Pundits are coming out of the woodwork now to blame the religious right for the destruction of the Republican Party these last two election cycles. If one were to believe what they say, the Republican Party had spent the last eight years systematically enacting unpopular legislation and policy intended to appeal primarily to the religious right, but has it?

If California's prop. 8 is any indication, the gay marriage issue is not one that can be legitimately called exclusively a "religious right issue." Minorities, regardless of religious persuasion and ethnic background, tend to view gay marriage in an unfavorable light, with the numbers tending to range in the mid-50s to as high as 70% against measures supporting gay marriage, depending on the survey. The numbers clearly show that opposition to gay marriage is a widespread phenomenon that crosses over many demographics. In that sense, the Republicans were effectively appealing to mainstream views on gay marriage.

On the issue of abortion, the primary targets have been government funding of abortion, an issue that does spread over into other groups besides the religious right. The libertarian wing, despite being typically pro-choice is still against the public financing of abortion, and so targeting public financing of abortion is an issue on which most of the traditional factions, from Goldwater libertarian-conservatives, to Jerry Falwell social conservatives, can agree should not be public policy.

It's noteworthy that even when the Republicans controlled the entire body politic, they did not take concrete action against abortion-on-demand. If they were as fanatically attached to social conservative political goals as claimed, Kelo v. New London would have given them a very popular opportunity to wipe out much of the Supreme Court through impeachment. Unlike elected officials, according to Article III of the United States Constitution, a Republican-controlled Congress could file articles of impeachment over such a travesty of a ruling (as a means of packing the Supreme Court):

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

A ruling as corrupt, sophistic and as easily turned into a popular issue as Kelo v. New London would have provided the Republican Party with the perfect opportunity to dismantle most of the current Supreme Court and pack it with judges who would rule in ways amenable to Republican goals. Yet the Republicans made no noise about this because their intentions as a party have never been to get rid of the abortion issue because it is one of the few issues that they can always use to get votes, no matter how poorly they have otherwise performed. For the Republican Party, losing the abortion issue would be as bad as social welfare policies actually eliminating poverty and creating entrepreneurs by the tens of thousands among their base would be for the Democrats. Their weak opposition to abortion, limited primarily to cutting federal funding thereof, is the worst that most pro-choice voters can expect from them.

The real reason that the Republican Party lost so badly was that it managed to simultaneously betray its base on core issues while driving away new potential voters. It did this by being on the wrong side of a lot of issues ranging from immigration policy, to spending policies, to the War in Iraq. In the case of the latter, the incompetent, politically-charged handling of the occupation prolonged it well beyond what was reasonable. Had the Bush Administration listened to its generals, and made "the surge" part of the original invasion force, the Republicans probably would have gone into the 2006 elections with the occupation being steadily turned over to the Iraqis, with it formally ending by 2008. Of course, that sort of debacle is to be expected for an administration that tells veterans of our nation's ground forces to get stuffed in favor of civilian advisors whose closest experience with military matters is watching Saving Private Ryan.

Over the last eight years, the Republicans have done a splendid job of explaining to the electorate that they are to the Democrats, what Wal-Mart brand soft drinks are to Coke and Pepsi. It's no wonder that the public figured that the Democrats might be better at being Democrats, and that if they to choose between an imitation product and the real thing, that the real thing was preferable. If this sounds far-fetched, then consider the Republican domestic agenda of the last eight years:

• More bureaucracy through the creation of TSA, which ended privatized airport security.
  
• More federal control of education.
• More federal financing of healthcare.
• More federal subsidies for agriculture.
• Bailouts for failing business.

They did not push for these things in the same way or to the same degree as the Democrats, but what matters here is that the Republicans did not actually do much of anything to make it obvious just how they were a real alternative to the Democrats. Combine that with the corruption under men like DeLay and Abramoff, and the choice was obvious. For minimal disruption, just vote in Democrats and hope for change on the issues like corruption that need fixing.

For a party that ran in 1994 on limited government grounds, the last eight years saw the Republicans systematically erode personal freedom. To limit it to the handful, nay, pittance of bones thrown to the religious right, is simply to miss the big picture here.