Category Archives: Politics

Getting it Right

I cringe every time some pundit refers to “morals-based” voters as Christian fundamentalists. Or refer to the entire “Christian right” as fundamentalists. I’m not a fundamentalist. I don’t get along well with their legalism and black-and-white view of the world. I’m an evangelical, and I do not–repeat, do NOT–want to get lumped in with the Jerry Falwells of the world.

I now must thank the New York Times, the most unlikeliest of sources, for clearing up the confusion. A January 9 article by Laurie Goodstein said, “After the American presidential election in November, some liberal commentators warned that the nation was on the verge of a takeover by Christian ‘fundamentalists.’ But in the United States today, most of the Protestants who make up what some call the Christian right are not fundamentalists, who are more prone to create separatist enclaves, but evangelicals, who engage the culture and share their faith….For example, at the fundamentalist Bob Jones University, in Greenville, S.C., students are not allowed to listen to contemporary music of any kind, even Christian rock or rap. But at Wheaton College in Illinois, a leading evangelical school, contemporary Christian music is regular fare for many students.”

Yes! That’s it! And who would have thunk the New York Times would get it right on religion!

The article notes that “while it is clear that religiosity is on the rise, it is not at all clear that fundamentalism is. Indeed, there may be a rising backlash against violent fundamentalism of any faith….The word ‘fundamentalist’ itself has fallen out of favor among conservative Christians in the United States, not least because it has come to be associated with extremism and violence overseas.” The article notes that fundamentalism was already on the decline inthe 1960s when it was superceded by Billy-Graham style evangelicalism.

Way to be, Gray Lady!

Share Button
Comments Off on Getting it Right

Unintended Consequences

The US is funding a fleet of planes in Columbia that spray cocaine plants. The thing is, it kinda works against us. A few mutant plants aren’t killed. The farmers make cuttings from those plants and distribute them, resulting in whole fields of cocaine plants resistant to spraying. Since the spraying kills all other plants too, the result is that our planes actually do the weeding for the farmers, eliminating other plants competing for soil nutrients. We enable the cocaine plants to grow stronger.

Not only that, but the spraying often ends up killing legitimate crops. So, to earn a living, farmers turn to the only crop that is resistant to spraying–the “Roundup Ready” cocaine.

It just shows that problems aren’t always as easy to solve as we think.

I just finished a little Newsweek article about John Kerry urging Democrats to moderate their pro-abortion views. Hardly anybody agrees with partial-birth abortion; most people view it as an extreme and unreasonable procedure. If the Democrats had come out against partial-birth abortion, more undecided voters might have swung their way. But the Planned Parenthood hardliners won’t allow that, citing Slippery Slope arguments: if they give in on this admittedly extreme position, they’ll next be asked to compromise on something less extreme, and then something else–until, eventually, abortion is outlawed altogether. It’s the same reason the National Rifle Association adamantly defends the right of hunters to bear bazookas. And so, apparently, the pro-abortion hard-liners, in a most unpragmatic fashion, would seemingly rather lose an election than moderate their agenda.

But people on the right can be just as unpragmatic. I think it was Charles Colson that I heard speak about this some years ago. He said that during the 1980s, Congress could have passed legislation banning abortion in many cases. However, the legislation was deemed soft, compromising, by Religious Right hardliners who insisted on banning all abortions. They took an “all or nothing” position–and got nothing. Colson said (I’m making up numbers, because I don’t know the real ones), “If there are now two million abortions a year, and we could have prevented one million of them–wouldn’t that have been a good thing? But by refusing to take what we could get, at that time, we effectively gave our permission for a million more babies to be aborted each year.”

But, had pro-life legislators backed such partial measures, they would have reaped the wrath of the all-or-nothing crowd, their key supporters, and possibly been committing political suicide. Interesting, the choices politicians must make.

Share Button
Comments Off on Unintended Consequences

Who Speaks for Me?

As I predicted, big-name religious leaders are emerging, trying to become spokespersons for the persons who voted on the basis of moral values. Dobson, Falwell, Jim Wallis, and others are out there trying to speak for me. But they don’t speak for ME.

If anyone represents me, it would be persons like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels, and I hope they just stay off the airwaves.

The morals-based voters came as a surprise to nearly everyone. Nobody really tried to organize them in advance–they just showed up on their own. They were leaderless, but motivated. I think these voters will just be turned off by the religious opportunists seeking to become spokespersons for the morals-based voters. I know it turns me off.

There will undoubtedly be much attention on this audience in the 2008 election. And I’m sure, as with every election, people will tout this as “the most important election of our lifetime.” But will the conservative evangelicals turn out again? Who knows.

Share Button
Comments Off on Who Speaks for Me?

The Widening Money Gap

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.

Share Button
Comments Off on The Widening Money Gap

Election Day Plus Six

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.

Share Button
Comments Off on Election Day Plus Six

Four More Years — And Not Even Close

I stayed up until NBC called Ohio for Bush. I think that was around 2:30, though it’s a bit fuzzy. I really didn’t expect Bush to win so easily. Most of the commentators agreed that “values” was the crucial issue, the thing that either swung people to Bush or kept them in his fold. I was glad to hear that. Values was certainly the deal-breaker with me.

Tom Brokaw mentioned twice–once in the early morning hours, then again on the Imus program this morning–that he had talked to a number of evangelical Christians who felt they were mocked by the Democratic party. But you just wait–in 2008, the Democrats will trot out the Hollywood celebs again, and Michael Moore will make another film, and Sean Penn and Ashton Kutcher and friends will become Democratic spokespersons. They just can’t help themselves. They get a lot of money from celebrities, and celebs love the spotlight. And it just turns off more people than they realize–certainly the people who vote on the basis of values.

I thought Republicans might gain a seat or two in the Senate, but they did better than that. And to unseat Tom Daschle? Wow. But I guess we are talking here about the Dakotas (North or South? I can’t remember. Seems like South.), which are not exactly bastions of liberalism. Whether or not Bush uses his majorities in the House and Senate to do something meaningful, like in health care–that’s the question. He has had majorities for the past two years, but hasn’t capitalized on them. I’m sure he’ll want to give the rich some more tax cuts and loopholes.

Now the stage is set for Hillary to run in 2008. Does anybody doubt that she will? I don’t think she stands a chance, but hey–give it a shot, lady.

John Edwards is now off of the political stage. He ran for President WAY too early. If he had spent at least a full term in the Senate, preferably two, and built a legislative resume and developed a network, and THEN run maybe in 2008–he would have been very formidable. But he wanted it NOW, he gave up his Senate seat, and now it’s back to the courtroom for the trial lawyer. He’s extremely talented. But he got impatient, and now he’s gone. It’s been nice knowing you, John.

Share Button
Comments Off on Four More Years — And Not Even Close

What are Moral Values?

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.

Share Button
Comments Off on What are Moral Values?

Election Day

Just finished voting. It was the busiest we’ve seen the voting place, though Pam says we normally get there earlier. In that particular place, I’m sure–Aboite–most of the people were voting Republican. Not that it matters. Indiana always goes Republican. It must be nice living in a state that is “in play.” Or maybe not. We’re largely spared all of the political ads, and the really nasty ones don’t show up in Indiana. We have to hear about them on the news.

We do see a few national ads, but I suspect they are more for the benefit of people in Ohio who see the Fort Wayne TV stations. Ohio’s the hot spot this year. I’ll bet things get real nasty later in the day. I’m glad two courts ruled that Republicans couldn’t have people in the polling places, able to challenge the credentials of voters. That wouldn’t be cool. And yet, it sounds like there was some shady stuff in registering Democrats.

There were three referendum items (changes to the state Constitution). I didn’t really read them. I just marked yes. I figured they must be good things. I wonder if anyone took that (admittedly shallow) attitude regarding the three referendum items the United Brethren church voted on during October? Hmmm.

Share Button
Comments Off on Election Day

Bush, but With Reservations

The election is tomorrow. Most people I talk to think Bush will squeak by. I don’t have a clue. The polls go back and forth, with several new ones (seemingly) every day. All I know is that somebody’s going to win, and I, with a serious lack of enthusiasm, hope it’s George Bush. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Kerry wins. My gut tells me Kerry will win, but that’s not exactly a scientific evaluation.

I do think Kerry could help our standing in the world‚Äîbecause I think ANYBODY would help it. As long as Bush is President, the world will be polarized against us. That’s the nature of his Presidency, acting as though it doesn’t matter what anybody else thinks. I’m not of that mind. Some people argue, “Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? We don’t need them.” To me, that’s a pretty ignorant attitude. It’s in our best interests–our security interests, and our economic interests–to have friends in the world.

I also think the poor would be better served by Kerry‚Äîbecause I think ANY Democrat will probably be more attuned to the lower classes of society (even if only for purely political, rather than altruistic, reasons). Republican administrations look out for the interests of the wealthy. If the minimum wage is to be raised, or social services extended for the poor, I wouldn’t put any hopes in Republicans doing it. I say that as a life-long Republican. I think the Republican Party’s greatest weakness is its lame social conscience when it comes to the poor–because those people are GREATLY on God’s mind, and they should matter to us.

This is a big issue to me, because I’m convinced that God’s blessing on a country has a lot to do with how that country treats the poor. Throughout Scripture, God is concerned about the poor. I think God is pleased when he sees a government that looks out for the poor and helps raise them up, whether they’re doing it for religious reasons or not.

The Bush administration, much more than most administrations, seems to be in the “bag” of Big Business and the wealthy. And nobody really disputes that. That greatly saddens me. Which is why I’m voting for Bush with great reluctance.

I think Bush is genuine about his faith. I just think his clear preference for the wants of the rich, at the expense of the needs of the poor and working class, is a blindspot in his theology. We all have blindspots. But for the US President, this is a blindspot with serious consequences. By turning his eyes from the poor, Bush may prompt God to withhold blessing from us as a country.

Kerry’s Presidency would be a purely secular Presidency. His words about faith ring totally hollow, almost to a comical extent. For several weeks now, he’s been speaking in churches. The pulpit is not the place to be denouncing those in leadership. The Bible tells us to respect and pray for the persons he has allowed to be in leadership. It’s okay to criticize those in leadership. Just don’t do it in the pulpit during a worship service. Those pastors who allow Kerry to come speak‚Äîthey should know better. But Kerry doesn’t know better. I doubt that he’s even aware of the Bible verses he’s violating.

And while I sympathize with the Democrats when it comes to economic policies affecting the lower classes, that’s just about the only social policy where I agree with them. On most others, the Democrats, I’m afraid, would like to take us down some immoral paths. So I’m voting for Bush, despite my problems with him.

Share Button
Comments Off on Bush, but With Reservations

Thoughts on Bush

One week to go before the presidential election. I’m voting for Bush, but reluctantly. He’s had some good moments, particularly right after 9/11, but overall I don’t think he’s been a good president. But I’ll take him over Kerry. My preference would be to have a different Republican running for President.

Bush’s foreign policy, an America-First, America-Only type of thing, has turned much of the world against us. It just wasn’t necessary. We’ve got to remove arrogance from our foreign policy. As long as Bush is president, the rest of the world will hate us, and that’s not in our security or economic interests. ANY different president, whether Republican or Democrat, would help us in that regard. But I don’t want it to be Kerry.

I’m disturbed by the Bush administration’s clear advocacy for the rich, whether it’s tax cuts that especially benefit the wealthy (and nobody’s arguing that that’s not really the case) or loopholes and regulations that benefit big corporations. A good share of the problems rest in Congress, I realize (a Republican Congress), but Bush doesn’t seem to be even trying to stop it.

The tax cuts–I never really saw the point, and once we found ourselves in war, the continued cuts seemed ridiculous. Especially when we’re running up huge deficits. No President has ever cut taxes during a time of war. But Bush is. Makes no sense to me.

I was never comfortable with going into Iraq. It seemed like we were rushing it (and in hindsight, we obviously did). Why, I wondered back then, in the spring of 2003, couldn’t we wait six months or a year? Saddam was being contained; he was no immediate threat. But Bush was extremely anxious to get into Iraq. There is a big part of me which says, by rushing us into a war without really thinking things through, Bush broke the trust of the American people and deserves to be defeated. But another part of me is still going to vote for him. But I don’t view him as a Commander in Chief in whom I place confidence.

Now, I can’t voice these sentiments around most of my friends or coworkers. In so many people’s eyes, Bush can do no wrong.

There are other issues on which I break with the traditional Republican agenda.

  • I wish Republicans cared more for the environment. I’m far from being a tree-hugger, but I do think God made us stewards of his world, and we have some responsibility.
  • I think hard-core anti-crime Republicans have done great harm to the justice system with all of the “three strikes” laws and other mandatory sentencing guidelines. The result has been a lot of injustice, with people getting sent to prison for things they shouldn’t be sent to prison over.
  • I think Republicans are highly unreasonable when it comes to gun control. Some restrictions are good and reasonable.

Those are a few things. Like I said, I’m voting for Bush, but with great reluctance. Kerry really troubles me in many ways. His would be a totally secular presidency. And while I do think he would help us on the world stage, in most other areas–particularly domestic policy–I don’t like what I foresee.

Okay, that’s enough to get me in deep doo-doo with most of my Republican friends.

Share Button
Comments Off on Thoughts on Bush

Page 33 of 33...10202930313233

Receive Posts by Email

If you subscribe to my Feedburner feed, you'll automatically receive new posts by email. Very convenient.

Categories

Facebook

Monthly Archives