WHY AREN’T
CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS LIKE THIS?
By Jim
Jordal
Behold, here I am: witness against me before
the LORD, and before his anointed: whose ox have I taken? or whose ass have I
taken? or whom have I defrauded? whom have I oppressed? or of whose hand have I
received any bribe to blind mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it
you. And they said, Thou hast not defrauded us, nor oppressed us, neither
hast thou taken ought of any man's hand. First Samuel 12:3-4 WEB (the
prophet Samuel speaks at King Saul’s coronation)
According to
Prof. J. Rufus Fears (whom I quote from time to time) the two biblical books of
Samuel are among the first efforts of humans to develop history, not as a
litany of facts and continuous funeral services for the honored dead, but as an
attempt to understand the motivations of leaders as they make sometimes
horrendous decisions, and how these driving forces can better be understood so
as to prevent similar mistakes later.
As Saul
began his kingship, Samuel reminded the people of what he had earlier predicted
when they demanded a king so they could be ruler like other nations. He said
this king would imperiously seize their possessions, dominate their lives, and
do whatever he pleased with the national resources, including people. Evidently
Samuel, who had ruled as a judge directly under the law of God, wanted as he
retired to reinforce his innocence from any acts of fraud, falsehood,
oppression, or bribery; things the new king would soon undertake with zest and considerable
proficiency.
What do you
suppose would happen if political candidates today bared their lives to open
public scrutiny? One thing for sure is that public servants and pretenders
would be much more careful what they did, both in and out of office.
Historical
experience shows a distinct connection between private immorality and public
malfeasance. Honesty in a personal life tends toward the same in public life.
Yes, there are sometimes exceptions, but in general the principle stands. Look
back at the scores of venial kings sitting upon thrones of Europe. Their
private sins were exceeded only by their public acts of malfeasance and
oppression. The public is never safe from such leadership because the people
always pay for the sins of their leaders, whether in blood or in gold.
Considering
the way candidates speak of carpet bombing ISIS or escalating the war in
Afghanistan and Iraq, one would wonder whatever happened to common sense. Our
assumption that the Middle East wants freedom American-style is open to serious
question. On the few times Middle Eastern countries have been offered freedom
as the empires of their dominators fall apart, they generally slide back into
autocracy, usually under leaders taken from clerical ranks, thereby removing
any possibility of a separation of church from power. The Middle East does not
want freedom; what it wants is stability and order under fairly benevolent
autocrats.
Similarly, we learned nothing from the horrors
of Viet Nam, a debacle costing over 50,000 American lives plus unknown Asian
lives and vast property damage, broken societies, and corruption that lingers
some 40 years later. All this because of leaders so anxious to fight that they
accepted the manufactured Tonkin Gulf incident as an excuse for war. So a
manufactured crisis got us into Viet Nam and another (Saddam’s supposed weapons
of mass destruction) got us into Iraq so what can we expect from our leaders
but more war.
If political
candidates and the general electorate would only consider seriously that the
people pay for the sins and mistakes of their leaders, things might be somewhat
different on the campaign trail. But resorting to military action is bandied
about almost as if it had no cost.
As you
decide which candidates to vote for, consider some of these things. If you
can’t make a choice, take the matter up with God, since he’s the only one who
understands the deepest levels of the human heart and mind.
|