In this post, a tying together of my first post (which referenced "moral values") and my second post (about the magazines I read). I was catching up on my magazine reading of The Economist's November 13-19 issue. Right near the front there was an article that confirmed for me that I was right in subscribing to this magazine. (For those who are not familiar with The Economist, it is a news magazine published in England but with mostly American readers. It covers world news. Despite the title, there are a lot of non-business stories. The magazine is generally considered libertarian. This is one of the magazines to which Bert Patenaude, my Post 9/11 professor, encouraged me to subscribe.) The article, The triumph of the religious right again refutes the notion that this last election was really about "moral values," however one defines it. It turns out that in 2000, 35% of people listed moral or ethical issues as the top issue. And in 1996, the year that Clinton won, 40% did so. (This compares to 22% who listed it as the most important issue this time.) The significant decline in the number of people who listed this as their number one issue was likely a result of more big choices--terrorism, the Iraq war, and a stumbling (though admittedly improving) economy. Regardless, though, it is hard to see how the media could spin this issue as a new phenomenon when in fact it was a signicant decline. Furthermore, the story that Karl Rove did an amazing job turing out evangelicals simply is not accurate. In 2004, 23% of the electorate said they were evangelical. In 2000, 23% said they were evangelical. The percentage remained constant, while the absolute number went up (since more people in general turned out). Now, while it feels good to see these stories that the media trumpeted torn apart with facts, what makes the subscription worth it is this passage:

In all the religious groups substantial majorities agree that the disadvantaged need government help “to obtain their rightful place in America”. All favour increasing anti-poverty programmes, even if it means higher taxes. All support stricter environmental regulation. Large majorities say that America should give a high priority to fighting HIV/AIDS abroad. Religious conservatives have been among the strongest backers of intervening in Sudan and increasing AIDS spending in poor countries. If the Bush administration wanted to, it could find plenty of religious support for increased welfare programmes, tougher environmental standards and more foreign aid. The differences between the religious groups are equally striking. The Protestant traditionalists favour less government spending. But all the Catholics—traditionalist, mainline and modernist alike—favour more.

This passage tempers one of the things that had made me angry--the notion that so many people who said they supported "moral values" were hypocrites because they really only cared about a small set of moral values. I have more respect for these people now, and I should not have been so quick to judge based on a personal bias. (There is the line at the end about the Protestant traditionalists, but there really aren't enough details for me to draw any conclusions.) I still can be angry at the hypocrisy of the Bush administration itself, though. Bush has a "mandate" to support an anti-gay agenda. Why isn't he using the same mandate he apparently achieved to support welfare and the environment? Why isn't he getting involved in the genocide in Sudan? If anything, I am even more angry at the administration than I was before this article.