Reformation
Forty Years Ago in August: Time for Another POTUS to Resign?
I was in England on August 8, 1974 when Richard Nixon became the first US president to resign while in office. It was a stunning demise for a formidable politician who served as vice president, lost the 1960 presidential race to JFK, then rose from the ashes to be elected POTUS in 1968 and re-elected in 1972.
The bottom fell out when he was caught at the helm of a minor political break-in that became known as Watergate–and then lied about it. Years of malaise, including the inept presidency of Jimmy Carter, followed in his wake.
I’ve been thinking for six long years about the failing presidency of Barack Obama. As jihadists be-head an American journalist, Russia subtly invades Ukraine, racial riots explode in Missouri, the US economy subsists on life support, and the national debt nears 18 trillion dollars–while President Obama vacations and plays golf–I’m wondering if another US president should resign for the good of the nation.
Two prominent women–one a secular progressive and the other a conservative–beat me to the punch this week.
Here are their sobering words for all of us to consider.
I rarely read Maureen Dowd because she is a fixture of the secular progressive left and almost always on the wrong side of issues. But she is a noted columnist for the New York Times who recently chose to part company with her once beloved president.
Her blistering attack on President Obama’s leadership is called “The Golf Address” published in the NY Times on October 23. It is brilliant in its allegory, yet tragic in its comparison of Abraham Lincoln’s courageous leadership 150 years ago and the current occupant of the White House.
The most famous speech in American history was Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, delivered during the perilous days of the Civil War. It contains only 272 eloquent words spoken with noble character, passion and burden.
It would be worth your while to take less than one minute and read it here.
Dowd compares Lincoln’s sobering masterpiece to the actions of Barack Obama, who, after lamenting the hideous death of journalist Jim Foley, took all of ten minutes to return to his vacation and get back to the golf course. Minutes later he was photographed smiling and fist-pumping a golfing buddy.
This is not just bad optics. It is a failure of presidential leadership of historic proportions.
Ms. Dowd agrees.
“The Golf Address” – by Barack Obama
As seen through the eyes of Maureen Dowd
“FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL.”
“I know reporters didn’t get a chance to ask questions, but I had to bounce. I had a 1 p.m. tee time at Vineyard Golf Club with Alonzo Mourning and a part-owner of the Boston Celtics. Hillary and I agreed when we partied with Vernon Jordan up here, hanging out with celebrities and rich folks is fun.”
“Now we are engaged in a great civil divide in Ferguson, which does not even have a golf course, and that’s why I had a “logistical” issue with going there. We are testing whether that community, or any community so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure when the nation’s leader wants nothing more than to sink a birdie putt.”
“We are met on a great field of that battle, not Augusta, not Pebble Beach, not Bethpage Black, not Burning Tree, but Farm Neck Golf Club in Martha’s Vineyard, which we can’t get enough of — me, Alonzo, Ray Allen and Marvin Nicholson, my trip director and favorite golfing partner who has played 134 rounds and counting with me.”
“We have to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for my presidency, if I keep swinging from behind.”
“Yet it is altogether fitting and proper that I should get to play as much golf as I want, despite all the lame jokes about how golf is turning into ‘a real handicap’ for my presidency and how I have to ‘stay the course’ with ISIL. I’ve heard all the carping that I should be in the Situation Room droning and plinking the bad folks.”
“I know some people think I should go to Ferguson. Don’t they understand that I’ve delegated the Martin Luther King Jr. thing to Eric Holder? Plus, Valerie Jarrett and Al Sharpton have it under control.”
“I know it doesn’t look good to have pictures of me grinning in a golf cart juxtaposed with ones of James Foley’s parents crying, and a distraught David Cameron rushing back from his vacation after only one day, and the Pentagon news conference with Chuck Hagel and General Dempsey on the failed mission to rescue the hostages in Syria.”
“We’re stuck in the rough, going to war all over again in Iraq and maybe striking Syria, too. Every time Chuck says ISIL is ‘beyond anything we’ve ever seen,’ I sprout seven more gray hairs. But my cool golf caps cover them. If only I could just play through the rest of my presidency.”
“ISIL brutally killing hostages because we won’t pay ransoms, rumbles of coups with our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan, the racial caldron in Ferguson, the Ebola outbreak, the Putin freakout — there’s enough awful stuff going on to give anyone the yips.”
“So how can you blame me for wanting to unwind on the course or for five hours at dinner with my former assistant chef? He’s a great organic cook, and he’s got a gluten-free backyard putting green.”
“But, in a larger sense, we can dedicate, we can consecrate, we can hallow this ground where I can get away from my wife, my mother-in-law, Uncle Joe, Congress and all the other hazards in my life.”
“The brave foursomes, living and dead, who struggled here in the sand, in the trees, in the water, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or subtract a few strokes to improve our score. Bill Clinton was Mr. Mulligan, and he is twice at popular as I am.”
“The world will little note, nor long remember, what we shot here, or why I haven’t invited a bunch of tiresome congressmen to tee it up. I’m trying to relax, guys. So I’d much rather stay in the bunker with my usual bros. Why don’t you play 18 with Mitch McConnell? And John Boehner is a lot better than me, so I don’t want to play with him.”
“It is for us, the duffers, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who played here have thus far so nobly advanced to get young folks to stop spurning a game they find slow and boring.”
“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us of getting rid of our slice on the public’s dime — that from this honored green we take increased devotion to that cause for which Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy gave their last full measure of devotion — and divots.”
“We here highly resolve that these golfing greats shall not have competed in vain, especially poor Tiger, and that this nation, under par, shall have a new birth of freedom to play the game that I have become unnaturally obsessed with, and that golf of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
“So help me Golf.”
Then there is conservative former judge and current Fox host Jeanine Pirro who worked as a district attorney for 30 years in New York. She is possibly the most fearless commentator on television. Here’s what she said on “Justice” barely one day after the Maureen Dowd massacre.
Please watch her “Opening Remarks” here.
I’ve got nothing personally against President Obama. On the positive side he’s charismatic, a good speaker, a powerful fund-raiser, a family man and probably an excellent community organizer.
But he’s not up to the task or image of president of the United States. Why? Because his worldview doesn’t fit reality, he’s an ideologue who seems incapable of change, he appears detached and distracted by golf, fund-raising and his celebrity status, he lacks real leadership skills and competency–and all-in-all, he’s out of his league.
This August he could do the wisest and most humble act of his life and step down as president–for his own good and that of the nation. At least Joe Biden is older and has some experience in foreign policy. He could be a caretaker until 2016–maybe even a decent one like Harry Truman.
Then we need to elect a president with faith, courage, executive experience and leadership skills like Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
And never vote for a “jayvee” for POTUS ever again.
Saving Liberalism: An Appeal to My Progressive Friends
I’ve never liked the words “liberal” or “conservative” to describe people because I’m both liberal and conservative in the historic meaning of the words.
The problem comes when words carry multiple meanings or change over time and end up connotating something far different than when they were first introduced.
Words are sometimes like the proverbial frog boiling in the kettle: slowly and subtlety they can change over the years and need to be either renounced due to distortion or renewed to their original context.
I want to make an appeal to my liberal, progressive friends today. Liberalism has devolved; It is in danger of becoming nothing less than brute force– which is not liberal.
Will you join with me in saving liberalism?
I’ve been thinking about this subject for some time, and this week I read an article by Michael Barone that expressed my hunches better than I could.
Barone is the senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, and one of the most knowledgeable political pundits in America. He is probably the nation’s leading authority on the political demographics of the United States. Name any county or Congressional District in the nation and Michael Barone can tell you why and how they will vote.
He’s also an independent man who is not an ideologue for either liberal or conservative politics. And he’s spot on regarding the present and extremely dangerous devolution of liberalism.
Here are his recent thoughts after which I will make some suggestions about how liberalism can be saved.
How Obama is Turning Liberalism into an Instrument of Coercion
By Michael Barone
Liberals just aren’t very liberal these days. The word “liberal” comes from the Latin word meaning freedom, and in the 19th century, liberals in this country and abroad stood for free speech, free exercise of religion, free markets, free trade — for minimal state interference in people’s lives.
In the 20th-century, New Dealers revised this definition by arguing that people had a right not only to free speech and freedom of religion but also, as Franklin Roosevelt said in his 1941 Four Freedoms speech, freedom from fear and from want.
Freedom from want meant, for Roosevelt, government provision of jobs, housing, health care and food. And so government would have to be much larger, more expensive and more intrusive than ever before.
That’s what liberalism has come to mean in America and much of the Obama Democrats’ agenda are logical outgrowths — Obamacare, the vast expansion of food stamps, attempted assistance to underwater homeowners.
But in some respects the Obama Democrats want to go further — and are complaining that they’re having a hard time getting there. Their form of liberalism is in danger of standing for something like the very opposite of freedom–for government coercion of those who refuse to behave the way they’d like.
Example one is the constitutional amendment, sponsored by 43 of the 55 Democratic U.S. senators, which would cut back on the First Amendment and authorize Congress and state legislatures to restrict political speech [i.e. fund-raising).
The amendment is poorly drafted and leaves many questions dangerously open, perhaps because its sponsors know it has no significant chance of passage.
It also seems animated by a delusionary paranoia: Democrats profess to be afraid that conservatives will be swamped by a flood of rich people’s money, even though rich Democratic supporters have raised more than the other side in recent years.
Nonetheless the picture is striking. Many conservatives wanted to change the First Amendment in order to prosecute flag burning, not the Founding Fathers’ central concern. Today’s liberals, in contrast, want to change the First Amendment to restrict political speech, which is the core value the Founders sought to protect.
Or consider liberals’ recent attitude toward free exercise of religion, made plain in their reaction to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision declaring the Obamacare contraception mandate invalid as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The RFRA was passed, with three dissenting votes, and signed by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was prompted by a Supreme Court decision upholding the penalization of Oregon Indians for using peyote, which they claimed was a religious rite.
In passing RFRA, liberals and conservatives alike responded as Americans have often done when small groups have claimed laws infringed their religious beliefs: They put a higher priority to a few individuals’ free exercise of religion than they did to widely supported laws of general application.
Thus Congress allowed for conscientious objectors to be exempt from military service in World War II, in which more than 400,000 U.S. service members died. Even in a national emergency, when lives were at stake, Americans were willing to accommodate religious beliefs that a large majority did not share.
Today’s liberals take a different view. They want to make Hobby Lobby’s owners pay for what they regard as the destruction of human life. They spent much time arguing the owners are mistaken (actually, Hobby Lobby had a plausible scientific basis for their belief).
But the point about freedom of religion isn’t that everyone has to agree. On the contrary: Almost no one agreed with the Oregon Indians’ beliefs about peyote. They just thought the larger society should not use compulsion to bar them from practicing their religion.
Today’s liberals seem comfortable with using the force of law to prevent people from doing so.
Or consider the Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Quinn, ruling that care givers for disabled relatives paid with Medicaid funds are not state employees and thus cannot be forced into a public employee union.
Today’s liberals did this in President Obama’s Illinois to channel public money away from low-income care givers and toward public employee unions that do so much to fund and support the Democratic Party. They seem unembarrassed by this crass political motive and indifferent to the plight of the needy.
Today’s liberals seem bent on pushing people around, preventing them from speaking their minds and practicing their beliefs. It’s not just the language that’s changed.
Barone is right. American liberalism has dangerously altered course in the past century–and even in the past six years.
Noah Webster’s original 1830 dictionary summarizes the classical view of liberalism:
1. To be liberal is to be free to be generous–to give or bestow blessings.
2. To be liberal is to not be self-centered, but have an enlarged mind regarding others and their needs.
3. To be liberal is the embrace literature and sciences (as in a liberal arts education).
4. To be liberal is to desire to liberate or make people free. The word itself comes from the Latin liber or “free.”
I’m a liberal according to that definition. I wholeheartedly agree with all the meanings.
British jurist John Locke is widely recognized as father of liberalism. In his “Two Treatises of Government” which were first published in 1690, Locke taught that men had God-given rights to “life, liberty and estate (property)”–i.e. people were meant to be free–something no king, religion, or cultural tradition could usurp.
His ideas found Christian expression in the birth of America and the Declaration of Independence, and a fascist form in the French Revolution where two million people died–400,000 of them by execution. Both revolutions were based on the concept of “freedom”–but one was brought about by virtue and principle and the other by bloodthirsty force.
The founders of the American Revolution were all classical liberals, not fascists. Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism says this was due to American exceptionalism. “American culture supersedes our legal and constitutional framework. It is our greatest bulwark against fascism.”
Goldberg says that today’s “conservatives are the more authentic classical liberals.” In fact, Goldberg points out that in the past fifty years, it was been conservative leaders that have really carried on the legacy of Lockian liberalism:
“Conservatives were launching an extensive project to restore the proper place of the Constitution in American life [during the latter 20th century]. No leading conservative scholar or intellectual celebrated fascist themes or ideas. No leading conservative denigrated the inherent classical liberalism of the United States political system. To the contray, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley and other conservatives dedicated themselves to restoring the classical liberal vision of the founders.”
Yet, as Michael Barone laments, today’s liberals are turning their backs on their heritage and are beginning to behave like totalitarian fascists, not true liberals–forcing their ideas and morality down the throats of the American people.
I appeal to my progressive friends to wake up and see that your liberalism is being hijacked by a spirit of force and control.
This is not liberalism. It is coercion or bondage (non-freedom).
It’s the same spirit behind fascism, communism, militant Islam, and ISIS who recently forced all Christians in Mosul, Iraq to either convert to Islam or be killed.
We’re not that extreme yet. Our culture (exceptional Christian heritage) still prevents it. But we’re on our way, and the devolution of liberalism into force or coercion has picked up steam during the Obama years.
Let’s be true liberals through a renewal of faith, freedom, generosity–and true conservatives by preserving our culture through the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
This means anchoring ourselves to the Bible–the source of liberal ideals (freedom) as well as conservative ones (wisdom).
Why Our Government Doesn’t Work Anymore
Have you noticed that the United States government doesn’t work anymore?
Our deficits are out of control, nearing 18 trillion and counting. Nobody seems able or willing to take on the debt or do anything about changing the tax code. At the same time, the economy is stuck in the doldrums with a jobless recovery.
The immigration system is broken–with “children,” mind you–crossing the border and overwhelming the border patrol.
Our foreign policy is in shambles with Iraq falling to jihadist butchers while America’s strength and credibility are being questioned everywhere.
All the while, our national leaders seem weak, paralyzed, grid-locked, with no Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan in sight.
Why doesn’t the US government, once the envy of the world, seem to work anymore?
We must begin by admitting that, with all the faults of the present time, our government it is still far better than most forms that have existed in history. For most of the past five thousand years, nations were been ruled by tyrants who were chieftains, war-lords, dictators or egotistical kings.
In the ancient past, and even as recent as the Middle Ages, freedom, human rights or hope for the common person didn’t exist for living a “middle class life.” In fact, most societies (city-states and tribes) were vulnerable daily to another warring group entering their territory and annihilating them.
What’s going on in Iraq this week is really the norm of human history for thousands of years.
Then the development of human society in Europe gave us the Magma Carta, civil and human rights of the individual, self-government, Lex Rex (the Law is King), and eventually democratic republics that were based on the biblical worldview of man and the freedoms of the Gospel.
The birth of the United States of America–what one author calls the “5,000 year Leap”–brought many of these biblical ideas of government and individual rights into one nation that became the envy of the world for its work ethic, system of government, generosity, family stability and national security.
The United States of America and its government is a unique model in the long and barbaric history of human civil polity. That model was exemplified by a “Statue of Liberty” which begged the huddled and depressed masses of the world to come to the New World to experience the blessings of liberty as promoted and protected by a benign civil government.
What was the secret to this society and its government that produced more freedom, prosperity and security than the world had every known?
It can be found in two wise sentences from our second president, John Adams:
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
(Letter to Zabdiel Adams dated June 21, 1776).
One of the greatest lessons of history is that morality is essential to liberty and religious faith is the surest source of morals.
It was Christianity, with the power of Christ unleashed in every born again life, that produced highly moral people who controlled their own behavior enough to live under free and limited governments.
Here’s the genius of John Adam’s insight: When people control themselves according to Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, their faith-filled morality decreases the need for civil government (jails and punishments) and increases the freedom of the individual.
But Adams knew correctly that when the people lose their faith and morality, this freedom-producing form of government will not work.
Read the quote again: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
In other words, our constitution of government cannot work for an irreligious and immoral people.
Today, America has many evidences of this sad truth. Here are some examples.
The Democrats
They control two-thirds of the US government and the increasingly powerful office of the presidency. Barack Obama professes to be a Christian, but shows little faith in his policy positions which are mostly secular (irreligious) in nature. The Democrats are a primary reason for a failed economy and staggering national debt through their tax and spend policies. They spend tax payer money in the name of compassion, while destroying our financial solvency (intentions don’t count in economics).
At the same time, the D’s are killing the nation’s children through abortion, destroying the family through same sex marriage, and generally undermining nearly every aspect of biblical morality that once made America great. Their refusal to guard our shores to gain cheap labor and Democratic votes has created the nightmare on the Mexican border. President Obama’s incompetence and inability to promote peace through strength in the world has Russia and China on the rise while the Middle East burns.
Many Democrats, including our president, consciously or sub-consciously fight faith and morals at every turn.
This is a major reason our government doesn’t work anymore.
The Republicans
The party of Lincoln has a stronger recent heritage of biblical faith and morality. That is why in the social areas, Republicans generally are pro-life, support traditional marriage, and morality and want to preserve America’s biblical heritage like the Ten Commandments in public places, student-initiated prayer in the schools, and chaplains in the military.
Economically, Republicans say they favor less regulations, more free enterprise, and a lower tax burden on all groups of people. As to national security, they, more-often-than-not, believe in a vigious military force to protect American interests and help police the world against global evil.
But some Republicans have been going the direction of the Dems the past few years. As America secularizes, the Republicans, wanting to win elections and gain power, have become “Democratic-lite” on the social issues and tepid on economic policy. This shows itself in the media-trumpeted battle between the “Tea Party” and the “Establishment.”
Here’s the translation: Tea Party = principled conservatives who still believe in faith, morality and freedom. Establishment = we need to become more like the Democrats to win elections in an increasingly post-Christian world.
This is a huge dilemma for the Rs because both sides are right. Vote like Ds and they might win because the electorate has changed. But don’t vote like historic Republicans, and lose the nation (economic depression and national insecurity).
Republican timidity and double-mindedness are another reason why our government doesn’t work anymore.
The Media
It’s been well-documented that the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, most big-city newspapers, and the Associated Press) are liberal-progressive and make no bones about cheering for and promoting anti-faith, anti-morality positions in the political arena. They’re in bed with the Democratic Party.
This means that in most elections, the conservative, biblically-based candidate is facing two opponents: the anti-faith, anti-biblical morality Democratic politician and his media allies.
It’s 2 against 1.
Ever since the Clinton election of 1992, this has been a major problem and led to the unfair demonization of politicians like Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney.
Today’s mainstream media is a major contributor to the loss of faith and morals in the US and thus the dysfunction of the American government.
The People
The greatest blame lies here as, in free societies, governments and their leaders are simply reflections of the people.
Over the past few generations, the American people have lost faith in God (“not religious” has doubled during this time and atheists have become far more militant), and have given in to many forms of immorality and loose living. We, the people have voted for leaders that kill babies and change the meaning of marriage because, we, too, are confused and have moved away from our biblical anchors.
As we’ve abandoned faith and biblical character, we have more and more embraced the welfare state and vote for politicians who will give us “stuff.” Even principled leaders face our fickleness. They may want to do the right thing (e.g. lower taxes), but the people want all the hand-outs which fuel deficit spending (free health care). So the modern politician dishes out the candy against his own conscience–or be voted out of office.
The peoples’ greeds stop their leaders from voting for their true needs.
Then there are ungodly and unprincipled leaders like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Why is there such a leadership vacuum in Washington, D.C. today? Because a faithless and moral-less public votes them into office year after year to bring them the goodies.
I am stunned each time I watch “interviews on the street” with average Americans who know nothing about their history, can’t name their leaders, can name all the raunchiest TV and movie celebrities, and have little understanding about the faith and morality that is required for freedom.
Our government doesn’t work because of the immorality, gross ignorance and apathy of a large portion of the American electorate.
We get what we are.
Recently, I’ve been wondering if it would be better to have a Parliamentary system of government where we could have a vote of no confidence and more quickly dispose of bad leaders.
But the problem is not really the leaders–it is the people. And in our increasingly faithless and immoral state, it is almost impossible to impeach a president (as it should be) and we must wait two-and-a-half years until another presidential election cycle.
So our system doesn’t work because of us. Time only makes things worse.
The Church
But the greatest blame for our government dysfunction lies at the feet of God’s people who are also not as strong in faith and morality as in past generations. We’ve been caught up in the secular pipe dream of personal gratification, self-help, live for today, and have failed to be the salt of society we once were (Matthew 5:13-16).
The American Church is no longer a light on a hill, disbursing the encroaching darkness through our prayers and tireless activities on behalf of righteousness. We are content to lurk in the shadows, wring our hands, or not even be in the game.
Why was Barack Obama, re-elected in 2012? Because half of the Church in America didn’t even bother to vote. When the Church does not light up the voting booths–let alone the neighborhoods with God’s grace and truth–the nation defaults to evil in all its forms and consequences.
Our government doesn’t work in 2014 because it was made for a religious and moral people.
We are neither as we used to be.
There are two choices before us: 1) Watch our government turn to tyranny in a variety of forms as has been the case of most nations in history, or 2) Pray for a spiritual awakening that impacts the nation to cast off its present chains of unbelief and sin.
I believe that both choices will be offered through trials and tribulations in the coming years.
If the Church wakes up and the people see the “light,” then our special form of government can be renewed and revived.
But if we do not, our government will never work for us again.