory, of course, but it seems to me one that of these two narratives -- the religious-right-as-suckers, and the encroaching theocratic takeover of the GOP (and the country) -- has to be more true than the other one. And I really think the empirical evidence -- the substantive policy outcomes under Republican rule -- lends credence to the former rather than the latter notion. Sullivan debated the conservative Joseph Loconte last week ostensibly on this question, though unfortunately the discussion got a bit sidetracked into more talk about the Democrats. I would prefer to see Sullivan debate someone like Goldberg on this, because this issue specifically is one where I think Amy has some real value to add.
--Sam Rosenfeld
