Leadership
What the Presidential Tickets Tell Us About America
Tonight, the first woman in American history to represent her party for president of the United States–Hillary Rodham Clinton–will make her acceptance speech before the Democratic National Convention.
Last week, the Republicans nominated the first non-politician/non military person–businessman Donald Trump–to head a presidential ticket. Trump chose Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate and Hillary Clinton selected Virginia senator (and former governor) Tim Kaine as her VP.
The presidential tickets are now set and in fourteen weeks, we with choose our 45th chief executive.
What do this year’s choices tell us about America?
We need to be constantly reminded that we live in a brief corridor of history where people pick their leaders. Abraham Lincoln called it “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
In other words, we are the government. We vote for our leaders, they represent us in enacting and enforcing our laws, and those laws are meant to benefit the people. That formula–“people power”–is what made America (among other things) a very exceptional nation.
It was not always so.
On a recent trip to Asia, I read a book called The Story of the World, Part I by Susan Wise Bauer. It gives a fascinating portrayal of the broad strokes of history–from the beginning of time to the end of the Roman Empire (Part II covers the Middle Ages to the present).
If any one thing characterized life during the past seven thousand years, it was this:
Despots. Tyrants. All powerful kings.
The Bible mentions Nimrod and Babel. Then came Sargon in Sumeria, the Pharoahs in Egypt, and numerous Babylonian and Assyrian dictators. For a brief time, Greece and Rome returned some power to the people in their early city-states, but eventually they fell to the likes of Alexander the Great and numerous Caesars.
In other parts of the world it was the same story. Whether India, China, or the ancient New World, warrior chiefs or strong men rose to the top of their tribes and ruled their societies. As I read chapter after chapter of The Story of the World, it struck me that most people in history lived in daily fear of being wiped out by the nearest tribe, chieftain, emperor or strong man and lived their lives doing what the dictator told them to do.
Elections and freedom didn’t exist.
Until America.
Of course, hundreds of years of the development of Christian civilization in Europe paved the way. As European people came to Christ and began reading and applying the Bible to everyday life, human rights rose in people’s hearts and rulers began to be replaced by laws.
For 6500 years it was Rex rex–the King is king (you do what he says). But, over the past five hundred years, humankind took a giant leap.
Lex rex. The Law is king (Do what the people want).
America was the world’s first biblically-oriented society that put that truth into governmental form.
This Sunday night, I encourage you to watch Bill O’Reilly’s Legends and Lies docu-drama on the Fox News Network. For the past two months it’s been the most watched weekend program in the nation. It chronicles the truths and myths behind the American Revolution. This week it will focus on America’s first president, General George Washington.
For those of us who’ve enjoyed free elections for the past 230 years, it’s hard to believe that many early American colonists wanted to make George Washington the first king of the colonies. Why? Because kings were all they’d ever known (throughout history). And kings were often tyrants–just like King George of England.
Human beings had always been dominated by strong men.
America exceptionally led the world into freedom by rejecting power at the top and giving it to a “moral and religious people” (John Adam’s words) who would govern themselves through laws made and enforced by their representatives.
“Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
That was the essence of the American Revolution. It was an idea that changed the world.
In the 6500 years of “dictator” history, kings did not always reflect their subjects. Good societies could be led by evil tyrants or vice versa. Occasionally in history God used good leaders to bring renewal to the people (David, Hezekiah and Josiah et al). Other times, bad rulers were a sign of judgment to a back-slidden nation (e.g. Manasseh, Nebuchanezzar).
In modern free societies who elect their leaders, there’s a clearer correlation between magistrates and people. Good people (moral and religious) generally vote for righteous leaders. Bad societies (immoral and selfish) usually vote for narcissists like themselves.
Thus, leaders of free voting nations are “mirrors of the people.”
So, what do the two presidential tickets tell us about the American people in 2016?
1. A majority of Americans (or an influential minority of those who vote) are atheists or secularists. This is the first election in post-Christian America. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton (despite what they say) are anchored to biblical truth. Trump is a populist bully and Clinton is a corrupt, career politician. One’s a bellicose outsider and the other is a sleazy insider. The majorities of both parties voted for these man-centered politicians–telling you much about themselves.
2. A good portion of the American electorate is angry–not a great virtue. Trump supporters want strength and less government. Their strongest moral value is work ethic = I can do it myself. This is Trump’s message and that of his impressive children. It’s not “I can do all things through Christ” (Ephesians 4:13) but rather “I can get it done if I work hard enough.”
Clinton supporters are just as self-oriented, but from the opposite tack. They want America to be weak in the world and receive as many entitlements as they can get (free health care, college tuition, etc.–hey, why don’t we throw in free cars and mortgages?). Bernie Sander’s audiences epitomized this nanny state consumerism. Their message is: “You do it for ME!”
Each of these candidates represent flip sides of the same coin of self. It’s either protect me or give me. Both ideas will erode the power of liberty in the American nation.
3. Mike Pence and Tim Kaine represent America’s Christian past–now a minority view in the country. That’s why they’re in the second slot, not the first chair. On the Republican side, many biblically-grounded candidates were voted down in favor of the strong man, Trump. Pence is a sound evangelical who would have made a fine president. He’s “Christian, conservative and Republican” in that order. Time Kaine is a former Catholic missionary who’s personally pro-life–kind of a 21st century JFK.
Both were chosen because Trump and Clinton recognize their need for the “God-vote” in the country to put them over the top. In truth, I’d love to see both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton step down and let Pence and Kaine run for the highest office in the land. Their match-up would be worthy of our heritage. Unfortunately, in 2016, they are just a faint echo of a once Judeo-Christian, freedom-loving society.
4. Hillary Clinton probably has the edge because those who want free stuff are more united than those who want to be protected. Even with the splinter of the Sander’s insurgency, Democrats tend to coalesce around their standard bearer (90%). This year, due to Trump’s obvious faults, Republicans are in the 70% support range. That probably means a third Obama term and accelerating American decline.
Look in the mirror, America! These four faces are staring back at you:
- God-loving and fearing conservatives. (Pence)
- Religious moderates (Kaine).
- Angry pragmatists – Trump-eteers, and
- Angry narcissists – Clintonites
But anger is at the top of the ticket with godly values along for the ride. How foolish we are. I wish it were Pence versus Kaine. But that train has left the station in 2016.
Keep praying for God’s break-out among our “leaders”–we, the people.
Reviving America: The Way of the Cruz
I don’t think I need to convince anybody that American culture and politics are nearing life support at this present time.
On the domestic front, we continue to disintegrate morally as a nation. In foreign policy, the USA is more disappointing to its allies and weak in the eyes of its enemies than possibly any point in our 240 year history.
Which brings us to Election 2016–a turning point for the US and the world.
Don’t assume a wrong idea about the title above. It’s a play on words.
What will bring about the reviving of America?
One of the drawbacks to learning the Spanish language through secular institutions is that they don’t teach you religious words. I took Spanish for five years in junior high and high school. Then, as a Christian missionary, I began traveling to Central and South America and tried to use the language I’d learned.
I did pretty well on the basics. But I’d never been taught important words like Jesus Christ (Jesus Cristo), the Holy Spirit (Espiritu Santo), repentance (arrepentimiento) sin (pecado) and faith (fe). (I should have known “fe” because it’s part of the name of the capital city of New Mexico: Santa Fe =Holy Faith).
There was another important word I didn’t know that we currently associate with a certain candidate for president of the United States.
His name is Ted Cruz. Both he and his surname are Hispanic. You might be able to guess the meaning of his name just by looking at it.
Cruz means “Cross.” It’s a reference to the wooden Cross that Jesus Christ died upon to save us from our sins.
So the current senator from Texas is Ted Cross, or “Ted of the Cross.”
I want to apply that meaning in an unusual way to the presidential election this week.
If you are following the political scene, watching the debates, and reading various media articles, you are undoubtedly aware that businessman Donald Trump is in the driver’s seat for securing the Republican nomination for president.
The Republican field started with seventeen qualified candidates–what many call the “deepest bench” ever of good men and women who could serve as POTUS. Thirteen of that group never gained traction and are sitting on the sidelines.
Only four remain.
During the initial winnowing, Trump soared based on his business/wealth/entertainment stature as an outsider who listened to the anger of the Republican (and American) electorate. He refreshingly decried the political establishment. He rightly railed against open borders, the lobbyist gravy train, declining religious freedom, and the tyranny of political correctness.
His blunt style and powerful personality quickly won over about a third of the Republican primary voters, including many Christians and evangelical leaders.
In the beginning, I, too, was fascinated by him.
But over time it became apparent that 1) Donald Trump knew very little about faith in Christ, 2) His character was extremely childish and offensive, 3) His “conservative principles” were, at the least, suspect, 4) Some of his businesses practices were dubious, and 4) Most people liked him because he was a king-like figure who would channel their frustration with the DC elite.
To read more about Trump’s king-like appeal, I recommend “Christians Demand a King” by Bill Blankshaen.
If Donald Trump gets the Republican nomination or becomes president of the United States, there will be much more to say on this subject.
But back to the four-way race.
Here’s where the Republican delegate count stands today: Trump – 458. Cruz – 359, Rubio – 151, and Kasich – 54. A candidate needs 1237 to win.
So far, Donald Trump has won 14 states, Ted Cruz beat him in six states and Marco Rubio, the senator from Florida, captured one state. If you are into the details, Trump has done the best in states with open primaries or caucuses where independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats can vote on the Republican side. Cruz has prevailed in most of the closed primaries.
Donald Trump seems to have a “high floor” or base of support that comes in at about 35%. In a four way race, this strong nucleus has propelled him to a dozen victories. In those races, the other three candidates have split up the remaining votes with Ted Cruz usually taking second as well as winning the six closed primaries.
Thus, there’s been a consistent 65% vote against Trump. Analysts call this his “low ceiling.” Most people believe in a two-way race, Donald Trump would lose–especially to Ted Cruz–who’s beaten him six times.
Which brings us to the pivotal moment in the race for president.
On Tuesday, voters in Florida (99 delegates) and Ohio (66) and a few other states will cast votes. Ohio and Florida are winner take all. Many people believe that if Donald Trump wins them both (165 delegates) then he will be well on his way to winning the Republican nomination outright or getting the delegates needed to deny him at the Cleveland convention.
I believe that Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich would all make good presidents who could point America in the right direction. Ted Cruz is my first choice. Rush Limbaugh says that Cruz is “the closest candidate to Ronald Reagan that we’ve seen in our lifetime.”
I agree.
Rubio is also a young, rising star. He’s a man of faith, good character, and excellent policies. He confessed this week that he shouldn’t have used Trump-like tactics to try and topple the front runner.
Humility is refreshing.
John Kasich has the best resume and experience of them all. He’s also a man of faith, compassion, and competence.
But the problem is that if all three stay in Tuesday’s Ohio and Florida primaries, it’s likely that Trump will win both states. It’s simple divide and conquer. Trump wins with his 35% core.
It’s possible that Kasich will win Ohio. He’s a popular governor there. But to make sure he gets enough votes, Cruz and Rubio should withdraw this week and tell their supporters to go to Kasich.
It’s a little more iffy in Florida–Rubio’s home. Though he is a good closer, it appears that Rubio will lose Florida to Trump due to finishing poorly in last week’s primaries. For him to win, the same strategy should be used. Cruz and Kasich should withdraw and point their voters to Rubio. If they do, then, instead of dividing the non-Trump vote, Rubio will beat Trump and take the 99 delegates.
Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich should meet alone tonight after the debate and commit to that strategy.
But there’s another way.
From Erick Erickson:
“Rubio drops out [in Florida] and Cruz publicly declares Rubio his running mate. They barnstorm the nation with Rubio throwing the punches at Trump and Cruz talking about their vision for the future. They crisscross Florida raising voter awareness that voters need to vote for Cruz. They go to Missouri, North Carolina, etc.”
“Once they get through March 15th barnstorming the country together, they divide up the states with Rubio going as Cruz’s surrogate. Rubio hits New England. Cruz goes elsewhere. They have some joint events together.”
“Doing so shifts the conversation. Doing so forces voters to pay attention to the changed dynamic. And they head to Cleveland with either 1237 delegates for Cruz or at least more than Trump. It gives them a head start on having a general election ticket, which gives them an advantage over the Democrats.”
“In the process they unite the party and they beat Trump. In the process they start making the case against Hillary.”
“It can be done. It is possible. But the Marco Rubio supporters have to dare to believe and be willing to set aside grievances with Cruz to win.”
I’ve felt from the beginning a Ted Cruz-Marco Rubio ticket would be the best choice to lead America forward. The’re both young, articulate, minorities, faith-filled and principled men who would make a powerful Dream Team.
They’d also unite the Republican Party. Cruz is the outsider who will do even more than Trump to change Washington. Rubio would make a wonderful peace-maker in Congress.
But here’s the difficulty. It will take the “way of the Cross” to get there.
What does the cross of Jesus Christ represent? It speaks of sacrifice, humility, laying down your rights, and suffering to achieve the greater good.
Reviving America will require nothing less. In this scenario, Ted Cruz must be humble enough to withdraw in Ohio and pick Rubio as his running mate. Rubio has to humbly realize that his path to the White House has dimmed and be willing to sacrifice the top job for the present (his day may come).
They must both go in the opposite spirit against Donald Trump. All of them, especially Marco Rubio, must make the Jesus-like choice to lay down his dreams for the good of the nation.
Let’s go a step further. I believe if either of them humbly take the second spot then victory can be achieved. Cruz-Rubio or Rubio-Cruz. There are different strengths to both teams.
But in each case, one must take a step of humility.
Up until now, I’ve admired both of them for their faith and perseverance. But reviving America requires more than faith. It demands humility, sacrifice and death to self.
And we shouldn’t just be pointing at them. What can I do today, this week, this month, this year to go the way of the cross in my own life? What do I need to change? Where is humility and sacrifice required in God’s unfolding plans for me and you?
Let’s pray for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and practice humility in our own lives. The first condition of 2 Chronicles 7:14 is “If my people will humble themselves…”
That’s the opening key to revival.
It’s the way of the Cross.
Antonin Scalia: Supreme Human Being
I don’t know if the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set off a flourish of revelation. Or if the primary battle in South Carolina is spawning new heights of political rhetoric.
But the week following Scalia’s death produced some great social commentary. I want to share some of those pieces with you.
But I especially want to pay tribute to the memory of Antonin Gregory “Nino” Scalia.
He was truly a supreme human being.
Before I get to the impactful life of Justice Scalia, I want to commend four articles that brimmed with insight this week. Please read them at your leisure:
- Global: “How Does the US Economy Compare with the World” by Nicholas Vardy.
- Politics: “Sanders and Trump: Magic Sells” by Charles Krauthammer.
- Economics: “The Lure of Socialism” by Thomas Sowell.
- Justice: “Why Antonin Scalia was a Jurist of Colossal Consequence” by George Will.
Now to Antonin Scalia.
Supreme Personality and Character
I have a few friends who knew Justice Scalia and greatly enjoyed his warmth, wit, musical gift (he loved to play the piano and lead others in singing), gregarious nature, delight in Italian food (he had lunch at the same DC Italian restaurant for forty years) and jovial personality.
Though polar opposites in legal worldview, Justice Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were “buddies” who enjoyed opera and taking vacations together with their spouses. Scalia also reached out to Justice Elena Kagan–a staunch secular progressive–and took her to shooting ranges for target practice (not at her!).
The rest of the DC political class should pay attention to such humility and comradery.
Supreme Faith and Family
Antonin Scalia was a devoted Catholic who loved His Lord and practiced his faith. He was married to his wife Maureen for fifty-five years, fathered nine children, and had over thirty grandchildren and great-grandchildren–all of whom adored him.
His son Jim was interviewed on television this week and shared how his dad deeply loved his family–and that what you saw in public of Antonin Scalia you also saw in private. His family legacy will be great.
Supreme Legal Brilliance
Justice Scalia taught us that the law matters. That the law is the written word–period. And that the written word takes its meaning from how history understands it–not what we wish it to mean.
He tirelessly taught that a “living” constitution (bad idea) is like an open marriage: that weakening the contract destroys the relationship it was meant to protect.
Thus, he championed constitutional originalism. Here are ten samples of his eloquence:
1. “What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean?” (Remarks at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., 2005.)
2. “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.” (Majority opinion, Arizona v. Hicks, 1987.)
3. “God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools … and he has not been disappointed. … If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.” (Speech at Living the Catholic Faith conference, 2012.)
4. “If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.” (Speech, Wilson Center, 2005.)
5. “A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.” (Concurring opinion, CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp of America, 1987.)
6. “If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless.” (Speech, Wilson Center, 2005.)
7. “It is one of the unhappy incidents of the federal system that a self-righteous Supreme Court, acting on its members’ personal view of what would make a ‘more perfect Union’ (a criterion only slightly more restrictive than a ‘more perfect world’) can impose its own favored social and economic dispositions nationwide.” (Dissent, United States v. Virginia, 1996.)
8. “Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. The only thing in the world not for sale is character.” (Commencement address, College of William and Mary, 1996.)
9. “We should start calling this law SCOTUS Care … [T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years … And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
10. “Every tin horn dictator in the world today, every president for life, has a Bill of Rights,” said Scalia, author of the 2012 book “Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts.” “That’s not what makes us free; if it did, you would rather live in Zimbabwe. But you wouldn’t want to live in most countries in the world that have a Bill of Rights. What has made us free is our Constitution. Think of the word ‘constitution;’ it means structure.”
Samuel Alito: “He was a towering figure who will be remembered as one of the most important figures in the history of the Supreme Court and a scholar who deeply influenced our legal culture. His intellect, learning, wit, and memorable writing will be sorely missed.”
Stephen G. Breyer: “Nino Scalia was a legal titan. He used his great energy, fine mind, and stylistic genius to further the rule of law as he saw it. He was a man of integrity and wit. … He loved his family. He also loved ideas, music, and the out of doors. He shared with us, his colleagues, his enthusiasms, his humor, his mental agility, his seriousness of purpose.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the [Supreme] Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the ‘applesauce’ and ‘argle bargle’—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. … It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.”
Elena Kagan: “His views on interpreting texts have changed the way all of us think and talk about the law. I admired Nino for his brilliance and erudition, his dedication and energy, and his peerless writing. And I treasured Nino’s friendship: I will always remember, and greatly miss, his warmth, charm, and generosity.”
Anthony Kennedy: “His insistence on demanding standards shaped the work of the court in its private discussions, its oral arguments, and its written opinions. … [The] foundations of Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence, the driving force in all his work, and his powerful personality were shaped by an unyielding commitment to the Constitution of the United States and to the highest ethical and moral standards.”
John G. Roberts Jr., chief justice: “He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the court and the country he so loyally served.”
Sonia Sotomayor: “My colleague Nino Scalia was devoted to his family, friends, our court, and our country. He left an indelible mark on our history. I will miss him and the dimming of his special light is a great loss for me.”
Clarence Thomas: “Justice Scalia was a good man; a wonderful husband who loved his wife and his family; a man of strong faith; a towering intellect; a legal giant; and a dear, dear friend. In every case, he gave it his all to get the broad principles and the small details right. … It is hard to imagine the court without my friend. I will miss him beyond all measure.”
Supreme Legacy
Looking at the three branches of the American government over the past fifty years, the greatest president of my lifetime is Ronald Reagan.
The greatest Supreme Court Justice is Antonin Scalia.
It’s harder to choose the greatest congressional leader because few in recent history have made a huge mark. The closest, in my opinion, is Ted Cruz whom Dr. James Dobson strongly endorsed this week.
If Ted Cruz isn’t elected president of the United States in 2016, then maybe the next president can nominate him or someone like him to take Scalia’s place.
That would make Nino (and all Constitution-loving Americans) supremely happy.