In his monthly column for The Washington Post, Peter Beinart of The New Republic argues that Sarah Palin has demonstrated that the appeal of social conservatism is flagging: "Palin's brand is culture war, and in America today culture war no longer sells. The struggle that began in the 1960s -- which put questions of racial, sexual and religious identity at the forefront of American politics -- may be ending. Palin is the end of the line."

As for Palin, Ramesh Ponnuru very effectively rebuts this on The Corner. As for liberals, why are they so eager to declare victory?

Liberals were much want an end to "culture wars," but that in no way means that the forces for "progress" in our culture are laying down their arms. It just means that conservatives are being told that they’ve been defeated, and should surrender.

Let’s limit the definition of "culture wars" just to the increasingly sex-drenched and blood-soaked content of pop culture. What’s odd about Beinart’s thesis is that he could have argued that we haven’t seen a culture "warrior" on a national ticket of his description since Dan Quayle, and the titans of Tinseltown would sneer that it hardly paved a bright political future for him.

Hard-core Democrats always snarl at the idea of manipulative Karl Rovian politics, but they ignore how part of that strategy was to leave Hollywood alone and uncriticized in the last two presidential campaigns. Rove clearly felt that to agitate a major Democratic source of fundraising was a losing strategy. The Republican Party hasn’t been running on what liberals love to call "culture wars," running against how people feel the country’s going in the wrong direction under the 24-hour distribution and redistribution of Hollywood smut and sensationalism. Instead, when it comes to the content of our pop culture, they’ve been running on cultural indifference, or even cultural surrender.

You could easily draw a cartoon with the South Park characters on an aircraft carrier with the words "Mission Accomplished" behind them.

Since Justin Timberlake ripped the clothing off Janet Jackson’s breast in the strip-show ending of the Super Bowl halftime show in 2004, the Federal Communications Commission has taken a more activist turn, attempting to assess fines for televised nudity and profanity. But there didn’t seem to be a single bucket of Timberlake in the 2004 Bush presidential campaign. Despite (or perhaps because of) McCain’s tenure leading the Senate Commerce Committee, he displayed zero enthusiasm to serve as a scold of the pop-culture assembly line.

Democrats have traditionally relied on celebrities to add glamour to their political appeal, although Obama has hardly needed a glamour infusion. He was the glamour-puss of his own convention in 2008. But in 1996, Bill Clinton’s most dramatic convention speaker was paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve, who came to Chicago to announce that "family values" did not mean trying to create a safe space for our children to grow with some fraction of innocence, without the poisons of adult lust and violence being pushed into their brains through TV and radio and video games. Reeve declared it was defined narrowly as empathy and inclusion: "I think it means that we're all family. And that we all have value." It was a perfect Kumbaya summary of the Clinton years, laying a vague claim to public morality in speechmaking, but not as a behavioral reality in the White House.

As Barack Obama closed out the campaign by aligning himself with Bill Clinton, a candidate beckoning a the return of the golden 1990s, that clearly means that Washington will a great friend of Hollywood and the entire "entertainment community." Speaking for Obama a few months ago, former Clinton FCC chairman Bill Kennard sounded like a typical Hollywood lobbyist in decrying the ancient regime of decency enforcement, and suggesting that alleged techno-fixes like the V-chip make government action (or even political discussion) on indecency unnecessary. After a few barks from federal regulators in the second Bush term, an Obama election means that American airwaves are again safe for profanity, safe for nudity, safe for the vilest, bloodiest gore in prime time.

Does that mean that a "culture war" is over? Or does it simply mean that conservatives should stop fighting one?

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.