The surge of religion into the race for the Republican presidential nomination, seen in Mike Huckabee's ordination and openly faith-driven policy and in Mitt Romney's speech defending his Mormon faith while promising that no church authority would influence his decisions, should not be mistaken for American revival. Both candidates have records that fall short of conservative convictions. Romney reversed himself on several issues and hired undocumented workers, and Huckabee governed as a tax-and-spend moderate who was soft on illegal immigration, though he talks about Jesus often. The church is apolitical: it endorses no candidates or parties and does not lobby government. Yet it comments on politics biblically, because political trends eventually produce societal change, and it is called to be society's watchman who warns of coming destruction (Ezekiel 33:1-11). Caution is warranted because the decades-long drift toward secularism has not been reversed. Candidates seeking the world's most powerful office will say or do almost anything to be electable, and they need the Religious Right's votes. Using religion to gain temporal power is an old ploy, not far removed from the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned (Matthew 23). Religion and politics rarely mix well, since each corrupts the other with delusions of power. When the righteous rule the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule they groan (Proverbs 29:2). A religious person, however, is not necessarily a righteous one, and Americans must learn to discern the difference.

According to both American political parties, the recent campaign and election were deemed the most critical in our nation's history, defining American politics for the next generation. The media portrayed it with extreme exaggeration, likening its importance to monumental historical events, largely to galvanize specific voter segments and boost ratings through heightened rhetoric. Many partisans on both sides genuinely believed this election was pivotal, warning of dire consequences if the opposing candidate won. For these true believers, politics is not merely an interest but a religion, where they worship at the altar of government, dedicating time, money, and effort to honor their party and state. Each side reveres its own historical figures and party leaders, uses selected writings for inspiration or condemnation, and showcases their zeal and righteousness through patriotic displays and legislative actions. They even collect contributions from the public to fund their causes. Americans are deeply divided into Reds or Blues, residing in corresponding states, avidly following political news, and participating in record numbers, with about 116 million voting this year. Many displayed their political choices through signs, stickers, and buttons, contributed financially to campaigns, volunteered time for various election activities, and paid significant sums for brief encounters with political figures. For numerous Americans who devoted extensive time over the past year to the election or defeat of a candidate, politics has become their god, shaping their way of life.

Every few presidential administrations, America experiences a liberal Chief Executive who promises to change the nation, restore her reputation globally, and aid the poor and downtrodden, often sparking initial public euphoria and high hopes. However, crises frequently reveal that such leaders lack understanding of basic capitalism and the resolve for international challenges. The election of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth President raises concerns of repeating this pattern, given his liberal stance and policies that suggest redistributionist economics, which historically led to insolvency in other nations. Internationally, Obama's intention to meet with anti-American leaders without preconditions implies a position of weakness, potentially undermining America's leverage in negotiations. Comparing past administrations, Bill Clinton initially pushed liberal agendas but shifted to a center-left approach after failures like Hillarycare, while achieving little in foreign policy and failing to enhance America's global standing. Jimmy Carter, governing as a leftist, oversaw economic recession, high interest rates, and expanded federal bureaucracy, with foreign policy marked by the Iranian hostage crisis and defense budget cuts. Obama's rhetoric suggests a similarity to Carter's approach, and with a Democratic majority in Congress, he could push the country further left, potentially leading to challenging years ahead for conservatives.

The mainstream media portrays the 2006 midterm elections as a historical event of monumental significance, suggesting it heralds sweeping change for America, a solution to the Iraq quagmire, and renewed global affection for the United States. However, such claims are overstated. There is a notable difference between the political parties, with Democrats spanning from the far-left to the center and Republicans from the far-right to the center, each encompassing a wide range of ideologies within their large tents. The Democrat base focuses on minority rights, entitlements, increasing taxes, multiculturalism, and cutting military spending, while the Republican base advocates for a strong military, reduced federal spending, smaller government, tax cuts, privatization of Social Security and health care, and a robust foreign policy. These core issues surface in nearly every election. Despite these differences, electoral success, especially in national elections, often hinges on appealing to the moderate center rather than strictly adhering to party base principles. This strategy has proven effective for winning Presidential candidates since 1988. In the 2006 midterms, had the Republicans retained control of both the House and the Senate, little would have changed. The election saw an exchange of moderates, with only a slight shift in party representation, resulting in a few more Democrats than Republicans. Some speculate that Democrats ran more conservative candidates to win, potentially making Congress more conservative overall, though the liberal Congressional leadership will likely push legislation reflecting their ideology. Ultimately, the American people voted for a status quo with a liberal tilt, compared to the previous conservative lean, and gridlock is expected in Washington under a narrow Democratic majority and a lame duck President George W. Bush. The 2008 Presidential election will more clearly define America's direction, with the winning candidate likely running as a moderate, promising a centrist approach.