Are the Culture Warriors Waning?

Frank Rich had a column in Sunday's New York Times which I enjoyed and thought very much on point, or at least I did until I learned yesterday that President Obama is lending credibility to and perhaps foolishly breathing some life into two notoriously hateful Christianist organizations that have been invited to the White House almost as if the Chimperator were still the president. Long term, I suspect Rich is still correct that the over all trend away from religion and the weakening of the power of the Christo-fascists is waning. The youngest generations of voters seem to be trending strongly away from the "culture wars" so loved by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson which have at their base a message of hatred against those who are different either religiously, racially, culturally, or in terms of sexual orientation. Personally, I believe it is important to hasten the demise of the divisive and hate based influence of the Christianist set from power particularly since their admitted goal is to more or less to strip freedom of religion and equality under the law from both state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. Here are some highlights from Rich's column:

*

SOMEDAY we’ll learn the whole story of why George W. Bush brushed off that intelligence briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” But surely a big distraction was the major speech he was readying for delivery on Aug. 9, his first prime-time address to the nation. The subject — which Bush hyped as “one of the most profound of our time” — was stem cells. For a presidency in thrall to a thriving religious right (and a presidency incapable of multi-tasking), nothing, not even terrorism, could be more urgent.

*

What has happened between 2001 and 2009 to so radically change the cultural climate? Here, at last, is one piece of good news in our global economic meltdown: Americans have less and less patience for the intrusive and divisive moral scolds who thrived in the bubbles of the Clinton and Bush years. Culture wars are a luxury the country — the G.O.P. included — can no longer afford.

*

In our own hard times, the former moral “majority” has been downsized to more of a minority than ever. Polling shows that nearly 60 percent of Americans agree with ending Bush restrictions on stem-cell research (a Washington Post/ABC News survey in January); that 55 percent endorse either gay civil unions or same-sex marriage (Newsweek, December 2008); and that 75 percent believe openly gay Americans should serve in the military (Post/ABC, July 2008).

*

What’s been revealing about watching conservatives debate their fate since their Election Day Waterloo is how, the occasional [David] Frum excepted, so many of them don’t want to confront the obsolescence of culture wars as a political crutch. They’d rather, like Cantor, just change the subject — much as they avoid talking about Bush and avoid reckoning with the doomed demographics of the G.O.P.’s old white male base. To recognize all these failings would be to confront why a once-national party can now be tucked into the Bible Belt.

*

The religious right is even more in denial than the Republicans. . . . [Tony] Perkins is now praying that economic failure will be a stimulus for his family-values business. “As the economy goes downward,” he has theorized, “I think people are going to be driven to religion.” Wrong again. The latest American Religious Identification Survey, published last week, found that most faiths have lost ground since 1990 and that the fastest-growing religious choice is “None,”

*

Another highly regarded poll, the General Social Survey, had an even more startling finding in its preliminary 2008 data released this month: Twice as many Americans have a “great deal” of confidence in the scientific community as do in organized religion. How the almighty has fallen: organized religion is in a dead heat with banks and financial institutions on the confidence scale.

*

This, too, is a replay of the Great Depression. “One might have expected that in such a crisis great numbers of these people would have turned to the consolations of and inspirations of religion,” wrote Frederick Lewis Allen in “Since Yesterday,” his history of the 1930s published in 1940. But that did not happen: “The long slow retreat of the churches into less and less significance in the life of the country, and even in the lives of the majority of their members, continued almost unabated.”

*

History is cyclical, and it would be foolhardy to assume that the culture wars will never return. But after the humiliations of the Scopes trial and the repeal of Prohibition, it did take a good four decades for the religious right to begin its comeback in the 1970s. In our tough times, when any happy news can be counted as a miracle, a 40-year exodus for these ayatollahs can pass for an answer to America’s prayers.

*

Perhaps Rich is too hard on some elements of organized religion - one of my tenants for instance, the assistant to Bishop for the Virginia Synod of the ELCA, oversees a number of amazing charity works that largely go unrecognized. On spiritual matters, however, I believe that the leadership of the ELCA and other mainline denominations are losing ground. In my opinion, they are increasingly sliding to irrelevance because they lack the courage to do what is right, are too hesitant to reject the divisive haters within their denominations, and fail to speak out against the most heinous conduct of the Christianist set.

More Monday Male Beauty

Anti-Hate Speech Leads to Hate Crimes

The Christianists and Mormons feel that they have the right to disseminate all types of anti-gay propaganda, often depicting LGBT Americans as a threat to civilization, the family, religious freedom, and similar drivel. Sadly, these intentional untruths lead to more than merely heated debate. As new data reported by the Mercury News indicates, rising levels of anti-gay propaganda - as in California with Proposition 8 - lead to more hate crimes against law abiding LGBT Citizens who are targeted by those who feel they have religious based approval of their acts of violence. Concerned Women for America and Family Research Council are leaders in the anti-gay hate propaganda field yet incredibly Barack Obama is kissing their asses and inviting these organizations to the White House. Here are some highlights from the MercuryNews:

*

Hate crime cases involving anti-gay sentiment shot up in Santa Clara County last year, a striking increase that a leading prosecutor attributes to controversy over Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on gay marriage. Anti-gay incidents accounted for more than half of hate-crime cases last year — 56 percent — a big jump from only 15 percent in 2007.

*

"My belief from having done this work for many years is that surges in types of hate incidents are linked to the headlines and controversies of the day,'' said Deputy District Attorney Jay Boyarsky, who is assigned to monitor hate crimes. "Marriage equality and Proposition 8 have been in the news, and we have seen an increase in gay-bashing.''

*

The increase in anti-gay acts in Santa Clara County saddened South Bay activists, who opposed the gay marriage ban that garnered 52 percent of the vote in November. "When there's a lot more information about gays and lesbians on TV or in the news, it brings out the worst in people who have an inherent bias against groups they don't belong to,'' said Leslie Bulbuk, president of BAYMEC, a regional political action group representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. "It seems like visibility makes people come out of the woodwork.''

Poisonous Heterosexual Parenting

The professional Christian set - including those whose asses Obama is about to kiss via a meeting at the White House - bloviate ad nausea about two parents - a mother and a father - being required to raise a healthy and happy child. That is, of course, unless the mother and father are extreme religious nut cases who put their religious based lunacy ahead of the life or mental health of their child. The latest example of the heterosexual parenting model so loved by the Christianists comes from Rusk County, Texas, where the parents of a 13 month old child have been indicted for capital murder of their child. It seems that these Christian parents - who strike me as the type who would be sending contributions to CWA or FRC - beat their little girl to death with a hammer to rid her of "demonic possession." Somehow, I cannot help but think that 13 month old Amora Carson would have been ever so much better off with a committed gay or lesbian couple as her parents. Here are some highlights from WFIE-TV 14:

*

RUSK COUNTY, TX (KLTV) - A Rusk County grand jury handed up the capital murder indictments against Blaine Keith Milam, 19 and Jessica Bain Carson, 18. The couple is accused of trying to rid 13-month-old Amora Carson of demonic possession by beating her to death with a hammer.

*

At the time of the arrest, Rusk County detectives told KLTV it was the worst crime scene they had ever seen. KLTV later learned Milam is a registered sex offender and was supposed to be behind bars. The couple remains behind bars on $2 million bonds.

*

Of course there are forms of child abuse that do not involve physical abuse. In fact, the first post I ever posted on this blog back in the fall of 2006 looked at a form of child abuse that happens virtually daily in "Christian" homes around the country and which is promoted by the two organizations that Obama has invited to the White House as per an earlier post this evening. Here is a portion of that posting, a part of which came from a blog called "Proceed at Your Own Risk":

*

AMERICA'S ULTIMATE HATE CRIME

Every so once in a while I allow myself to consider the nightmare existence of a queer child growing up with religious fundamentalist parents. The thought of it is so painful that I need to keep it mostly compartmentalized and in the back of my mental and emotional closet.

*

It's an aspect of the world of homophobia and fundamentalist religion that we very much ignore. For many reasons, it's the forgotten stepchild of gay activism, child care services and the mental health profession. But the obvious fact is that there are thousands of these kids living in a hell on earth as they fight their way through childhood.

*

I can think of few other situations that have the potential to engender such a relentless and pervasive environment of psychological and possibly even physical child abuse. Generally speaking we do not do a good job of handling child abuse in this nation but when it come to gay kids the picture is even bleaker. The ratio of gay kids to straight kids among runaways, child prostitutes and suicides, well documented by the CDC, makes this painfully clear.

*

Long before a child develops self-awareness of his or her own sexual orientation, he is trained to believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a perversion that is a threat to the American way of life.In a fundamentalist religious environment, he is told that homosexuality threatens the American family and the sacred institution of marriage. He is told that homosexual activists and their agenda are leading the charge in a war against Christianity. The homosexuals are the enemy.

*

This young and impressionable child learns that the Bible, the absolute word of god and truth, clearly states that homosexuals are an abomination and that their sin is punishable by death.And then, worst of all, he learns that homosexuality is a choice made by sick and evil people and that to make this choice is a very bad and wicked thing. But then nature takes its course and at some point the gay child realizes that he's "chosen" homosexuality. He doesn't remember being asked. He doesn't remember checking off that particular choice on any application. And he searches through the mail for the recruitment brochure, but it isn't to be found.Somehow, somewhere along the way, he has made this monumental, life-changing and life-shattering choice, against his will and against the will of god.

*

No problem, he thinks, he'll just chose otherwise until he one day realizes that he can't. Try as he might, the gay just won't go away, along with the color of his skin and the texture of his hair.His intellectual and emotional energies become singularly focused on changing that choice but to no avail. He turns up the engines and works hard to hide his nature. Self-hatred begins to rip open his guts. Childhood innocence and joy are not part of his experience. He lives in a state of constant dread and anxiety, fearing exposure or worse.

*

It's an exhausting and soul-crushing childhood. While other children are looking to the future with hope, he lives in a world of despair, pain and fear. While other children are considering ballerina, doctor, astronaut or fire fighter, the gay child's energies are focused on hiding his or her true self. The boy dreads his first fake sexual encounter: will he be able to perform? The girl worries less, she will just turn away and cry and wait until it's over.

*

Many ex-gays believe that the origins of homosexuality are to be found in an abusive childhood. Their logic is flawed but their childhoods were likely abusive. Many of them come out of strict Christian homes. Growing up gay in a strict fundamentalist Christian home most likely oftentimes means a battering patten of abuse, certainly verbal and sometimes physical. Many of these parents likely steam roll over the self-esteem and self-confidence of these children as they struggle to make "her" more feminine and "him" less of sissy.

*

Protected by a very misguided notion of religious freedom, fundamentalists of all sorts are allowed by our society to engage in the ultimate hate crime, a pervasive and monstrous form of child abuse that will one day be seen by social historians and anthropologists as a very barbaric and grotesque aspect of the American civilization. Sexual orientation is not a choice, but our society's willingness to tolerate this terrible treatment of children is a choice and a choice that should make us all ashamed. We will be judged harshly by future generations as we are already judged by more evolved societies on the other side of the Atlantic.

*

When slavery, the oppression of women and child labor were recognized for what they were, modern nations changed. When certain Biblical practices including the stoning to death of adulterers were recognized for what they were, modern nations changed.And when the abuse of homosexual children was recognized for what it was, modern nations changed--tragically we were not among them. Freedom of religion was designed to protect people from oppression and persecution. Instead, in 21st Century America, "freedom of religion" is used to do great harm to millions of Americans, including many of our children who are unable to defend themselves, their psyches and their hearts."

*

Freedom of religion" should not, in my opinion, be used to excuse behavior that violates sound practices and standards that are based on science, morality and ethics. Further, "freedom of religion" should not exempt people from laws governing discriminatory practices, mental health care, child care and child protection.If we allow religious beliefs to justify human degradation and oppression, we reduce our constitution to nothing but an old piece of paper.

*

Homosexuality is common throughout hundreds of animal species and every scientific measure that has been used thus far has confirmed over and over again that this is about nature and not nurture. Of course, people who act exclusively on faith and belief rather than on fact and reason will never be convinced of this. The facts are that dinosaurs and unicorns did not miss the Ark and gay children did not chose to be who they were born to be. But the question that seems to plague us at every turn these days is whether we are to be a nation of fact and reason or a nation of people packed and ready to jump on the Rapture bus? In the meantime, suffer the little children.

Monday Male Beauty

Obama Insults LGBT Americans Yet Again

Work hard for a candidate, contribute time and money to support his election and what is your reward? Well, if the candidate was Barack Obama and you are an LGBT American your reward and thank you will consist of a series of insults and a number of weak kneed episodes of whining where he'd rather kiss the asses of those who lie and denigrate gays daily and seeks to undermine him at every turn as well. Based on Obama's invitation to folks at Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council to come t the White House to discuss "policy," I full expect David Duke, other white supremacists, Neo-Nazis and the Imperial Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan to soon be receiving invites to the White House. Or maybe a group seeking to honor Adolph Hitler's birthday on April 20th. In fact, based on this invitation to these two extreme Chistianist organizations who deem themselves exempt from the Commandment against lying and bearing false witness - and who are in essence racist and have not condemned rumors that Obama is a Muslim or not born in the USA - one can only assume that every nutcase organization that seeks to subvert the U. S. Constitution will soon be visiting the White House.

*

I truly find it dumbfounding that Obama seems to seek out opportunities to insult LGBT Americans as he at the same times kisses the asses of those who loath him and likely wish him dead. I truly do not understand it. These folks will NEVER work with him or his administration and are responsible for a large measure of the hate and intolerance that has come to permeate politics in this country. Is Obama deliberately trying to tell LGBT Americans to go f*ck themselves? That message can't be more deliberately delivered than by meeting with vitriolic anti-gay groups like FRC and CWA. In retrospect, I continue to wait to be convinced that Obama is not an opportunistic liar who used LGBT Americans for his own purposes during the presidential while having no intentions of making good on his speeches taking about equality for all Americans. Here are some highlights from Right Wing Watch:

*

Since taking office, the Right has opposed just about every aspect of his agenda, from his choice of nominees to the economic stimulus legislation. But nothing has outraged them more than reversals of President Bush’s stem cell and “Mexico City” policies.

*

Given that FRC’s and CWA’s stance regarding life issues is to vehemently oppose anything that does not move the country toward curtailing, and eventually outlawing, of reproductive choice, what is the Obama administration’s best option for dealing with such groups? Why, inviting them to White House for a discussion on how to reduce the need for abortion, of course.

*

If the Obama administration thinks that it is going to win support for anything that it does on this issue from groups like CWA and FRC, it is sorely mistaken … which is something they will presumably learn once this meeting takes place.

*
These are not moderate, open-minded groups looking for common ground – they are militant, anti-choice groups committed to, above all, making abortion illegal everywhere and for everyone, with no exceptions.

*
It is hard to understand what the administration expects to gain by meeting with such groups to discuss efforts to reduce abortion considering that the only option such groups support is to outlaw them entirely.

*

Meanwhile, we have disingenuous and faux news organizations like CBN News - yep, you read it correctly, Pat Robertson's news arm - gloating over Obama's intent to meet with the FRC and CWA hate mongers:

*

Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council will meet with Joshua DuBois, the man who leads the administration’s office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Wendy Wright, the president of CWA reached out to the Obama administration and they responded by inviting CWA and some of these other conservative Evangelical groups to The White House. The meeting plans to focus on the need to reduce abortions in the country and on responsible fatherhood programs. Also present at the meeting will be Tom McClusky, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council as well as representatives from the Christian Medical Association and Care Net, a pro-life Evangelical pregnancy crisis group. . . . The abortion conscience clause protection issue could come up too.

*

Please excuse me as I go vomit and then throw out any Obama paraphernalia that I did not already throw out when Obama selected to Rick Warren to give the Inauguration invocation.

End Marriages for Everyone?

As the Sacramento Bee has reported, two heterosexual Southern California college students – Ali Shams and Kaelan Housewright – want to take the state out of the marriage business. The two have proposed a measure that calls for the term "marriage" to be removed from state laws and replaced with "domestic partnerships." The call makes sense in that the Christianists have succeed in their anti-gay jihad in most states by conflating CIVIL marriage with RELIGIOUS marriage and often have knowing spread lies that religious denominations could be forced to marry same sex couples. Now, Time has a story that looks at the issue and makes a strong case for leaving the word "marriage" to religious ceremonies and providing domestic partnerships only via civil ceremonies. Obviously, the Christianist will oppose this approach since their true agenda is to deprive same sex couples of any rights and to make gays inferior under the law. For the vast middle of the electorate, this might be a middle ground that could tilt the vote our way. If nothing else it would help make it clear to the majority of voters that merely "protecting marriage" is NOT what the Christianists are truly seeking. Here are some story highlights:

*

[M]issing altogether in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role at all for government. . . . Only marriage gets that treatment, and it's a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned.

*

Two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage in a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors — one of who voted for and one against Prop 8, which successfully ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether.

*

Instead, give gay and straight couples alike the same license — a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a "civil union" — anything, really, other than "marriage." For those for whom the word marriage is important, the next stop after the courthouse could be the church, where they could bless their union with all the religious ceremony they could want. The Church itself would lose nothing of its role in sanctioning the kinds of unions that it finds in keeping with its tenets.

*

Both sets of lawyers agreed that the idea would resolve the equal protection issue. Take the state out of the marriage business, and then both kinds of couples — straight and gay — would be treated the same.

*

But the Pepperdine idea does put into a play a new way of thinking — and whether it's part of the court's decision in the Prop 8 case, or whether it makes it way into a new referendum, the idea of getting governments out of the marriage business offers a creative way to thinking about a problem that is otherwise likely to be around for a long, long time.

*

Personally, I do not think the proposal is a perfect solution. However, it would knee cap the Christianists and help to fully expose the hate based nature of their agenda which is nothing less than to oppose ANY and ALL laws that would make LGBT Americans fully equal citizens under the law. They truly seek to be able to point to the fact that the civil laws discriminate against gays as a means to support their religious based discrimination. "Protecting marriage" is simply the ruse they use to dupe the lazy media and dim witted voters.

Sunday Male Beauty

Virginia GOP Civil War Intensifies

As a former member of and activist in the Republican Party of Virginia ("RPV") in its days before it became largely an arm of James Dobson's affiliate in Virginia, The Family Foundation, I have continue to watch in dismay as the party has degenerated into the realms of religious based lunacy. The Family Foundation's position on gays for example, reads in part as follows:

*
Homosexual advocates are working through school curricula and student groups such as “Gay-Straight Alliances” to bring their message to children in Virginia. Legislation is needed to bar these groups from promoting risky sexual behavior in our public schools.

*

The current party chair, Jeffery Frederick, is an anti-evolution religious fruit loop all too in keeping in his religious views with his puppeteers at The Family Foundation. In fact, Frederick in many ways personifies the aspects of the Republican Party rejected by Virginians as evidenced by Barack Obama's win in Virginia last November. As a result, it is interesting to see the growing efforts to drive Frederick from the RVP chairmanship. Whether or not it might signal a effort to shift the party from control of the lunatic far right remains to be seen. Likewise, Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell's (pictured above) entry into the fray is somewhat out of character since McDonnell has long been a darling of the Kool-Aid drinker set. (I've previously posted about what I see as McDonnell's dishonest efforts to say he is a moderate - compared to what I don't know, maybe Attila the Hun - and my sincere hope that he loses his bid to be Virginia's next governor). Two stories in the Washington Post - here and here - look at the growing drama in the RPV and the intra-party conflicts which I hope will leave the party fractured and less competitive in the November elections. Here are some story highlights:

*

With the three Democratic candidates for governor battling for their party's nomination, GOP candidate Robert F. McDonnell was in a posture that many statewide candidates can only dream about. McDonnell is running unopposed for his party's nomination and has all spring to prepare for the general election as the Democrats attack one another. . . Despite all this, the McDonnell campaign apparently couldn't resist wading into an ugly, internal party battle over Del. Jeffrey M. Frederick's fitness to serve as chairman of the Virginia Republican Party.

*

The looming battle could set up the kind of split that McDonnell and GOP leaders worked so hard to avoid. It's a curious strategy that poses huge risks for McDonnell. . . . GOP insiders say McDonnell's campaign staff played a key role in lining up signatures to call the special election.

*

By challenging Frederick, McDonnell has picked a fight with some of his party's most loyal supporters. Frederick, a social and economic conservative, was elected chairman at last year's GOP state convention after he waged a campaign to unseat John H. Hager, a moderate, from the position. Frederick cobbled together a coalition of several thousand antiabortion and anti-tax activists as well as home-schoolers, many of the same delegates who supported Del. Robert G. Marshall (Prince William) over former governor James S. Gilmore III in the Senate race.

*

If Frederick survives, it will be a major setback for McDonnell. It would also give Democrats fodder to argue that the state Republican Party is dominated by conservatives, despite McDonnell's efforts to position himself as a centrist on many issues.

*

McDonnell could face another set of problems if Frederick is ousted from his position. . . . Marshall predicts the conservative base will quickly turn on McDonnell if it appears Frederick is "railroaded." Marshall said an independent committee should be set up to evaluate the accusations against Frederick. "If an independent group doesn't do this, this is going to seriously damage Bob McDonnell," Marshall said. "The folks who came to the convention who voted for me and voted for Frederick, they just won't work for McDonnell."

*

The Washington Post also reports the following:

*

The dispute has taken an unexpected turn into full public view as all five of the state's Republican members of Congress sent Frederick a letter Friday asking him to resign immediately instead of facing a no-confidence vote April 4.

*

The dispute is fast becoming a generational and ideological clash that threatens to destabilize the party when it can least afford it. Republicans, both in Virginia and nationally, are struggling to find an identity and a unifying leader to counteract President Obama and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

*

But Frederick is being supported by a tenacious group of social and anti-tax conservatives. On Thursday, some of his backers arranged for automated calls to party activists accusing McDonnell of being an "elitist" who is taking orders from "tax-raising, anti-gun, pro-abortion officeholders in Richmond." Frederick denies authorizing the calls.

*

Until now, Democrats were fearful that they would be the ones fighting with each other. For the first time in three decades, there is a contested Democratic primary for governor. Now it's McDonnell, with no primary opponent, who is bogged down by an intraparty feud.

*

From a gay rights prospective, nothing can be better than an RPV which is tearing itself apart in a feud that could cause the most insane of the party's base to stay home this coming November. Not only would that result help to insure another Democrat for governor, but it might assist in the defeat of some of the most anti-gay GOP members of the General Assembly - a true win-win situation. I hope the RPV civil war continues and becomes incredibly nasty.

GOP Governor Challenges Utah’s Conservatives

Even as Michael Steele appears to be increasingly the verge of expulsion from his postion as RNC chairman by the Kool-Aid drinker element that now controls the Republican Party - in large part because of Steele's moderate statements on abortion and gay rights - there are a few signs that some within the GOP realize that staying the course as a de facto religious party does not bode well for the party's long term future. A case in point is Utah's GOP governor, Jon Huntsman Jr., who despite his Mormon faith appears to have seen the light and be endeavoring to veer the GOP ship away from striking yet another ice berg by moving towards a more moderate social agenda.

*

Whether or not Huntsman will be successful remains in doubt because so many moderates have left the GOP over the last 5 to 10 years that the party apparatus is now fully controlled in most states by the religious fanatic set and off shoots of Christianist organizations affiliated with James Dobson and others who seek to subvert the U.S. Constitution in favor of a theocracy. Nonetheless, the fact that Huntsman is attempting to forge a more moderate path will be interesting to watch. I suspect that in time nothing less than a full blown civil war within the party will develop if Huntsman and others like him seek to roll back the party's blind allegiance to the fascist like social agenda of the Christianists. Until the political power of the Christianists is broken, they will continue to be a clear and present danger to true freedom in the USA and the Constitution. Here are some highlights from the New York Times that look at Huntsman:

*

SALT LAKE CITY — Among Utah Republicans, who hold every statewide elected office and more than two-thirds of the State Legislature, Hamlet-like quests for purpose and direction are hardly the norm. But the norms are dead for Republicans here, something that was in plain view this week as lawmakers overhauled the state’s formerly untouchable liquor law at the urging of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.

*

[B]ound up in it was a profound, ongoing dialog, led by Mr. Huntsman, about what the Republican Party should be about and who should lead it. Similar discussions are flickering in other parts of the country, especially in Republican-controlled state capitals, as party members sort through their losses from November, . . .
*

The soul-searching has also meant a star search for national party leaders. Some Republicans say that conservative politicians like Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the party’s vice-presidential nominee in November, will show the way forward, while others say the electoral map — and the formula for future Republican victories — was rewritten by President Obama’s election, and that a kind of casting call is now under way for new voices. Mr. Huntsman is firmly in the camp that says Republicans must turn the page.

*

It’s like the world began in November,” Mr. Huntsman, 48, a moderate second-term Republican with billionaire roots, intense personal popularity and obvious national ambitions, said in an interview in his office here. “The old ethos world view — all that’s been decimated.” . . . In addition to leading the fight to change the liquor law, he has embraced President Obama’s stimulus plan, restated his support for a cap-and-trade system of carbon emissions and announced support for legislation that would provide civil unions for gay couples.

*

Mr. Huntsman’s message to his party has been unwavering: that practicality and real-world action, driven by changed circumstance, should be the measure of where the next generation of Republican leaders comes from. The new Republican direction is not going to come out of Congress, he said, or “empty rhetoric,” but from a handful of Republican governors who must compete in a “meritocracy of ideas” that voters will sort out for themselves.

*

But there are hints that Mr. Huntsman’s message of moderation, especially given his popularity in the state, is resonating beyond the Legislature and drawing support among the broader population. In February, for example, when the governor announced that he would support civil unions for gay couples, many politicians here braced for a backlash.

*

But the backlash never developed. Indeed, after his announcement, a poll by Deseret News/KSL-TV found that two-thirds of respondents said their opinion of the governor had not changed or had become more positive because of his position on civil unions. Over all, the governor’s approval rating had barely budged, with 80 percent of residents saying they thought he was doing a good job.

*

“I do not think the base of the Republican Party of Utah has traveled with the governor — at least not yet,” said State Representative David Clark, a Republican from Santa Clara and the speaker of the House. “He’s clearly on a new frontier.”