Last night, our president, the President of the United States, George Bush, offered a renewed plan for our Iraq ‘campaign.’ (No, it’s not really a war, but a mission, a campaign for democracy in the Middle East.) It is a major concern, if not the major concern, politically. After the speech, Democrat Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois) was allowed air time to contradict and condemn everything the President said, and to imply, directly, that the president has personally failed, in thought and character.
I have to wonder at this circumstance, when the elected leader of a nation, in a time of great anxiety and international Muslim violence, is freely condemned and ridiculed by those lesser leaders who disagree with him. It is a remarkable phenomenon.
President George Bush
Now, in America, we pride ourselves on freedom of speech, liberty to oppose, and the whole “democratic” process we call it. But, in this ideology of free-for-all head knocking and face punching, are the laws of common sense utterly disregarded? Have they no place in the matter?
In terms of socio-psychology, we’re really missing something important here. Group behavior requires adherence to certain laws, or, there is no group at all. By definition, there has to be some kind of unity of thought, purpose, and action. Group behavior begins in the family. It extends all the way to the nation. The same laws apply. The complexity of numbers does not invalidate the basic socio-psychology of the fundamentals of group behavior.
Is it healthy to broadcast immediate refutation, condemnation, and mere interpretation, immediately after the leader of the nation has spoken? Is it even logical to arrange such a circumstance?
What is the recent precedent? Bill Clinton, of course, had brought to the White House such low-down behavior, such despicable and persistent personal immorality, such juvenile and reprehensible revelry and perversion that the tone of opposition against “the presidency” was raised to an unprecedented height of intensity–equal to the offensive behavior of the president. But now the opposition believes that its duty is to overthrow the office. That’s what it’s come to. The personal hatred for George Bush–whose character is the antithesis of Bill Clinton’s, has developed to the point that the opposition shows no respect for the White House, or the country.
There are very basic concepts missing here. The nation is our team, the group we are all members of. Yet, basic concepts of team play are neglected in all this. I’m thinking that even the most basic concepts of brotherhood are absent.
If America is a Christian nation, what can we say about Christian brotherhood? It is a most fundamental concept that the Christian humbles himself–specifically for the sake of the brotherhood, “in honor preferring one another,” as Paul put it (Romans 12:10). Church goers everywhere know about the perils of organization and its power struggles. The unique thing about the Christian community, supposedly, is it’s ability to surpass this natural agony with conscious humility. The very essence of the Christian spirit is not to assert oneself against another, but to meekly submit to others–specifically for the sake of unity.
Jesus said, “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:26-28.
Obviously, America is not a Christian brotherhood, per se, but, isn’t there a great lesson here? Isn’t there a concept that we do well to consider? Can our political process, our national behavior, not benefit from this perspective?
There is hardly any escape from the group identity. We are all part of one kind of group or another. We are all on any number of “Pequots” out to sea. Some of us are after Moby Dick, others are simply whaling, doing a job. But every ship has a captian. The penalty of mutiny is very serious. The course of submission, obviously, can also be tragic, as it turned out in Meville’s great novel.
I know America was born by Revolution! America was birthed in an act of Rebellion! But, surely, after a couple of centuries, we must have learned something about unity. We’ve even been through one civil war. Are we approaching another?
Would that it were that noble. Instead, I’m sorry to report, the Demcrat disposition is merely superficial, egotistical, and petty. It is denigrating to the pride of the nation, and surely an international embarrassment. The scenario of prepared contradiction, the undermining of President Bush, who is a sincere, moral person (as opposed to Bill Clinton), I believe has wreaked a havoc within the social ethos of America that may turn into irreparable fragmentation, if it hasn’t already.
I don’t agree with President Bush on a number of major issues. But I respect him. I think he may have promoted some policies that are inimical to the nation. But, I find myself restrained by my respect. (I find the same situation with my own Comanche Nation chairman, Wallace Coffey. I disagree with him on important issues. Yet, I respect him. I do not campaign against him personally.)
I’m just wondering if our American people have simply lost the concept of respect itself. Clinton had brought the behavior of immoral, perverted, emotioanlly disturbed children into the White House. I do not respect Bill Clinton. Bush did bring back dignity to the office. Despite the desperate and faithful condemnation of Democrats, Bush is a respectable man. Few Democrat leaders are. Even if I found myself in agreement with some Democrat criticism of Bush, I would not respect the Democrats for it. I would still respect Bush.
Well, just some thoughts. Is Christian principle applicable at all to American political exchange? That’s the question. Is the Christian spirit active in the parties, in the media, in the social milieu of the nation? Can it be? How would it affect the political process and political behavior in general? Should we work to this end?
And we wonder what to do about the contradictions among the people of Iraq.