Although I voted for George Bush, my main complaint about him is his clear preference for the “needs” of the rich. This is not only a complaint about him, but about the Republican Party in general (of which I’m a part). We claim to be the party of moral values, and yet when it comes to social justice and looking out for the poor–a group that that Bible continually tells us to look out for–we fall flat. We Republicans are good in a lot of areas when it comes to values, but not in this one. At least not when it comes to national policy (because at the local level, Christians who are also Republicans do much to help the poor).

BusinessWeek’s November 1 issue contained a column by Laura D’Andrea Tyson which discussed the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. She points out that in the 1990s, most of the growth in income and wealthy was concentrated among the top 10% of households, who now account for 44% of total household income in the US, compared to 33% in 1980.

“Income and wealth are more unevenly distributed among Americans than at any time since the Jazz Age of the 1920s. On measures of income and wealth inequality, the US tops the charts among the advanced industrial nations. Yet rather than fashion economic policy to ameliorate the trends of growing income and wealth inequality, President Bush has championed policies that have exacerbated them.”

She notes that the Bush tax cuts “have boosted the after-tax incomes of the top 1% of households, with average incomes in excess of $1 million, by 10%–compared with a 2.3% increase for middle-income families with average incomes of $57,000, and a 1.6% increase for the bottom 20% of families, with average incomes of less than $17,000. The tax cuts for millionaires alone have reduced government revenues by $90 billion a year….”

“As an intended consequence of the Bush tax cuts, the share of federal taxes paid by the bottom 80% of taxpayers has increased, while the share paid by the top 1% has dropped.” And if Bush succeeds in making his tax cuts permanent, “he will have chosen tax relief for the rich over strengthening the Social Security system, on which low-income workers, disabled workers, widows, and surviving children depend to avoid poverty.”

Notice the groups she mentioned–the same groups that Jesus admonished people to look out for: the poor, the infirm, widows, orphans. I look forward to the day when a national Republican politician actively champions the needs of the same poeple for whom Jesus was a champion. I really don’t want to side with the Democrats on this one.

The special Newsweek edition, which gives an in-depth “behind the scenes” look at the two presidential campaigns, is fascinating. It shows the various incompetencies of the Kerry campaign. It’s not very nice to Teresa, either. Clearly, from the article, the Republican campaign really had its act together. George Bush stumbled a variety of times, particularly in the debates, but he stayed on message, and his highly-organized campaign (credit to Karl Rove) could always pick up the pieces. Plus, the Kerry campaign just didn’t capitalize on some of Bush’s mistakes.

I was sure there would be terrorist incidents, somewhere, on election day. But nothing happened. Praise the Lord!

I’m also pleased that the Democrats didn’t unleash their accumulated lawyers to try to get the results changed. I’m sure they could have at least drawn things out for a while. But Kerry pulled the plug the next morning, and I salute him for doing so. It saved the country a lot of turmoil and divisiveness.

It has been amusing listening to pundits talk about moral values, trying to explain why evangelical Christians voted the way they did. They really don’t understand.

The news shows have been talking a lot about the fact that “moral values” ranked at the top of the reasons why people voted for George Bush. This could lead into a discussion of, “What exactly are moral values?” Because some liberals will argue that they voted against George Bush on the basis of their “moral values,” and they will try to add moral significance to liberal stands. It’s not so difficult to impart morality to environmental concerns, anti-war views, and civil rights concerns. But I can foresee some liberals trying to make a moral view out of a woman’s right to choose abortion, a gay couple’s right to marry and thereby proclaim lifetime fidelity to each other, tolerance for alternative lifestyles, the search for cures for disease through stem-cell research, and other issues.

When you have opposing definitions of “morality,” you must then head into a discussion of moral absolutes. Because if one side claims abortion is wrong and another claims it’s okay, and both craft their views in terms of morality–then something has to give. You must ask, “Is there a moral absolute at play here, which would then veto one or the other view?” And it’s hard to find a basis for moral absolutes apart from the Bible.

So, it might get interesting. It might also get ludicrous, as you have secular (non-religious) commentators debating the meaning of morality and trying to explain why people voted as they did. I caught a glimpse of that last night on one of the channels: some guy was talking about moral values, but it was clear that he didn’t understand it the same way people in the fly-over, red states understand it–people with deep Christian convictions.