How James Dobson's leap of faith helped reshape Republican politics



Dr. James Dobson left a 14-year career on faculty at the University of Southern California Medical School to embark on a far more speculative quest to combat progressive influences on family formation and the rearing of children.

It was an unusual choice for a man born to a generation that prized security and institutional membership. After decades of successful organization, audience building, book sales, and political influence, Dobson accurately perceived the opportunity before him when he made the leap.

Of all the evangelical attempts to participate in America’s mass media culture, Dobson’s projects may have been the most successful.

But it was more than an opportunity to be successful that Dobson grasped. It was the chance to contribute to the common good, to demonstrate obedience to God, and to speak prophetically to the nation and the world.

Spiritual guide

Dobson was known primarily as an expert on family and the raising of children. His early work made an impact as a kind of counternarrative to the tradition-busting, more permissive views of Dr. Benjamin Spock (not the one from "Star Trek").

His influence, however, grew far beyond the realm of family even as the umbrella organization of the work was and still is called Focus on the Family.

Dobson was also a true spiritual guide and encourager for Americans of all ages. Young people listened to stories encouraging virtue and Christian faithfulness on Focus on the Family’s outstanding "Adventures in Odyssey" series.

Millions of adults listened to the radio broadcast Dobson did with a series of co-hosts. While his broadcasts often focused on advice for raising children or for building a flourishing marriage, he also platformed Christian testimonies and effective Christian advocates and ministries. Being featured on his broadcast could lead to an explosion of interest and support for an organization such as the still-flourishing Summit Ministries.

Of all the evangelical attempts to participate in America’s mass media culture, Dobson’s projects may have been the most successful.

Faith in motion

Someone who preceded Dobson in changing evangelical thought was the missionary turned author and filmmaker Francis Schaeffer.

There is a kind of narrative some Christian academics promote about Schaeffer, which is that he was on the right path until he began to engage in political activism. It is certainly the case that, as Schaeffer aged and experienced more influence, he felt the need to use it for political ends.

A similar narrative is applied to Dobson. After his death, many people demonized him. But others argue that he had the right ideas early on, only later succumbing to the temptation to get involved in politics and the culture war. But I think those narratives about Schaeffer and Dobson are wrong.

Schaeffer wrote mostly about Christian theology and worldview more broadly until 1979, when he made the film and wrote the book "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" in conjunction with C. Everett Koop.

Schaeffer and Koop — a pediatric surgeon who would eventually become the most famous surgeon general in United States history — toured together to promote the film, answering questions from audiences in an effort to appeal to American consciences and stop the killing of unborn children by the millions unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

There is little question that taking on abortion drew Schaeffer more deeply into American politics and into alliance with Republicans.

Turning point

It certainly didn’t have to be that way.

Schaeffer was hardly a libertarian or someone predominantly concerned with limited government. Instead, he had natural sympathies with workers and was a kind of environmentalist. The life issue drew him further to the right because that was the way the issue evolved. Early on, politicians such as Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, and Jesse Jackson had pro-life sympathies. At the same time, there were plenty of pro-choice Republicans.

But over time, the American political binary did its work.

Ronald Reagan declared forcefully for the pro-life cause even though his own advisers often tried to tamp down his support. Nevertheless, the life issue became a Republican issue. As it did so, it gained purchase with figures like Schaeffer and the previously progressive Richard John Neuhaus, who found himself surprised that commitments to civil rights and opposition to war violence in Vietnam did not translate into determination to protect the unborn.

Dobson also found himself powerfully committed to protecting the child in the womb. That issue, more compellingly and powerfully than any other, drew him into the political fray. Early on, he would make noise about liberal sympathies exhibited at the White House Conference on the Family. But it would be abortion that really pulled Dobson into the political limelight.

Dobson's threat

There was a time when many Republicans considered the pro-life issue to be a liability, as, for example, various Reagan handlers pushed hard to prevent him from centering the life issue in his speeches.

And after hoping desperately that Republican nominees to the Supreme Court in the 1980s and early 1990s would lead to the overturning of Roe, pro-lifers were badly stung by the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision — co-authored by three Republican appointees — that cemented Roe’s status.

The dealmaker knew this was one deal he had to make.

GOP pro-choicers likely hoped that would be the end of the matter. It wasn’t. Battles over Supreme Court nominations continued with ferocity, including the bizarre debacles we witnessed in confirmation hearings for nominees from Robert Bork to Clarence Thomas to Brett Kavanaugh.

Dobson was one of the major reasons the Republican Party did not abandon pro-lifers and relegate the issue to the margins. In the late 1990s, Dobson proved just how serious he was when he threatened to leave the Republican Party and to take as many people with him as possible.

The threat was impossible to ignore and resulted in a decisive shift in political gravity.

When faith leads

The Republican Party became a pro-life party virtually full-stop. Notably, the one Republican star who thought he could safely stay pro-choice was Rudy Giuliani. But he failed, as his 2008 presidential campaign proved. In 2012, Mitt Romney ran as a pro-life candidate, which he didn't do in 1994. And in 2016, even Donald Trump, who had never pronounced himself to be pro-life, made the turn and subsequently won the nomination. The dealmaker knew this was one deal he had to make.

Dobson’s eventual support of Trump in 2016 and beyond is often used as proof that Trump forced conservative evangelicals into a position of deep and unjustifiable compromise. After all, they repeatedly criticized the philandering of then-President Bill Clinton in the 1990s only to look past the alleged same behavior by Trump.

But I think we’re telling the wrong story.

The simple truth is that Dobson helped bend the will of the Republican Party in the direction of opposing abortion reliably and consistently. And when Trump finally declared himself pro-life, it was he — not Dobson — who found himself in a new substantive policy position.

We all know how the story ended. Roe was finally overruled. Abortion returned to the moral and democratic consideration of the American people. And I would argue that Dobson got far more than he gave and with the highest stakes on the line.

People mocked Dobson's hope that Trump had become a kind of “baby Christian,” but it reflected his own desire to believe in the possibility of redemption and a changed life.

Journalists Pounce on Republicans for Noticing Crime

Republicans have done the unthinkable once again by noticing the senseless murder of an attractive young woman in Charlotte, N.C., and using it as an example to counter the Democratic view that crime is good and criminals are the real victims.

The post Journalists Pounce on Republicans for Noticing Crime appeared first on .

The woke party’s favorite costume: Moderation



I usually enjoy David Harsanyi’s critiques of the left. But in a recent column, he drew a distinction I can’t accept. Quoting Rahm Emanuel’s plea for Democrats to rally behind “Build, baby, build!” Harsanyi praised politicians he believes embody a centrist alternative to the party’s radicals: Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein.

Harsanyi presented these figures as the future of a Democratic Party that might rediscover moderation. He contrasted them with open socialists like New York City's Zohran Mamdani, whom he regards as the party’s worst tendencies made flesh. In his telling, Beshear, Spanberger, Shapiro, and Stein represent a kind of Democratic “loyal opposition” that conservatives should welcome.

Abigail Spanberger shows how the Democratic ‘moderate’ label works: not as a rejection of cultural radicalism but as a smoother delivery system for it.

That picture collapses under scrutiny. On social questions, the supposed moderates fall squarely in line with the party’s most zealous activists. Beshear, though personable and pragmatic on some issues, is an LGBTQ fanatic who promotes woke causes across Kentucky. Spanberger has been a reliable ally of the gender-identity movement and has now gone so far as to support biological men competing in women’s sports. Stein in North Carolina vetoed four separate bills meant to curb DEI excesses and limit radical gender programs in his state.

These aren’t minor disagreements tucked around the edges. They reveal a deeper truth: The “moderates” whom Harsanyi and Fox News commentators now flatter are not moderates at all. They dress the same ideology in calmer rhetoric. Spanberger, the supposed pragmatist, sounds indistinguishable from Tim Walz or Mamdani when she explains her social positions.

So why do some on the right elevate them? Because these Democrats don’t call themselves socialists, don’t chant slogans for Hamas, and don’t traffic in the same racial agitation as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jasmine Crockett, or Omar Fateh. But the distinction is cosmetic. On gender, DEI, and race politics, the so-called moderates embrace the same policies.

This misreading exposes a larger problem on the right. For years, the Republican establishment avoided direct confrontation on cultural issues, preferring to rally donors around national defense, Israel, or deregulation. On marriage and gender, Republicans surrendered the ground years ago. When the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, Conservatism Inc. shrugged. Now, some seem relieved to pretend “moderates” in the Democratic Party represent a saner alternative. They don’t.

And the Democrats know it. Clinton-era strategists at the Third Way think tank now tell their party to tone down the woke jargon and talk more about housing or infrastructure. But Third Way doesn’t advise abandoning cultural radicalism — only camouflaging it. The goal is simple: Keep core constituencies like college-educated white women and black urban voters while soothing independents with bread-and-butter messaging. Beshear, Stein, Spanberger, and the others know their futures depend on that balancing act.

This is where Republicans must stop indulging illusions. They will be forced to fight on this terrain whether they like it or not.

RELATED: Radical left poised to redefine America’s cities

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

In Virginia, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears — a black conservative who supports Trump’s immigration policy and holds traditional views on marriage and gender — trails Spanberger despite Spanberger’s increasingly open embrace of the left’s cultural program. In Northern Virginia’s suburbs, her positions do not hurt her. They energize her base. The clearer she becomes, the more firmly those voters rally to her side.

That is the lesson Republicans cannot ignore. Spanberger shows how the Democratic “moderate” label works: not as a rejection of cultural radicalism but as a smoother delivery system for it. Sears, to her credit, understands the stakes. She knows she cannot avoid the social questions. If she does, she loses. Her only path forward is to expose Spanberger’s record and force voters to confront it.

What’s happening in Virginia is the same fight Trump is waging nationally — against a cultural left entrenched in the administrative state, NPR, and the universities. These battles connect. They will not fade, and the right cannot win them by pretending “moderates” exist in the Democratic Party.

If Republicans cling to that illusion, they won’t just lose a governorship here or a Senate seat there. They will lose the defining fight over culture, identity, and the moral core of the nation. The Democrats’ so-called moderates are not the antidote to radicalism. They are the mask that allows it to advance.

Is Elon Musk ditching his America Party dream for a GOP power play?



Elon Musk may be reconsidering his aspirations for a third political party after concerns from conservatives that it could divert votes from the Republican Party.

A Tuesday report from the Wall Street Journal indicated that Musk is "quietly pumping the brakes" on the formation of the America Party and may instead support another Republican politician.

'Nothing @WSJ says should ever be thought of as true.'

In late June, amid Musk's falling-out with President Donald Trump over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Tesla CEO called for "an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE."

"If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day," Musk declared.

Several Republican politicians, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, warned Musk that a third party would likely act as a spoiler, ultimately benefiting the Democratic Party.

RELATED: Is Elon’s America Party really a threat to Republicans?

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

According to the WSJ's report citing anonymous sources, it appears that Musk is considering that advice. Musk has reportedly told his allies that he plans to concentrate on his businesses and does not want to alienate Republicans, particularly Vice President JD Vance, by forming a third party.

The news outlet reported that Musk and Vance have been in touch in recent weeks. Musk has allegedly stated to close allies that he would back Vance should he decide to run for president in 2028.

"Musk's allies said he hasn't formally ruled out creating a new party and could change his mind as the midterm elections near," the WSJ stated.

However, Musk reportedly canceled a July call with a group that specializes in organizing third-party campaigns, and he has not recently engaged with individuals who have expressed interest in the America Party.

RELATED: 'TRAIN WRECK': Trump blasts Elon Musk over anti-MAGA campaign, new 'moderate' party

Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Charlie Kirk responded to the WSJ's report in a post on social media.

"Elon Musk is reportedly reconsidering his bid to launch a third party and instead put his support behind Vice President JD Vance should he decide to run, per a new report from the WSJ. Will have to wait for confirmation from Elon, but this would be very positive news for the country if true," Kirk wrote.

When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Vance directed the WSJ to the vice president's recent interview with the Gateway Pundit, during which he stated he hopes Musk will "come back into the fold" during the midterm elections.

While Musk did not respond to a request for comment from the WSJ, he dismissed the outlet's reporting in a post on X.

"Nothing @WSJ says should ever be thought of as true," he wrote without elaborating further.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'There Is No Silver Lining': Democrats Lost 2.1 Million Voters Between 2020 and 2024 Elections as Republicans Gained 2.4 Million, Analysis Finds

Democrats have lost ground to Republicans in all 30 states that record party affiliation, shedding 2.1 million registered voters between the 2020 and 2024 elections while the Republican Party gained 2.4 million, according to a Wednesday report.

The post 'There Is No Silver Lining': Democrats Lost 2.1 Million Voters Between 2020 and 2024 Elections as Republicans Gained 2.4 Million, Analysis Finds appeared first on .

The brutal reality Democrats can't ignore



Following a steady streak of political failures, the Democratic Party is facing yet another disastrous reality.

Democrats have been bleeding support as they continue to propel progressive candidates to national prominence. Most recently, an analysis from the New York Times shows just how dire the situation is.

'There is no silver lining or cavalry coming across the hill.'

Between the 2020 and 2024 elections, Democratic voter registration plummeted across all 30 states that track voter registration by political affiliation, according to the analysis. Within just those four years, the shift toward Republicans adds up to about 4.5 million voters.

Across the board, Americans are fleeing the Democratic Party.

RELATED: Karoline Leavitt brutally torches New York Times reporter: 'With all due respect'

Photo by LOGAN CYRUS/AFP via Getty Images

For the first time since 2018, more new voters across the country opted to register as Republicans rather than Democrats, according to the analysis. In total, Democrats hemorrhaged about 2.1 million registered voters from 2020 to 2024 across the 30 states that track registration by party. At the same time, Republicans gained 2.4 million new registered voters.

This trend has been apparent not just in swing states, but also in deeply partisan ones.

In all four battleground states in the analysis, including Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, the share of Democratic voters sharply declined. On Election Day, Democrats went from nearly an 11-point advantage over Republicans in 2020 to just a six-point edge in 2024 with respect to party registration, according to the analysis.

RELATED: Defeated Democrat senator attempts a long-shot political comeback: 'Voters will reject him again'

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

"I don't want to say, 'The death cycle of the Democratic Party,' but there seems to be no end to this,” Michael Pruser, an analyst for Decision Desk HQ, told the New York Times. "There is no silver lining or cavalry coming across the hill. This is month after month, year after year."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Emotional Teenage Girl James Comey Speaks In Taylor Swift Lyrics In Unhinged Anti-Trump Screed

From here on, pay no attention to Comey, unless he says something of substance (he won't) and backs it up with authenticated documents.