If Republicans get hammered for doing this (which they rightly should), then I don’t see why Democrats shouldn’t, especially the candidate of “change”.

Last week, a group of evangelical leaders released a new document entitled “The Evangelical Manifesto”. These kinds of things can be problematic, as they often result in building up more walls than they tear down. The last thing we need is another “us vs. them” spat among people of faith.

As I peruse through the document, there’s a lot to like. The aim of this group and the document really seems to reclaim the word “evangelical” from those who have used the word as a means of acquiring political (or religious, in some cases) power. It’s a repudiation of both the religious right and the religious left in those cases where either side has used its faith as a crowbar to open the doors of power.

This is a very helpful document whose time has come. I think the 2008 election will, in many ways, signal the end of the so-called “religious right” as it’s been known for almost three decades. The coalition that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson birthed that has been nursed by the likes of Jim Dobson and others, seems to have become increasingly irrelevant and listless. As arguably the most evangelical president of all-time prepares to leave office, he does so amidst a political and cultural landscape littered with the casualties of the culture war. Has much changed in 30 years? All of the key issues of the religious right remain largely unchanged. Abortion is still legal. Gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted both legally and culturally. Meanwhile, the entertainment media has become more violent and sexually explicit as ever. Pornography dominates the Internet. Real wages for working families are stagnant. Poverty continues to loom large over an economy with gas at $4 a gallon. America continues to live in fear of terrorism. The war in Iraq continues with no end in sight.

Change is the buzzword of the campaign this year. It’s no surprise that a document like this has emerged at such a time as this.

Signatories include: Kay Arthur, Stuart Briscoe, Jack Hayford, Max Lucado, Duane Litfin, Erwin Lutzer, Mark Noll, Alvin Plantinga, and Jim Wallis among many others.

Notable non-signatories include: Jim Dobson, whose board of directors advised against it because the process lacked diversity (yeah, I’m sure that’s why); Billy Graham, who supports the document but won’t sign it; Chuck Colson apparently declined; Richard Land wasn’t asked; neither was Pat Robertson.

Reaction to the document: Alan Jacobs says it’s not strong enough for a manifesto, Cathleen Falsani seems to endorse it, and Hugh Hewitt misses the point.

The most ridiculous response I’ve seen so far comes from Janice Crouse, of Concerned Women for America who said: “Basically, they were saying ‘those of you who care about abortion, who care about homosexuality, who care about the family disintegrating don’t speak for us, because we are too intellectual, we are too sophisticated to be concerned about those kinds of things.’”

Interview with Os Guinness about some of the concerns being raised.

I’ve really come to enjoy P.J. O’Rourke over the years. This week, he offers commencement advice that you’re unlikely to hear elsewhere:

3. Get politically uninvolved!

All politics stink. Even democracy stinks. Imagine if our clothes were selected by the majority of shoppers, which would be teenage girls. I’d be standing here with my bellybutton exposed. Imagine deciding the dinner menu by family secret ballot. I’ve got three kids and three dogs in my family. We’d be eating Froot Loops and rotten meat.

But let me make a distinction between politics and politicians. Some people are under the misapprehension that all politicians stink. Impeach George W. Bush, and everything will be fine. Nab Ted Kennedy on a DUI, and the nation’s problems will be solved.

But the problem isn’t politicians — it’s politics. Politics won’t allow for the truth. And we can’t blame the politicians for that. Imagine what even a little truth would sound like on today’s campaign trail:

“No, I can’t fix public education. The problem isn’t the teachers unions or a lack of funding for salaries, vouchers or more computer equipment The problem is your kids!”

That we could all be so honest when asked for advice.

I don’t remember when I first heard about Bobby Jindal. It was probably about 5 years ago, sometime between Jindal’s first run for Governor of Louisiana in 2003 and his election to to Congress in 2004.

I guess in many ways Jindal represents to Republicans what Barack Obama represents to Democrats. Jindal is young, articulate, ethnic politician who inspires hope. It’s almost as if the GOP can say, “We’ll see your Harvard Law School-trained biracial first-term Senator from the Midwest and raise you a first generation Indian-American Oxford-trained, former Congressman, now Governor of a Southern State. Oh, and he helped deliver his third child. What else you got?”

There has been speculation that Jindal would be asked to run as McCain’s VP this year, but today, Jindal pulled his name out of the running. It’s a very smart move, as I think Jindal will be a formidable candidate on his own in 2012 or 2016, regardless of who is in the White House at the time.

Here are Jindal’s remarks from his appearance at the National Press Club this week.

This is pretty darn cool. While I know that Tarantino is an acquired taste, I’d hope that this montage would be appreciated for both its scope and technique.

(more…)