While the election of Barak Obama is certainly about many people's dissatisfaction with the way things have been going in this nation, I have been doing some looking into the past and have found something else that may have played a significant role in determining the winner of this year's election. I call it The Charisma Factor.
Since the Presidential election of 1932, a strong case can be made that the most charismatic candidate has won every election (the exceptions being when no candidate was seen as being charismatic in any given election year). Let's look, year by year.
1932 -- With America in the midst of The Great Depression, voters were looking for change. Not only did Franklin Roosevelt promise change, but his personality was far more charismatic than that of President Herbert Hoover. Roosevelt won the election handily.
1936 -- Roosevelt ran for re-election against Alf Landon. Roosevelt was a charismatic figure, and made great use of the fact that many people listened to their radios by giving what became known as his Fireside Chats -- radio addresses directly to the American people. Roosevelt's use of the airwaves with his charismatic public persona helped give him one of the biggest electoral majorities in U.S. Presidential history.
1940 -- Despite facing opposition from many people on principle that no President should serve more than two terms, Roosevelt was again re-nominated, and this time faced a challenge from former fellow-democrat Wendell Wilkie. Wilkie was charismatic in his own right, but with radio still being the primary medium through which most voters experienced connection with Presidential candidates, Wilke was at a disadvantage because his voice was at times described as "gravelly". This is in contrast to the paternalistic sound of Roosevelt's voice to which the voters had become accustomed over the past 8 years. Both candidates were charismatic in their own ways, but the charisma edge in 1940 went to Roosevelt, who won the election.
1944 -- Roosevelt was again re-nominated, and the United States was in the midst of a World War--a war which affected the daily lives of virtually every American. In June, 1944, the U.S. and Allied troops gained a foothold in France against the German Army, and patriotism ruled the day in the U.S., with the people wanting to win the war, not just get out of the war as soon as possible. Through it all, Roosevelt and his charismatic, paternalistic (and now even "grandfatherly") personality had led the nation through difficult economic times, and now through difficulties brought on by world war. Roosevelt's voice still was re-assuring to the people over the radio, and he defeated Republican Thomas Dewey, who was not known for having great public charisma.
1948 -- Harry Truman had ascended to the Presidency upon Roosevelt's death in 1945. The Republicans once again nominated Dewey for the Presidency, but this time he was facing Truman. Dewey was considered to be the overwhelming favorite in the Presidential race, and it is said that his speeches were generally lofty and non-specific when it came to the issues of the day. He gave the impression of being more or less a "well-oiled machine." Truman embarked on a long "whistle-stop" campaign, speaking to people all across the nation from the back of a train. He became known as "Give-em Hell Harry" because he was blunt in his speeches about how he believed that Republican-controlled congress had done nothing to help the nation. People seemed to connect with Truman more and more as election day drew near, and in what has been called one of the greatest upsets in Presidential history, Truman defeated Dewey. The argument can be made that the charismatic effect of plain speaking resonated with the voters more than the well-oiled machine.
1952 -- The Republicans nominated General Dwight Eisenhower, a war-hero who was known for his infectious smile. The democrats nominated Senator Adlai Stevenson, an intellectually deep thinker who often used big words that many people simply did not understand. By far, Eisenhower had more charisma than Stevenson, and Eisenhower ran away with the election.
1956 -- The same two candidates, with their same personalities squared off again in 1956, with the same result.
1960 -- The era of television was beginning. Vice President Richard Nixon was nominated by the Republicans for President, and Senator John Kennedy was nominated by the Democrats. Nixon held the edge in the election until the first-ever televised debate between Presidential candidates. Most people who heard the first debate on the radio said that Nixon won the debate. But people who saw the debate on television gave the debate victory to Kennedy, who simply looked better on television than did Nixon. Kennedy narrowly won the Presidential election, and many people have said that it was the televised debates that made the difference in that election. Kennedy's charismatic personality won out over Nixon's personality.
1964 -- Lyndon Johnson ascended to the Presidency upon the death of Kennedy. Johnson was the Democratic nominee, and he faced-off against Barry Goldwater. Neither candidate was particularly "charismatic", but Johnson had a very persuasive personality. At the same time, many people were still, less than a year after the charismatic Kennedy's assassination, hoping that Johnson would carry on with Kennedy's policies. Johnson won in a major landslide.
1968 -- Republican Richard Nixon faced Democrat Hubert Humphrey. These two candidates probably lacked charisma more than any two candidates that had faced each other to date since the pre-Franklin Roosevelt era. However, Nixon did make a cameo appearance on the popular television show Laugh In, and this little spot showed people that he had at least a little bit of a sense of humor. Nixon narrowly defeated Humphrey in an almost charismaticless election.
1972 -- Nixon was re-nominated, while the Democrats nominated Senator George McGovern. This was another almost charismaticless election, with Nixon winning by a landslide.
1976 -- Gerald Ford ascended to the Presidency upon the resignation of Nixon. The country was in an anti-Washington-Government mood in 1976. The Democratic nominee was a Washington outsider who sported a big smile and appeared to have a down-home, folksy personality--Jimmy Carter. Ford was portrayed by the media as a clumsy person (known for tripping, falling down while descending the ramp from an airplane, or while skiing), and did not possess a charismatic personality in general. In the end, the relatively unknown and untested, but more charismatic Carter narrowly defeated Ford.
1980 -- Carter was re-nominated by the Democrats, despite having suffered through many political storms during his Presidency. The nation was in a recession and its diplomats were being held hostage in Iran. During his term in office, President, Carter spoke on television, telling the people that they and the country were in a "malaise." His mood often seemed negative. The Republicans nominated Ronald Reagan, who promoted optimistic thinking, and who had a very charismatic personality. Reagan won the election handily.
1984 -- The charismatic Reagan was challenged by Democrat and former Vice President Walter Mondale. Mondale's personality was even less charismatic than those of previous Democratic nominees McGovern and Humphrey. Reagan won the election in a landslide.
1988 -- Vice President George Bush was nominated by the Republicans. His personality was nowhere near as charismatic as that of Reagan, but Reagan actively supported Bush's candidacy. In his own ways, Bush had charisma, but suffered in comparison to the charismatically-gifted Reagan. In a sense, Bush was running in part on Reagan's charisma. Bush's opponent was Democrat Michael Dukakis, whose public persona at times made Mondale seem almost Reagainesque. Bush won the election.
1992 -- Bush was renominated, and was thought to be a string favorite to win re-election. But the Democrats nominated former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, a man a generation younger than Bush, whom some compared to Clinton's hero, John Kennedy. Clinton's personality was charismatic, and he played up this personality strength, especially to young voters, by doing things such as appearing and playing his saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show. Clinton won the election.
1996 -- Clinton was re-nominated by the Democrats, and the Republicans countered by nominating Senator Robert Dole, who probably had the least charismatic public persona of any Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater. Clinton won re-election easily.
2000 -- Vice President Al Gore was nominated for President by the Democrats, while the Republicans nominated Texas Governor George W. Bush, son of the former President. Neither candidate had an overly charismatic public persona, but Gore seemed to many people to be rigid and stiff in public, while Bush was described by many as someone that people would enjoy "having a beer with." Despite finishing behind Gore in the national popular voting, Bush won the majority of electoral college votes.
2004 -- Bush was re-nominated by the Republicans, while the Democrats nominated Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Kerry liked to compare himself with another Senator from his state who ran for (and won) the Presidency--John Kennedy. But Kerry's charisma-factor was nothing like Kennedy's; it was more like Mondale. Bush still had the personality of the kind of person people would enjoy "having a beer with," and won the election.
2008 -- Senator Barak Obama from Illinois was the Democratic nominee, with Senator John McCain from Arizona being the Republican nominee. McCain's personality was no match for the extreme charisma of Obama, who has a knack of uplifting crowds when he speaks. Based on the charisma factor alone, nobody could have beaten Obama this year, any more than anyone could have beaten Reagan in 1984, Eisenhower in 1956, or Roosevelt in 1936.
What will an Obama Presidency bring? We don't know. But unless it is a total failure or something totally unforeseen occurs, he will likely be likely be renominated by the Democrats in 2012. If the Republicans want to have any chance of defeating Obama in 2012, perhaps they should start looking for a candidate who can match Obama's charisma. But Obama is so charismatic, that may not be possible.
Looking at the current crop of potential Republican candidates in 2012 (and knowing that much can happen between now and then that might let other candidates emerge), it seems to me that the Republicans who could best challenge Obama on the Charisma-front would be either Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
Are High Oil Prices Part of the Terrorits' Plan?
At first glance, it might seem far-fetched to link the high (and still rising) oil prices to terrorism. But is it really so far-fetched?
We hear all kinds of reasons (I still call them excuses) for the continuing rising prices, including higher world demand, and the weakening value of the dollar (among others). But let's stop and look at things a moment. It seems that lately, whenever there's a slight move downward in oil prices, something happens to set the speculators off into a buying frenzy that raised the prices again--usually to record levels.
Near the end of last week, oil futures were retreating from the $120+ per barrel range into the upper $110's. The dollar was gaining value. But then word came of several pieces of news, including renewed terrorist action against oil refineries in Nigeria. Suddenly the price of oil started rising again, hitting a record of over $125 in electronic trading (as of the most recent report I saw before I started to write this).
Can the terrorists be bothered at this rise in prices? I doubt it. In fact, it seems to make perfect sense that they could be working to encourage this rise in prices.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2201, on the United States were directed at least partially at U.S. the financial interests. Part of the immediate effect of the aftermath of those attacks was the temporary closing of the stock exchanges. When the markets re-opened, market levels immediately fell and didn't recover their losses for several years. In the meantime, the U.S. began committing unprecedented amounts of financial resources into the War on Terror, raising the national debt to record levels.
Not long after the markets returned to their pre-9/11 levels, the price of oil started climbing...and climbing and climbing. As I mentioned earlier, all kind of reasons/excuses were given for the increases. But it seems as though fear of oil supply disruption is often near the top of the list of excuses. Sometimes it has to do with inflammatory statements by some dictator in a Middle-Eastern, oil-rich country such as Iran. Over the past several days, attacks against Nigerian refineries have been mentioned as excuses. The excuses are said to cause concerns about adequacy of the oil supply, and the oil prices keep going up and up. The result of these rising oil prices has been an overall drain on the U.S. economy, with people talking about recession, and even the possibility of depression not too far down the road. Much of this trouble has been caused by surging oil prices, which raise the cost of shipping for every product, including food and textiles. The overall effect is that Americans have less and less spending power. This brings about a downturn in the economy, and until this cycle is stopped, the situation will only continue to get worse.
There is a significant amount of untapped oil in the U.S. and in the coastal waters surrounding the U.S. Yet our nation's own laws prohibit drilling for that oil, and the democrat-controlled Congress isn't likely to lift those restrictions because a significant part of the democrat constituency is comprised of people who are more concerned with trying to protect
the environment for caribou and sea creatures than they are with the overall well-being of the people of the United States.
In time of war, the U.S. Constitution grants the President of the United States powers that he would not normally have in peace time. I believe that it's time for President Bush to use some of his war-time powers to ease the oil supply problems and concerns by issuing Executive orders that will immediately open up ANWAR and coastal waters off the U.S. for oil exploration and drilling. The President should also issue Executive orders that will encourage the immediate building of oil refineries in the U.S.
It will likely be argued that the results of these orders won't be seen for at least 10 years. But it was 10 years ago that we were told that drilling in ANWAR would bring any new oil into the market for 10 years. If we'd have acted then, today our oil supplies would have been increased, and we just might not be seeing record oil prices on a daily basis.
It's time for the President to act now.
We hear all kinds of reasons (I still call them excuses) for the continuing rising prices, including higher world demand, and the weakening value of the dollar (among others). But let's stop and look at things a moment. It seems that lately, whenever there's a slight move downward in oil prices, something happens to set the speculators off into a buying frenzy that raised the prices again--usually to record levels.
Near the end of last week, oil futures were retreating from the $120+ per barrel range into the upper $110's. The dollar was gaining value. But then word came of several pieces of news, including renewed terrorist action against oil refineries in Nigeria. Suddenly the price of oil started rising again, hitting a record of over $125 in electronic trading (as of the most recent report I saw before I started to write this).
Can the terrorists be bothered at this rise in prices? I doubt it. In fact, it seems to make perfect sense that they could be working to encourage this rise in prices.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2201, on the United States were directed at least partially at U.S. the financial interests. Part of the immediate effect of the aftermath of those attacks was the temporary closing of the stock exchanges. When the markets re-opened, market levels immediately fell and didn't recover their losses for several years. In the meantime, the U.S. began committing unprecedented amounts of financial resources into the War on Terror, raising the national debt to record levels.
Not long after the markets returned to their pre-9/11 levels, the price of oil started climbing...and climbing and climbing. As I mentioned earlier, all kind of reasons/excuses were given for the increases. But it seems as though fear of oil supply disruption is often near the top of the list of excuses. Sometimes it has to do with inflammatory statements by some dictator in a Middle-Eastern, oil-rich country such as Iran. Over the past several days, attacks against Nigerian refineries have been mentioned as excuses. The excuses are said to cause concerns about adequacy of the oil supply, and the oil prices keep going up and up. The result of these rising oil prices has been an overall drain on the U.S. economy, with people talking about recession, and even the possibility of depression not too far down the road. Much of this trouble has been caused by surging oil prices, which raise the cost of shipping for every product, including food and textiles. The overall effect is that Americans have less and less spending power. This brings about a downturn in the economy, and until this cycle is stopped, the situation will only continue to get worse.
There is a significant amount of untapped oil in the U.S. and in the coastal waters surrounding the U.S. Yet our nation's own laws prohibit drilling for that oil, and the democrat-controlled Congress isn't likely to lift those restrictions because a significant part of the democrat constituency is comprised of people who are more concerned with trying to protect
the environment for caribou and sea creatures than they are with the overall well-being of the people of the United States.
In time of war, the U.S. Constitution grants the President of the United States powers that he would not normally have in peace time. I believe that it's time for President Bush to use some of his war-time powers to ease the oil supply problems and concerns by issuing Executive orders that will immediately open up ANWAR and coastal waters off the U.S. for oil exploration and drilling. The President should also issue Executive orders that will encourage the immediate building of oil refineries in the U.S.
It will likely be argued that the results of these orders won't be seen for at least 10 years. But it was 10 years ago that we were told that drilling in ANWAR would bring any new oil into the market for 10 years. If we'd have acted then, today our oil supplies would have been increased, and we just might not be seeing record oil prices on a daily basis.
It's time for the President to act now.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
What's UP With Gasoline Prices?
Oil and gasoline prices continue to rise. As I type this, prices in the Dayton, OH area have jumped today to a record (for this area) $3.599 per gallon of 87 octane gasoline, led (as usual, in this area) by Speedway stations setting their price at a level for the region, and other non-Speedway stations quickly following Speedway's lead.
There are many "reasons" (I like to call them "excuses") given for the rise in the prices of oil and gasoline: unrest in the Middle East; unrest in Nigeria; OPEC production levels being too low; greed by the big oil companies; commodities speculators driving the prices artificially high; a surge in oil usage by developing nations such as China and India; a weakening dollar; change over from winter to more costly summer gasoline formulations; no new oil refineries being built in the U.S. for decades; restrictions against drilling for oil off the coast of the U.S. or in other areas of the U.S. (ANWAR comes immediately to mind); and others that just don't pop into my head at the moment.
But the bottom line comes down to this: the prices keep going higher because people keep using the product, despite the higher prices.
I've heard on various news broadcasts that there has been a slight decrease in driving over the past few weeks by some people. But overall, in the eyes of the people who profit from the oil and gasoline industry, demand is high enough to justify the prices being where they are, because people are still purchasing the product.
I've heard a number of different ideas as to how to make prices go down. Usually the ideas have something to do with boycotting a certain brand of gasoline or not buying gasoline on a certain day. But those things simply will not work, because they don't make the overall demand for gasoline go down--they simply shift the demand from one company to another or from one day to another.
The problem is that in order for a boycott to work, it's got to cost something to both the one being boycotted and the one doing the boycotting. It's kind of like when a union goes on strike against a company; it costs the company because its business stops working, but it also costs the people on strike something because they do not receive their regular wages during the strike.
Basically, the only boycott that I can see having any effect at all on the prices of oil and gasoline would be if there was a nation-wide, day-long (or longer) boycott from driving. By not driving, the demand for the gasoline would go down, thereby costing the oil and gasoline companies something. By not driving, it would cost a person convenience and maybe even money, for instance if that person chooses not to drive to work.
I'd like to be optimistic and think that something such as this could work. But the reality is that the attitude of too many people would likely be that they will let someone else do it. It's kind of like the independent trucker's strike that was called for a couple of weeks or so ago--a few truckers followed through with the strike, but a much larger percentage of truckers just went on with business as usual.
For a high percentage of people, they feel it would cost them more to stop driving for a day than it would save them on paying for gasoline. So get ready for gasoline prices to continue to increase until such time that the high prices significantly reduce the amount of gasoline that is consumed.
There are many "reasons" (I like to call them "excuses") given for the rise in the prices of oil and gasoline: unrest in the Middle East; unrest in Nigeria; OPEC production levels being too low; greed by the big oil companies; commodities speculators driving the prices artificially high; a surge in oil usage by developing nations such as China and India; a weakening dollar; change over from winter to more costly summer gasoline formulations; no new oil refineries being built in the U.S. for decades; restrictions against drilling for oil off the coast of the U.S. or in other areas of the U.S. (ANWAR comes immediately to mind); and others that just don't pop into my head at the moment.
But the bottom line comes down to this: the prices keep going higher because people keep using the product, despite the higher prices.
I've heard on various news broadcasts that there has been a slight decrease in driving over the past few weeks by some people. But overall, in the eyes of the people who profit from the oil and gasoline industry, demand is high enough to justify the prices being where they are, because people are still purchasing the product.
I've heard a number of different ideas as to how to make prices go down. Usually the ideas have something to do with boycotting a certain brand of gasoline or not buying gasoline on a certain day. But those things simply will not work, because they don't make the overall demand for gasoline go down--they simply shift the demand from one company to another or from one day to another.
The problem is that in order for a boycott to work, it's got to cost something to both the one being boycotted and the one doing the boycotting. It's kind of like when a union goes on strike against a company; it costs the company because its business stops working, but it also costs the people on strike something because they do not receive their regular wages during the strike.
Basically, the only boycott that I can see having any effect at all on the prices of oil and gasoline would be if there was a nation-wide, day-long (or longer) boycott from driving. By not driving, the demand for the gasoline would go down, thereby costing the oil and gasoline companies something. By not driving, it would cost a person convenience and maybe even money, for instance if that person chooses not to drive to work.
I'd like to be optimistic and think that something such as this could work. But the reality is that the attitude of too many people would likely be that they will let someone else do it. It's kind of like the independent trucker's strike that was called for a couple of weeks or so ago--a few truckers followed through with the strike, but a much larger percentage of truckers just went on with business as usual.
For a high percentage of people, they feel it would cost them more to stop driving for a day than it would save them on paying for gasoline. So get ready for gasoline prices to continue to increase until such time that the high prices significantly reduce the amount of gasoline that is consumed.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Sometimes Things Just Don't Make Sense
Is it hypocrisy or what? The culture has been inundated with sex, sex, sex, and more increasingly so since the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's and 1970's. It can be easy to forget that until that time, even adultery was considered really bad by society at large, and was one of the worst things to be accused of if a divorce was involved. Of course, even divorce was much less common then than it is now.
But since that time, sex has become more and more openly part of our society. Years ago, it used to be that people might not kiss on the first date. Now, the question often is whether or not to have sex on the first date. The point is that talk about sex is much more open than it was a few decades ago.
So why should society be surprised that there seems to be an increase in the incidents of adults having sex with minors? Granted, maybe part of the situation is just that these incidents are being reported more often, but the point is that because of the situation, laws are enacted regulating when sex is OK and when its not.
It used to be a lot more simple when sex was reserved for marriage. Now, people's entire lives can be messed up because they have sex.
For example, I heard a report on the radio the other day (I'm sorry, I can't remember specifics, so I can't cite the source) that a female 30-something-year-old teacher had accepted some type of a plea bargain that included her having to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life because she had sex with a 17-year-old boy. Now, for some of the more odd circumstances about this.
The incident happened (from what I recall from the radio report) about two years prior to the plea agreement. That means that a one-time incident from 2 years earlier has caused this woman to be branded for life as a registered sex offender.
The other bizarre aspect of this entire situation is that the radio report said that the 17-year-old turned 18 just 4 days after the incident. In other words, if the incident had occurred 4 days later, no crime would have been committed, and this woman would have had no "sex offender" label attached to the rest of her life.
Is it just me, or does this seem ridiculous? This whole being called an adult at age 18 is basically just an arbitrary thing. Why is a person suddenly considered an adult at age 18? Why isn't it at age 17, or age 21? It's arbitrary.
Hormonally, puberty generally starts in the early teen years. And these teenagers are inundated with sexual messages throughout their teen years, but are expected to do nothing with their sexual urges. Oh -- I guess that society says it's OK for teens to follow their urges under certain circumstances. It's OK to masturbate. It's OK to have sex with another teen as long as safe-sex is practiced. But make sure that a 16-year-old doesn't have sex with a 19-year old, because then the 19-year-old can be considered a sex offender, and may be branded as such for life. But in some states, people can still get parental permission to get married in their mid-teen years, and if the parents OK it, a teenager can marry someone 10 years or more older, and then this is OK.
Do you see what I mean about some things being ridiculous? There are too many arbitrary rules instituted by people who in effect want to justify certain actions while controlling the lives of as many other people as possible through enacting more and more laws.
Perhaps what is needed is to go back to the basics. Sex has been designed by God to be experienced within the context of marriage. Perhaps if society would start from that premise, things would become less complicated and arbitrary.
But since that time, sex has become more and more openly part of our society. Years ago, it used to be that people might not kiss on the first date. Now, the question often is whether or not to have sex on the first date. The point is that talk about sex is much more open than it was a few decades ago.
So why should society be surprised that there seems to be an increase in the incidents of adults having sex with minors? Granted, maybe part of the situation is just that these incidents are being reported more often, but the point is that because of the situation, laws are enacted regulating when sex is OK and when its not.
It used to be a lot more simple when sex was reserved for marriage. Now, people's entire lives can be messed up because they have sex.
For example, I heard a report on the radio the other day (I'm sorry, I can't remember specifics, so I can't cite the source) that a female 30-something-year-old teacher had accepted some type of a plea bargain that included her having to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life because she had sex with a 17-year-old boy. Now, for some of the more odd circumstances about this.
The incident happened (from what I recall from the radio report) about two years prior to the plea agreement. That means that a one-time incident from 2 years earlier has caused this woman to be branded for life as a registered sex offender.
The other bizarre aspect of this entire situation is that the radio report said that the 17-year-old turned 18 just 4 days after the incident. In other words, if the incident had occurred 4 days later, no crime would have been committed, and this woman would have had no "sex offender" label attached to the rest of her life.
Is it just me, or does this seem ridiculous? This whole being called an adult at age 18 is basically just an arbitrary thing. Why is a person suddenly considered an adult at age 18? Why isn't it at age 17, or age 21? It's arbitrary.
Hormonally, puberty generally starts in the early teen years. And these teenagers are inundated with sexual messages throughout their teen years, but are expected to do nothing with their sexual urges. Oh -- I guess that society says it's OK for teens to follow their urges under certain circumstances. It's OK to masturbate. It's OK to have sex with another teen as long as safe-sex is practiced. But make sure that a 16-year-old doesn't have sex with a 19-year old, because then the 19-year-old can be considered a sex offender, and may be branded as such for life. But in some states, people can still get parental permission to get married in their mid-teen years, and if the parents OK it, a teenager can marry someone 10 years or more older, and then this is OK.
Do you see what I mean about some things being ridiculous? There are too many arbitrary rules instituted by people who in effect want to justify certain actions while controlling the lives of as many other people as possible through enacting more and more laws.
Perhaps what is needed is to go back to the basics. Sex has been designed by God to be experienced within the context of marriage. Perhaps if society would start from that premise, things would become less complicated and arbitrary.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Maybe I Should Stay Out of Politics
OK, Mike Huckabee is now out of the Presidential race. I would think that after all of these years I'd learn that my preferred candidate won't win.
But then again, maybe that shouldn't be surprising, because since when are the views of Christians supposed to be popular in a culture? It seems to me that Jesus said that if they hate us, it's because they hated him first.
I'm using the term "hate" here very loosely. I really don't want to say that supporters of one candidate necessarily literally "hate" the supporters of another candidate. But at the same time, why should I think that the political views I hold will be popular enough to be on the winning side? Since when are Christian's views supposed to represent the majority opinion?
And, by the way, Huckabee didn't hold to my positions on every issue. I really like the "Fair Tax" idea, which he supports. I'm pro-life, and he supports a pro-life amendment to the Constitution. Combine that with the fact that he has projected a personality that seems would be one that could rally people to his candicacy and lead people to support him when he is in office, and I think he's make a good President.
But now, we are left with John McCain on the Republican side, and either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the Democrat side. And whether we like it or not, there is almost a 100% probability that the next President of the United States will either be a democrat or a republican. No third party candidate will win the election.
So for now, the question I face is whether or not I care enough to vote for McCain (who, by the way, was my second-to-least favorite candidate vying for the republican nomination--Ron Paul was my least favorite) just because the prospect of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and their leftist, liberal views would be an alternative I really wouldn't want to see at all.
Right now, the likelihood is that I'll vote for McCain, even though his views really do not represent my own as much as the views of most of the republican rivals he faced for the nomination.
But then again, maybe that shouldn't be surprising, because since when are the views of Christians supposed to be popular in a culture? It seems to me that Jesus said that if they hate us, it's because they hated him first.
I'm using the term "hate" here very loosely. I really don't want to say that supporters of one candidate necessarily literally "hate" the supporters of another candidate. But at the same time, why should I think that the political views I hold will be popular enough to be on the winning side? Since when are Christian's views supposed to represent the majority opinion?
And, by the way, Huckabee didn't hold to my positions on every issue. I really like the "Fair Tax" idea, which he supports. I'm pro-life, and he supports a pro-life amendment to the Constitution. Combine that with the fact that he has projected a personality that seems would be one that could rally people to his candicacy and lead people to support him when he is in office, and I think he's make a good President.
But now, we are left with John McCain on the Republican side, and either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the Democrat side. And whether we like it or not, there is almost a 100% probability that the next President of the United States will either be a democrat or a republican. No third party candidate will win the election.
So for now, the question I face is whether or not I care enough to vote for McCain (who, by the way, was my second-to-least favorite candidate vying for the republican nomination--Ron Paul was my least favorite) just because the prospect of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and their leftist, liberal views would be an alternative I really wouldn't want to see at all.
Right now, the likelihood is that I'll vote for McCain, even though his views really do not represent my own as much as the views of most of the republican rivals he faced for the nomination.
Monday, January 28, 2008
This is NOT a Scientific Poll
The results are in. Last week I started a poll on NazNet.com regarding the Presidential race, and the top 9 contenders who were in the race at that time. Fred Thompson was included in the poll, although he announced his dropping out of the race shortly after I established the poll.
Know that I am making the assumption that the vast majority of people who participated in that poll are affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene, or, if not specifically Nazarene, the vast majority are Christians.
The entire poll results can be seen at the following URL or link: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=17612
My main interest, however, is in the top 2 vote-getters.
Mike Huckabee came in first with 31.11% of the vote. Second, with 26.67% of the vote was Barack Obama.
Only 1 other person finished with 10% or more of the vote, and that was John McCain, at 17.78%.
But just look at those numbers. What a diversity of values are represented by those candidates!
Generally speaking, at least when dealing with the political definitions, Huckabee and McCain are for the most part "conservatives," running for the Republican nomination. Traditionally (at least for the past several decades), the Republican party has held "conservative" values such as being "pro-life" on the abortion issue, pro-traditional marriage, pro-right-to-bear-arms, and in gereral in favor of lower taxes, including lower taxes on the "rich." Currently, the Republicans generally want to stay the course in Iraq and in the war against terrorism, and want to secure the U.S. boarders to stop illegal immigration, and don't want to "reward" people who are currently in the U.S. illegally with U.S. taxpayer-paid benefits, and don't want those here illegally to get any special benefits towards becoming legal aliens or U.S. citizens, especially if it will put them in front of people waiting for those things who have gone through proper channels.
Generally speaking, at least when dealing with the political definitions, Obama is the most part "liberal," running for the Democrat nomination. Traditionally (at least for the past several decades), the Democrat party has held "liberal" values such as being "pro-choice" on the abortion issue, pro-homosexual rights, pro-gun control, and in gereral in favor of higher taxes on the "rich." Currently, the Democrats generally want to get the U.S. out of Iraq and are less willing to look at the situation in Iraq than are the Republicans as part of the bigger overall war against terrorism. Democrats (at least moreso than Republicans) generally want to provide U.S. taxpayer-paid benefits, to anyone who demonstrates need, regardless of their immigration or citizenship status.
There are other differences between the two parties, but those are enough to mention for now.
The main point is that the two main vote-getters represent two almost totally different perspectives in government. And it is very likely that nearly all of the people who responded to the poll are self-identified Christians.
So my question is this:
Does the high percentage of votes for Obama in this poll signify a general change in the political bent of Christians since the 1980's?
Know that I am making the assumption that the vast majority of people who participated in that poll are affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene, or, if not specifically Nazarene, the vast majority are Christians.
The entire poll results can be seen at the following URL or link: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=17612
My main interest, however, is in the top 2 vote-getters.
Mike Huckabee came in first with 31.11% of the vote. Second, with 26.67% of the vote was Barack Obama.
Only 1 other person finished with 10% or more of the vote, and that was John McCain, at 17.78%.
But just look at those numbers. What a diversity of values are represented by those candidates!
Generally speaking, at least when dealing with the political definitions, Huckabee and McCain are for the most part "conservatives," running for the Republican nomination. Traditionally (at least for the past several decades), the Republican party has held "conservative" values such as being "pro-life" on the abortion issue, pro-traditional marriage, pro-right-to-bear-arms, and in gereral in favor of lower taxes, including lower taxes on the "rich." Currently, the Republicans generally want to stay the course in Iraq and in the war against terrorism, and want to secure the U.S. boarders to stop illegal immigration, and don't want to "reward" people who are currently in the U.S. illegally with U.S. taxpayer-paid benefits, and don't want those here illegally to get any special benefits towards becoming legal aliens or U.S. citizens, especially if it will put them in front of people waiting for those things who have gone through proper channels.
Generally speaking, at least when dealing with the political definitions, Obama is the most part "liberal," running for the Democrat nomination. Traditionally (at least for the past several decades), the Democrat party has held "liberal" values such as being "pro-choice" on the abortion issue, pro-homosexual rights, pro-gun control, and in gereral in favor of higher taxes on the "rich." Currently, the Democrats generally want to get the U.S. out of Iraq and are less willing to look at the situation in Iraq than are the Republicans as part of the bigger overall war against terrorism. Democrats (at least moreso than Republicans) generally want to provide U.S. taxpayer-paid benefits, to anyone who demonstrates need, regardless of their immigration or citizenship status.
There are other differences between the two parties, but those are enough to mention for now.
The main point is that the two main vote-getters represent two almost totally different perspectives in government. And it is very likely that nearly all of the people who responded to the poll are self-identified Christians.
So my question is this:
Does the high percentage of votes for Obama in this poll signify a general change in the political bent of Christians since the 1980's?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
What is the Sin "Du Jour"?
Have you ever noticed that certain sins seem to be thought of as more reprehensible than others?
I sometimes find that somewhat odd, because the Bible seems to tell us, generally speaking, that sin is sin. The Bible says that if a person breaks any part of the Law, that person is a Lawbreaker.
Now, before I go on, I must say that I am in no way trying to defend sin. Sin is serious business. It's sin that causes people to spend eternity in Hell. It's sin that caused Jesus Christ to die on the cross for us. If something is serious enough for the Son of God to give His life because of it, it should not be taken lightly.
Now, the Bible does also seem to indicate that some sins might be more serious than other sins. John 19:11 records Jesus saying to Pilate, "...[T]he one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." (New International Version, emphasis added).
But just what are the "greater sins" today? I find it interesting that society seems to rank sins. Among the sins that society currently (at least in the U.S.) seems to rank among the worst are pedophelia, child pornography, and drunk driving.
Again, I am in no way defending these things. I reiterate that sin is serious, and it must be dealt with seriously. At the same time, are these things simply among the most serious of the sins du jour? (Just a note--du jour is French for "of the day", as in a restaurant offering a "Soup du jour"). It seems to me that society as a whole--and Christianity--has gone through considering various sins as worse than others.
It wasn't all that long ago that adultery and divorce were considered among the most serious sins. Then it was abortion. Then it was committing homosexual acts. Granted, these were probably not thought of as bad by overall society in general as they were in the church, but the influence of the church on society has been waning over the past several decades. It seems as though now society often influences the church as much if not more than the church influences society--even in matters of considering things good and evil.
But let's be honest. For the most part, isn't sin sin? I believe for instance, that pedophelia is abhorrent. But so is murder. So is rape. So is adultery. So is idolatry. All of these are sin, and they are among the things that caused Jesus to have to die on the cross in order for us to have the hope of forgiveness and eternal life.
And I find it interesting that in the eyes of society in general, if I were to rank the sins I've mentioned thus far in this writing from worst to not as bad, the list would probably look something like this:
1. Pedophelia
2. Child Pornography
3. Murder
4. Drunk Driving
5. Rape
6. Abortion
7. Homosexual Acts
8. Adultery
9. Divorce
10. Idolatry
Now, there may be some people who would disagree with me as to that list, and admittedly, most people would probably change the order of some of the things on that list. But in general, I think it gets the idea across.
Look at that list again. It seems interesting to me that numbers 6-10 would be considered to be by many people not even sin, even though the Bible specifically calls them sin. And of the top 5, the Bible specifically mentions only 2 of them as sin.
I again must reiterate, I believe that all of those 10 things are sinful. But what I am getting at is that our society seems to have turned things upside down--especially with number 10, idolatry.
What if the Church really took seriously the Biblical prohibition against idolatry? When the Bible says that we should have no other gods before the One, True God, do we really believe it?
When Jesus said in Matthew 22:34-40 that the greatest commandment is that a person should love God with all his/her heart, soul, mind and strength, and that the second greatest commandment is to love other people as we love ourselves, He said that those two things sum up the Law and the Prophets.
Could it be that the way to love God with everything we've got is first of all to surrender ourselves to His will and let Jesus Christ be the Lord or boss of our lives, thereby dealing with the sin of idolatry? Couldn't it be that once we love God by surrendering to Him and letting Jesus be our Savior or boss, He will help us to better love other people? Couldn't it be that through loving God and through better loving other people, we will be empowered to be better witnesses for Him? And couldn't it be that through being better witnesses for Him, more people will come to Him and we would therefore be dealing more effectively than we are now with the other 9 items on the above list?
Perhaps it's time for people of Christ to re-evaluate priorities and be salt and light to a dying world by offering it Jesus, instead of mainly wringing their hands and taking strong stands against the sins du jour, whatever they may happen to be at any particular given time. Stand up against sin, yes, but perhaps we need to spend more time focusing on surrendering to the will of and serving the One, True God through Jesus Christ.
I sometimes find that somewhat odd, because the Bible seems to tell us, generally speaking, that sin is sin. The Bible says that if a person breaks any part of the Law, that person is a Lawbreaker.
Now, before I go on, I must say that I am in no way trying to defend sin. Sin is serious business. It's sin that causes people to spend eternity in Hell. It's sin that caused Jesus Christ to die on the cross for us. If something is serious enough for the Son of God to give His life because of it, it should not be taken lightly.
Now, the Bible does also seem to indicate that some sins might be more serious than other sins. John 19:11 records Jesus saying to Pilate, "...[T]he one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." (New International Version, emphasis added).
But just what are the "greater sins" today? I find it interesting that society seems to rank sins. Among the sins that society currently (at least in the U.S.) seems to rank among the worst are pedophelia, child pornography, and drunk driving.
Again, I am in no way defending these things. I reiterate that sin is serious, and it must be dealt with seriously. At the same time, are these things simply among the most serious of the sins du jour? (Just a note--du jour is French for "of the day", as in a restaurant offering a "Soup du jour"). It seems to me that society as a whole--and Christianity--has gone through considering various sins as worse than others.
It wasn't all that long ago that adultery and divorce were considered among the most serious sins. Then it was abortion. Then it was committing homosexual acts. Granted, these were probably not thought of as bad by overall society in general as they were in the church, but the influence of the church on society has been waning over the past several decades. It seems as though now society often influences the church as much if not more than the church influences society--even in matters of considering things good and evil.
But let's be honest. For the most part, isn't sin sin? I believe for instance, that pedophelia is abhorrent. But so is murder. So is rape. So is adultery. So is idolatry. All of these are sin, and they are among the things that caused Jesus to have to die on the cross in order for us to have the hope of forgiveness and eternal life.
And I find it interesting that in the eyes of society in general, if I were to rank the sins I've mentioned thus far in this writing from worst to not as bad, the list would probably look something like this:
1. Pedophelia
2. Child Pornography
3. Murder
4. Drunk Driving
5. Rape
6. Abortion
7. Homosexual Acts
8. Adultery
9. Divorce
10. Idolatry
Now, there may be some people who would disagree with me as to that list, and admittedly, most people would probably change the order of some of the things on that list. But in general, I think it gets the idea across.
Look at that list again. It seems interesting to me that numbers 6-10 would be considered to be by many people not even sin, even though the Bible specifically calls them sin. And of the top 5, the Bible specifically mentions only 2 of them as sin.
I again must reiterate, I believe that all of those 10 things are sinful. But what I am getting at is that our society seems to have turned things upside down--especially with number 10, idolatry.
What if the Church really took seriously the Biblical prohibition against idolatry? When the Bible says that we should have no other gods before the One, True God, do we really believe it?
When Jesus said in Matthew 22:34-40 that the greatest commandment is that a person should love God with all his/her heart, soul, mind and strength, and that the second greatest commandment is to love other people as we love ourselves, He said that those two things sum up the Law and the Prophets.
Could it be that the way to love God with everything we've got is first of all to surrender ourselves to His will and let Jesus Christ be the Lord or boss of our lives, thereby dealing with the sin of idolatry? Couldn't it be that once we love God by surrendering to Him and letting Jesus be our Savior or boss, He will help us to better love other people? Couldn't it be that through loving God and through better loving other people, we will be empowered to be better witnesses for Him? And couldn't it be that through being better witnesses for Him, more people will come to Him and we would therefore be dealing more effectively than we are now with the other 9 items on the above list?
Perhaps it's time for people of Christ to re-evaluate priorities and be salt and light to a dying world by offering it Jesus, instead of mainly wringing their hands and taking strong stands against the sins du jour, whatever they may happen to be at any particular given time. Stand up against sin, yes, but perhaps we need to spend more time focusing on surrendering to the will of and serving the One, True God through Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)