Glenn Reynolds: there's no difference between the GOP of 2009 and 1981.

You really need to read this whole thing:

SO I HEARD SOME GUY ON THE RADIO saying that the Republicans have changed from the Reagan era — now they’re a bunch of social conservatives. But back during the Reagan era, I remember hearing that the Republicans were . . . a bunch of social conservatives. And back then they were pushing the abortion-banning Human Life Amendment — hard — along with a statutory end-run (the Human Life Bill) that simply declared life began at conception. Also school prayer and all sorts of stuff. I’m not actually hearing much along these lines from today’s Republicans, for whom tepid efforts at limiting late-term abortions are a big deal — but who are nonetheless stone-age troglodytes on social issues because they’ve got the same position as Barack Obama on gay marriage — and I’m wondering where this big shift to the right really is. It’s certainly true, of course, that the GOP wasn’t much good on small government under Bush, though they’re looking better in retrospect as Obama spends and spends. But on social issues I’m not seeing it — is this a real shift, or an imaginary one?

How about Terri Schiavo?

How about running in 2004 on a Constitutional Amendment (not the same position as Barack Obama) banning gay marriage?

How about, in addition to opposing gay marriage, opposing civil unions (also not the same position as Barack Obama)?

How about abstinence-only education?

How about teaching intelligent design in public schools?

How about "The War on Christmas"?

How about the annual "Ten Commandments must be in our City Hall" battle?

How about Harriet Miers, the Dobson-approved SCOTUS nominee?

Now the premise here might be faulty -- the rightward lurch of the GOP is a lot more remarkable in other areas such as taxes and foreign policy -- but the notion that somehow the fundies did not have more influence over the party in 2004 than they did in 1981 is on its face ridiculous.