American and Naga Independence

 

As I reflect on the 75^th year celebration of the Naga declaration of independence, I grieve over the decades' long conflict and its relative lack of success in establishing a free nation for the Nagas. Americans only had to fight for eight years to win our independence.

There were 56 state delegates who signed the
American Declaration of Independence. Each of the 13 states squabbled and argued with one another in an effort to gain the best benefits for each state, but ultimately, these 56 men recognized the truth of Benjamin Franklin’s words, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

The last line of the American Declaration spelled out the serious nature of declaring independence: “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, WE MUTUALLY PLEDGE TO EACH OTHER OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES, AND OUR SACRED HONOR.” That is to say, the signers knew that Great Britain would try to arrest them and publicly execute them for treason against the king. This was deadly serious.

None of those 56 American patriots dreamed of ever becoming rich and successful through war with Great Britain. I think most of the 56 signers died in poverty. With their own finances, they clothed, fed, and outfitted Gen. George Washington’s army. Why would they do so?

They risked so much because they longed for a country with freedoms and good governance that the colonial power could not given them. They invested their lives, fortunes, and their sacred honor to forge a new nation in which their children could live safely and securely.

May God grant the Nagas wisdom, perseverance, strength, and godly leaders to lead them in their struggle for self-determination.

Kuknalim

The Civil War and the Trump Impeachment

Normally in democratic societies, if you don’t like the election results, you regroup and try harder to win in the next election cycle. Not so in 1860.

Voters in slave holding states split their vote between three candidates, leading to Lincoln’s election in 1860. For most voters in the South, Lincoln was an illegitimate president. They didn’t like the Republican party’s opposition to the spread of slavery westward, and they thought Lincoln would take measures toward the end of slavery.

Instead of regrouping and trying harder to win in 1864, a number of Southern states declared secession. Glad this sort of thing hasn’t ever happened since then.

Naga Unity in 70 Years of Dystopia

 Jelle J.P. Wouters, author of In the Shadows of Naga Insurgency, claims that the primary social unit for Nagas was the village. Rarely did Nagas ask about one's tribe when getting to know someone; they would ask, rather, what is your village? and to whose clan do you belong? The rivalry and raids between villages of the same tribe are well known, which is not surprising since there were little or no external threats to the inhabitants of the Naga Hills in the 19th century or earlier (due to the extremely rugged hills). Not even the British could mount sustained, credible threats against most Naga villages.

Now, these last 70 years and more, Naga leaders have argued that the external threat comes from an occupying force wishing to colonize the Naga Hills. If this is true, then those living in the Naga inhabited areas need to identify the unifying essentials to form themselves as a people--no longer on the basis of village, or even of tribe. There must be a pan-tribal unity.

As an outsider who knows a thing or two about societal unity, it is clear to me that there is little to unite the Naga inhabited areas with the Indian union. I understand clearly that GoI's motive is to use the northeast as a geographical buffer against an aggressive Chinese government--as the chicken neck of the Siliguri Pass reveals.

Despite all the GoI talk of Nagas being one with the Indian union, there is little in common between Aryan Indians and the Nagas. Some have even argued that that Nagas have more in common with South Pacific islanders than with mainland Indians. The first time a Naga explained to me the radical difference between Nagas and mainland Indians, he said, "We eat dog." That was perfectly clear to me.

Moreover, it seems nearly impossible for Nagas to integrate into Indian society. First, there is an extreme intolerance for Christianity in the prevailing Hindu society of today. Secondly, all mainland India is wholly smitten by the caste system which not only looks down on Nagas as unclean, but also suppresses any attempt of all those in lower castes to better their social status—this is radically opposed to deeply ingrained Naga democratic commitments. Then there's the extreme reverence of the cow, making it nearly impossible for Nagas to integrate socially with mainland Indians in New Delhi or Kolkata. All this makes my heartbreak whenever I see Naga youth moving to New Delhi or Mumbai for work or education--they'd be better off moving to Kenya or even Egypt.

In light of such social dissonance between Nagas and Aryan Indians, surely there is enough in common between all Nagas to all "hang together" rather than to “hang separately.” Surely this is true despite all the dysfunctionality and dystopia that has arisen in Naga society because of having to live these 70 years in a state of armed and often violent resistance. With unity among all Nagas, and by the grace of God, the possibilities of peace, stability, prosperity, and destiny are endless.

Development in Hanoi through Free Trade with America as a Model for Nagalim

Very strange, people thought—Very strange that Trump would propose Hanoi as the venue for the second round of talks with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. Hanoi was the place of American humiliation—and North Korea was altogether happy to exploit the venue’s embarrassment for America. But analysts are finally figuring out that Trump not only plays chess while everyone else plays checkers, but that he plays 3-D chess.

After a decade of war, Hanoi was in ruins and disrepair. For years, America did no business with Hanoi, and the city struggled to arise from ashes and despair. In many ways, Hanoi was like North Korea. North Korea is a nation utterly dependent upon China for everything. People die of starvation routinely in North Korea. There is a famous satellite picture of North Korea at night that explains North Korea’s economic ruin compared with neighboring countries. Surrounding countries of South Korea, China, and Japan are all lit up, while North Korea is dead black.

In the last 20 years, however, Hanoi has grown exponentially, and has become one of America’s strong trading partners. Hanoi’s skyline shows it vibrancy. America’s great nemesis now has an incredibly beautiful skyline. Kim Jong-un assumed the choice of Hanoi was a Trump blunder (as did most of the American media), but when Kim Jong-un and his large retinue of statesmen arrived and saw the glorious skyline and highly developed beach resorts, they immediately realized that Trump’s blunder was a brilliant move. Each one of them thought, “If America’s great enemy Hanoi could become like this through friendship with the U.S., then why can’t North Korea also become a place of great development, wealth, and beauty.”

The same can be true of Nagalim. Now, having suffered 70 years of suffering and deprivations, a stable and peaceful Nagalim could follow in the footsteps of resurrected Hanoi through free trade with the U.S. Nagalim has such extraordinary natural beauty that it would make an excellent tourist destination. Traditional festivals throughout the tribal areas could draw thousands more every year. Many westerners would love to explore the great megaliths and study traditional Naga culture in many venues. Many war historians would take the opportunity to visit the site of the Battle of Kohima which the British Imperial War Museum claims was the greatest battle ever of all time for the British Army.

All this might be overly optimistic, but the possibilities are very real. Americans don’t want to invest in China. But many would find Nagalim as a great opportunity. Given the historic relationship between American Baptists and Nagalim, there might already be opportunities awaiting in the wings.

Trump-Putin Presser Analysis

The press conference transcript reveal that Trump had two urgencies regarding the 2016 election. Some confusion arises when people read Trump’s answers in light of their own urgencies and not according to context and Trump’s own intention. To avoid this confusion, the presser transcript needs to be read in light of the two urgencies

Trump’s obvious first urgency is that there was no collusion—and despite a year-long furious, prejudiced and highly motivated, well-staffed and well-financed investigation, there remains no evidence of collusion. None of the Mueller indictments have anything to do with the Trump campaign.

When Trump says there was no collusion, he certainly is not disagreeing with US intelligence agencies. When Trump denies collusion, however, the Democrats and the news media (but I repeat myself) hear Trump defending Putin’s denial of interfering in the election. Yet these are two vastly different things. Trump’s denials of collusion in no way convey Russian innocence and contrary to the hysteria, he did not exonerate Russia of election meddling.

 

Did Russia attempt to influence the election? Trump says yes, emphatically. Did Russian election meddling impact the election? Trump says no, and does so without contradicting his intelligence agencies. Did Trump collude with Russia? Trump says no. These are perfectly reasonable assertions that open-minded people should respect.

Secondly, Trump reviles the Obama administration for its failure to deal with Russian interference. This is reflected in Trump’s focus on the hacked computer network server used by the Democratic National Committee which the FBI did not examine. Trump is right to focus on this since the primary accusation of interference arises from emails that were hacked from the DNC server, and subsequently published by WikiLeaks (which denies that Russia was ever its source). Quizzically, the Obama justice department relied on the word of cybersecurity company CrowdStrike in concluding that the Russians were the source of the hack. It is said that CrowdStrike was led by Clinton loyalists. The fiasco is the fount of all sorts of speculation, rightly so.

Trump noted that his own National Director of Intelligence Dan Coates (former Indiana Republican senator) told him that Russia hacked the server, and Trump added, “I don't see any reason why it [the hacking source] would be [Russia]” which Trump later amended to say, “I don't see any reason why it wouldn’t be.” Trump’s repeated emphasis on the need for the FBI to examine the server highlights that we really have no reason to think the Russians hacked it or didn’t hack it. Thus, both Trump’s original comment and his corrected comment are valid. At any rate, for good reason, there remains tremendous controversy over who hacked the DNC server.

The presser is short and easily digestible. I am no great political genius, but I am capable of reading transcripts, and my analysis is spot on. I find it incredible that so much bogus claims are being made of such straight forward statements and answers. I really think much of the hysteria arises from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

From Trump Voter to Trump Supporter

I have transitioned from being a Trump voter to a Trump supporter.

• I fully support Trump's blue collar agenda, and the revitalization of the manufacturing industry.
• I am positively overwhelmed by Trump's tax reform (and I hope for more!)
• I tend to agree with Trump that we can only have free trade if our foreign trading partners practice fair trade
• I am surprisingly pleased with how Trump has governed in accord with Constitutional Conservative values, although I have serious reservations about the $1.3 trillion spending bill he recently signed.
• I am glad that Trump stands up to the liberal media and is willing to fight for factual reporting, etc.
• I am impressed with Trump's foreign affairs stances and achievements.
• I am thrilled with Trump's push toward deregulation and energy policy.
• Anything embarrassing or incompatible with my politics that Trump might have done or might be doing is all forgiven considering his appointment of Constitutionalist judges to the judiciary.

You're Needed in the Trenches

To save these United States, some of us need to seriously consider getting deeply involved in politics.

In 1862, the Union was beset by several major defeats in the Civil War, despite larger armies, better supplies, and impressive infrastructure. In those early battles, Confederate generals simply out-generaled their northern counterparts.

The quality of commanders largely reflected a difference in culture between North and South. There was a strong military tradition in the South wherein a military life was one which was highly esteemed—there was no shortage of highly capable men seeking military careers. Not so in the North; society’s most capable men went into business, academia, and manufacturing, and not the military. Capable leaders in the North kept their jobs when hostilities broke out, leaving military leadership in the hands of less capable men. Or so they did until they were overwhelmed by repeated defeats on the battlefield.

In 1862, then, some leading citizens in the North began a movement to recruit society’s cream of the crop for military leadership. The movement was successful. Among the leaders of the movement was a Bowdoin College professor named Joshua Chamberlain who anchored the Union defense on the left at Gettysburg and whose extraordinary leadership was instrumental in trapping Lee’s army immediately leading to Appomattox. Chamberlain, however, was but one of many leading citizens who gave up prestigious positions and embraced the hardships of army life to save the union.

If we still think this union is worth saving, then our best citizens, or at least a good number of them, need to answer the call to life in the political trenches. 

Seven Points for a Sane Discussion of Gun Ownership.

Gunsmoke's Marshal Dillon--almost a semi-automatic revolver

1. European culture was strongly influenced by feudalism. The feudal lord determined what crops you planted in which fields, and at what time, in exchange for promised security against hostile invaders. 
2. In the New World, the individual was considered his own lord—an aristocracy of one. Thus, individuals had every right to own their own unregulated weapon. The private ownership of weapons was instrumental in overthrowing British rule. This reality ingrained into the American heart a resistance toward any governmental interference of gun ownership.
3. There are 300 million guns in America. Voluntary surrender of weapons is impractical and the attempt to confiscate them by force would be disastrous. One might reflect on the history of prohibition for instruction.
4. Gun control legislation reduces the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves, while emboldening the lawless.
5. Senseless violence such as school massacres is a largely post-modern phenomenon. In prior generations, even pre-teenagers would spend mornings out hunting before going to school, without any such violence. Gun ownership is not the problem.
6. Confiscation of weapons and the repeal of the 2nd Amendment surrenders the right to effective self-defense. 
7. There is a certain irony in the notion that weapons in the hands of some people (i.e., police, government officials, bank security personnel, air marshals and pilots) is a good idea, but weapons owned for personal self-defense is bad. The notion reflects a European feudalism rather than a New World frontier mentality. If there is justification for the elite's access to weapons, surely there is a similar justification for gun ownership for all law-abiding citizens.

You Probably Ought Not Vote if....

You probably ought not vote if…

--you are clueless about Pardongate

--if you think the last impeachment was about Monica Lewinsky

--if your only source of news are the networks, BBC, NPR, Rachel Maddow, Huffington Post, and comedy shows

--if you don’t know how North Korea got their nuclear technology

--if you think that George W. Bush killed more people than Communist regimes or that Saddam Hussein was not involved in international terrorism

--if you don’t know who the Arkansas state Attorney General was when Juanita Broddrick was raped

--if you think that the only black lives that matter are those African Americans killed by white cops

--if you don’t understand how Hillary Clinton’s private server was important for Clinton financial gain

 --if you thought it was a great idea to pressure Mubarak to step down

--if you don’t know WHY Hillary Clinton suggested that the Benghazi disaster was the result of an inflammatory youtube video, or why the U.S. even had personnel in Benghazi when all other allies had al

ready abandoned the city, or how Clinton friend Sydney Blumenthal’s financial partnership with a pro-Clinton non-profit factored into it all

Wedding Bands and Flags: Symbology and Meaning

It's just some metal mined out of the earth, molded and polished into a circle. It has no inherent meaning. You can throw it down the drain if you want. No need to get all upset if your spouse throws it away.

And that's how some people view our current controversy about respect for the American flag. The flag itself has no inherent value. It's made of threads,dies, and cloth. No need to get all upset if people trample on it or show it no respect.

These statements are true enough so far as the raw materials are concerned. Yet behind the reductionism lies a symbology that deserves recognition and even materialization with all due respect. The previous generation understood the connection of symbol and material. They honored the American flag because it represented something important to them; conversely, they hated the Nazi flag because of its represented meaning.

Our society is a symbological society. We're proud to wear ball caps with our team's symbol. Roll up a few sleeves and you'll see tattoos of all kinds of symbols. We spot our favorite restaurant on a busy highway by its trademark symbol. Graphic designers make big bucks designing logos. Words have been replaced by icons in digital interface. Legislators remove Confederate flags from state buildings, all because symbols have meaning.

Given the prevalence and popularity of symbols in this age, the demeaning of the symbol of American ideals is striking. Behind it is an anti-American movement, and in its wake are those Platonists who argue that the material is nothing.

Those who uphold traditional values do not ask people to do the extraordinary to respect the symbol. There's no movement to force people to buy gilded flags worth hundreds of dollars, or even to require that they fly them on certain days. Really, just a communal moment at national pastimes would be enough to express appreciation for the ideals represented by the symbol. And if certain people can't expend the energy to stand in respect of the symbol, then fine. But don't expect the rest of us to respect them and to say nothing in reply.

If the Top Guys Are This Bad, Might as Well Vote for the Long Shot

Because the front runners of the Republican candidates are equally flawed, you might as well vote for your favorite long-shot candidate.

Trump is no more dependably conservative than Romney was. The biggest difference between Trump and Romney is the 216 miles between I-95 that separates New York from Boston. The next biggest difference between them is that Trump is the wolf that barks the louder. And he wears a finer wool blend.

Cruz has most of the conservative bona fides. What he lacks is leadership. He seems to have been a pretty good litigator, but despite his big talk about stopping the Obama agenda, he was not even able to impact McConnell’s Senate, let alone slow down the Obama agenda. Cruz and a dozen other conservatives could have had a major influence on McConnell’s Senate if a leader had emerged to make the difference. People’s anger is high because people make promises to get elected to Washington but then fail to deliver, and Cruz is the premier example.

So, there you have it. Vote for the erratic Donald Trump who is yet another conservative of convenience like Romney, or vote for a big talking freshman senator who hasn’t yet delivered. Trumps problems offset Cruz’s failures. Both men are equally flawed candidates. If the nomination is ultimately between these two, then why bother.

If neither of the front runners is better than the other, we might as well vote for the long-shot candidate, if the long-shot candidate is highly qualified and who is strongly committed to the conservative agenda.

In 1994, Rick Santorum came into the 435-member House of Representatives as a freshman congressman. He worked with seven other congressional delegates to expose the scandalous practices of the House Bank, working against nearly all incumbent representatives, including Newt Gingrich, but doing so in a way that made a huge impact on the House.

Why Freshmen Senators Should Rethink their Run for the Presidency

Ted Cruz was the keynote speaker for the IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANS conference, September 2015. No doubt he figured this would be a friendly audience. He should, however, have done some more homework before speaking.

The audience consisted of a wide range of Christians, mostly from the Middle East, and not your average Southern Baptist gathering in Texas. Attendees had worked hard over the previous 48 hours of the conference to unite to promote the well-being of persecuted Christians. It seems that Cruz was unaware that a large number of Christians do not have a friendly disposition toward Jews. I am no presidential candidate, but even I know this.

With all due insensitivity for his audience, Cruz repeatedly made comments that Israel is the greatest friend to Christians, that if you hate Jews then you oppose Jesus, and that if anyone opposes Israel then Ted will oppose them. He was booed off the stage.

Frankly, Cruz was sophomorish in this appearance. In light of audience protestations, a speaker should make concessions whenever possible, express a measure of understanding for the protesters’ concerns, and then proceed rationally. Cruz became flustered and abruptly ended his speech with an insult and a feigned “God bless you.”

I’m not sure that Cruz’s personal theology would have allowed a truly evangelical response to this crowd. Clearly, many in the crowd thought that Israel has been more at fault than not. An evangelical response would be to condemn Israel when Israel is at fault, and support Israel when in the right. Even the biblical prophets condemned Israel’s kings, prophets, judges, priests, teachers, and nobles when they were in the wrong (see, for example, Micah 2-3). Some deviant positions within the American church would suggest that the US should never condemn Israel, that the US should support Israel right or wrong.

In my perspective, Israel is the United States’ most reliable ally. It is the most democratic state in the region and upholds American values better than any other country in the region. It is also the region’s most stable country. All things considered, America would be wise to strengthen its ties with Israel and to provide all due protection for Israel’s security. This is a pragmatic perspective, and not an ideological perspective. If Israel was the problem, security agreements with Israel should be reviewed, by all means.

Some Christians allow a certain apocalyptic interpretation of the Bible to influence foreign policy.

Many questions remain about Cruz’s theology, especially in terms of End Times doctrine. Reliable analysis of Cruz’s theology seems unavailable. What we are left to say is that for whatever reason, Cruz left the IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANS conference in turmoil. Instead of advancing the conference’s goals of helping persecuted Christians, he did much to undo the reconciliation achieved in the previous two days of the conference.

The take away for this incident is that foreign diplomacy is tricky, and that Cruz is not quite ready for a prime time role as a peace maker. 

A Republican Candidate Expert in Foreign Affairs?

The lead paragraph of a January 4 news article reads, “The Middle East slid dangerously closer to regional conflict Monday after Saudi Arabia rallied its Sunni allies to sever diplomatic ties with Iran…” https://goo.gl/xGfqPs . This is but one of many flashpoints throughout the Middle East. Indeed, with the unprecedented entry of Russian military might in Syria and its belligerence toward NATO ally Turkey, the world teeters on the parapet of a possible international war with all the complexity of the First World War ratcheted up by the nuclear threat, whether by rogue nations or superpowers.

The volatility of the Middle East has taken American politics by surprise. There are a dozen Republicans running for president, yet the impetus behind these campaigns is domestic; there is only one of them with extensive interest, experience, and expertise in foreign relations. As Americans are forced to turn their electoral attention to foreign affairs, this sets up a general election scenario in which a Republican inexperienced in international relations may face a Democrat who happens to be a former Secretary of State.

Does your candidate know who Bani Sadr is? 

The debates and campaigns will turn on obscurities such as cities and regions, princes and foreign ministers, and apocalyptic theologies and clerics in internecine conflict. Secretary Clinton will likely know the name of the capital of Yemen and Qatar, and will be able to detail the significance of ISIS’ destruction of Aleppo, and what its conquest might say about the future of Assad. In contrast, does Donald Trump know anything about the Saudi royal family? Does Ben Carson understand how Yemen’s water crisis factors into its own civil war? Does Ted Cruz know the theological intricacies behind Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. Does Marco Rubio understand the pressure Turkey’s government feels from its own Islamic clerics? Hillary Clinton may have gotten all her policies wrong, but she spent several years dealing with these details daily and is fluent in them.

The sole Republican candidate who has expertise in foreign affairs is Rick Santorum. In a recent interview, a reporter pointed out to Santorum that in 2012 he was noted as the social conservative. Santorum’s reply was that at the time the news media seemed obsessed about social issues, and that he wished they had asked him about foreign affairs back them. The reality is that Santorum’s 2006 parting speech to the Senate focused on the Iranian threat. One analyst reported on it and wrote, “The day will come when we will re-read Santorum's words, and wish our leaders had listened” https://goo.gl/oc9Taa .

In his hiatus from politics, Santorum researched the Middle East as a Fellow at the Ethics for Public Policy and wrote 217 articles on the threat of Islamic terror and toured the country giving speeches to explain our situation. Even when all other Republicans were running away from any issue pertaining to Iran and Islamic terror in the 2006 election, Santorum stood on conviction, embracing it in every stump speech, sacrificing his bid for re-election for the sake of the truth. He was a leader in US-Israeli relations, and he authored both the “Syria Accountability Act” and the “Iran Freedom and Support Act,” leading to the sanctions that the Obama administration recently nullified in its Iran-Nuke deal.

In addition to this, Santorum served on the Senate Armed Services Committee where he oversaw the modernization of the military in light of challenges arising from foreign affairs.

As Republicans turn their attention to primary season, they need to vet their candidates in light of these recent developments in foreign affairs. Given the administration’s failure to lead in the Middle East, and because of its incoherent foreign policy, the international relations is likely to rise in prominence in the mind of the electorate. Santorum is the only Republican fluent in these matters; he alone will be able to engage Hillary in debate over the intricacies of Middle East policies.

In a Dangerous World, Experience Matters

I suppose that the most serious international crisis in my lifetime was the coup d'état of Mikhail Gorbachev and the fall of the Soviet Union; picture Gorbachev caged up like a bird, surrounded by rebellious generals and tanks, and no one knowing where the nuclear football was.

Regardless of one's personal view of George H.W. Bush, the world had at the American helm in this extremely volatile time someone with these credentials:

• Eight years as Vice President
• Several years as the U.N. ambassador, 
• Two terms in congress, 
• Head of the C.I.A., 
• Special envoy to China that prepared the momentous opening of that country for President Nixon
• World War II hero as well.

The world is a dangerous place. President Obama ran for president with less than four years in office as a Senator. Senators Cruz, Paul, and Rubio are no different. If they are elected, we will again be offering on-the-job training to them.

I understand the appeal of supporting candidates who hold conservative positions, but in this case, the differences between Santorum and these other conservatives do not outweigh the experience factor. Consider Santorum's credentials:

• Two terms in Congress (in freshman term exposed the House Bank Scandal--Gang of Seven)
• Two terms in Senate
• Third highest ranking Republican at age 43 (one and two years younger than Cruz and Rubio at present)
• Chair of the Armed Services Committee in an era of military modernization
• CEO of Film Production Company EchoLight Studio
• Fellow at Ethics for Public Policy Center where he authored over 200 articles on the Middle East and Radical Islam (The Gathering Storm)

Conservatives might disagree with a policy or two, or a decision or two in Santorum's storied career. But all in all, the combination of the right positions, and level of experience, and record of accomplishment easily makes Santorum a top pick for the Republican nomination.

Art of the Deal and Effective Leadership: Trump vs. Santorum

Donald Trump, they say, channels anger. I think it’s a fair assessment. His supporters might just say that it’s part of the “Art of the Deal.” Channeling anger, however, is not how one forges the kind of alliances that are necessary to get things done in Washington. Trump comes across as if he thinks he can bully his way through Washington to “make America great again.”

Lions need a pride

To be sure, Republicans are tired of their leaders being so sheep-like; gone are the days that a House Speaker (namely, Paul Ryan) might be forgiven for backing the Obama spending bill of 2015. Republicans are eager to rally around the lion’s roar, and they hunger for red meat. I think this explains much of the Trump appeal.

Yet, Republicans need to understand that Trump tactics, no matter how taut he ratchets up the rhetoric, will be met with fierce Democrat resistance. Trump may divinely pronounce “Let there be light,” but he’ll need some Democrat help in flipping the switch. Things simply do not happen in America by presidential fiat. Trump’s art of the deal with leave America in the dark.

Alliances are necessary to make America great again

This approach to the “art of the deal” stands in stark contrast with the more considered and effective approach seen in Santorum’s storied career as a legislator. I was watching a Senate floor debate from 2003 between Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton (Santorum-Clinton-Harkin Partial Birth Abortion Debate ). I was impressed with Santorum’s “art of the deal” tactics which graced the debate. He did not call Hillary an idiot or Tom Harkin ignorant. He did not appeal to the basest of our red-meat cravings. Yet, in the end, he managed to forge the kinds of allegiances with enough Democrats to pass the ban, thus correcting a bad ruling by the Supreme Court.

In the debate, I was impressed at how gracious Santorum was in “sharing” his time with Clinton and Harkin, and how he showed that he understood their point by restating their concerns. He made rhetorical concessions when he could and was regularly deferential. He did not throw down gauntlets and get red in the face. Yet he consistently stood his ground, and did so on substance. This is real “art of the deal” material.

Santorum shows that he is a faithful negotiator. His opponents see him as respectful, and this makes for the kind of environment which promotes cooperation. This makes for effective leadership.

Turning the Herd: Someone Has to Get in Front and Lead

We’ve all seen the movie scene when the herd of cattle is stampeding toward the edge of the cliff. Someone must race to the front of the herd and turn it before the he

rd topples over to disaster. Most constitutional conservatives think that America is the cattle herd, and that disaster is imminent. To mix metaphors, it is as if Barack Obama and his heir apparent Hillary are pressing the pedal to the metal, and are driving the herd over the cliff side. Conservatives are desperately looking for someone to turn the herd.

I have no doubt that establishment Republicans can put forward a candidate who will competently manage the herd over the cliff’s edge. A McCain, a Romney, or a Bush would make sure that every bovine would keep in step as it races toward death. The establishment Republican might even slow down the pace, but the herd would meet its destined disaster, nonetheless.

Based upon their ineffectiveness in the Senate to stop the Obama agenda, we should envision Republican leaders such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio as those cowboys who race to the front

of the herd and promptly get run over and stomped into the ground. Republicans elected constitutional conservatives and gave them majorities in both House and Senate, but none of them have mounted effective opposition against the Obama agenda. They followed the establishment leadership of Boehner, McConnell, and Ryan, and they gave Obama everything he asked. They will not be able to turn the herd. They are unable to forge alliances necessary for effective leadership, and they will be trampled into the dirt.

We’re looking for the kind of leader who not only holds the right positions, but also knows how to lead—someone who is courageous enough to take a stand in front of all opposition, and who knows how to work the system to tur

n the herd.

In his time in public office, Santorum stormed Congress, exposed the bank scandal and changed congressional practice. Against a presidential veto, he pressed through Welfare Reform. With cultural winds against him and the Supreme Court as well, he effectively won the ban against Partial Birth Abortion. When Senate Republican Mark Hatfield decisively voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment, Santorum had his head; despite Jesse Helms’ surprising attempt to protect Hatfield, Santorum’s opposition to Hatfield culminated in Hatfield’s retirement from the Senate. These were all herd-turning moments for American life.

The only objection that constitutional conservatives have to Santorum is the assertion that he has no chance of winning. Yet, the Santorum campaign is well ahead of its 2012 game when he won the Iowa Caucuses after being down at 2% in the polls two weeks prior. The fact that the number two candidate in the 2012 election gets so little recognition from the Republican establishment is noteworthy. The Republican establishment seems to have little fear of Cruz or Rubio or Paul, but is deathly afraid of a Santorum presidency. They have seen him turn the herd before, and they know that his election would mean that their party is over.

A Theology of Nations: Political Implications of God's Gift of Nationhood (Gen 10-12)

A Theology of Nations: 

Political Implications of God's Gift of Nationhood (Gen 10-12)

James M. Leonard, PhD

Note the purpose statement of this blog:

This blog attempts to beef up Christians' political perspectives. It is not about defending two or three moral issues, although such issues will not be neglected. What this blog is about is the promotion of a political perspective which is fully integrated with a mature Christian worldview while being entirely relevant to the current American political scene.

One of the key failures of our thinking is that we don’t have a well developed theology of nations. I suspect that books on Christians and politics are a dime a dozen, but books attempting to construct a theology of nations are quite rare (suggestions, anyone?). No doubt, Christians frequently arrive at wrong political conclusions simply because they fail to consider any theologically imposed obligations a country’s leaders might have. A well considered theology of nations would significantly impact a Christian’s political perspective.

Nations exist as a broad extension of the most basic sociological unit, the family. Families network with their neighbors, and neighborhoods develop associations with other neighborhoods, growing into ever larger units, tied together by common bonds such as geography, language, and other cultural considerations. Their mutual cooperation is designed to advance the common good of their constituent families.

This sociological perspective is compatible with a biblical model. Nationhood should not be dismissed as something arbitrarily conceived and thus dispensable; nor should nationhood be minimized as if it were opposed to Christian morality or even inherently evil.

A theology of nations begins at Genesis 10 and 11. Chapter 10’s Table of Nations provides a genealogical outline of postdiluvian civilization, united not only by genetics, but by language, geography, and perhaps even by divinely approbated conquest and intentional national development (see the commendation of Nimrod, vv. 8-12). Chapter 11 provides backgrounding information: nationhood was a consequence of God’s judgment at the Tower of Babel. There, the biblical author asserts that the families of the earth comprised a unity of culture and language in which nationhood was superfluous, at best. The attempt to prevent societal fragmentation and to establish a unified civilization independent of God was met by a divine scattering and the imposition of cooperative barriers inherent in variegated languages.

The two chapters are dischronologized. The nations are listed first in chapter 10, prior to the dispersion of chapter 11. Logically, the curse of chapter 11 had to happen prior to the existence of independent nations in chapter 10. What this dischronologization achieves is to juxtapose the curse of Gen 11 with the call of Abraham. The idea is that the dispersion and differentiation of nations will be remedied eventually by God as he works out the promises to Abraham and his descendents; through Abraham’s descendents (or rather, Descendent; cf. Gal 3:16), all the nations (מִשְׁפָּחָה) of the earth will be blessed (12:3).

Such is the beginning of a biblical theology of nations. It is one that recognizes that the division of society was a divinely imposed curse that will be remedied in the eschaton; thus, in Rev 22:2, the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations. Still, nationhood is nonetheless a gift; just as God blessed humankind with one day in seven to rest from the curse of work, God gives the blessing of nationhood to promote the general welfare of a people.

Much more needs to be said. The most important element of a theology of nationhood, however, is already evident, and leads to important implications. God’s gift of nationhood imposes certain responsibilities upon a nation’s leaders. From this we should infer that leaders must be just and rule their nations accordingly, assuring that each citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with all due recourse to the law. Likewise, we should infer that nations should relate well and cooperate with other nations, as good, reasonable neighbors. The goal, as articulated in 1 Tim 2:2, is that citizens may live peaceful and quiet lives, or, in the words of Micah, “Everyone will sit under their own vine, and under their own fig-tree, and no one will make them afraid.”

The gift of nationhood, then, entails a national defense and a just war policy. Nationhood entails a policy that protects the interests of its citizenry. While individuals are encouraged to divest themselves of self-interest for the sake of others (Phil 2:4), national application of the same ethic at an international level would constitute a dereliction of stewardship, comparable to a father gratuitously giving away all his wealth and possessions, thereby forcing his wife and children into slavery.

To be sure, a nation should make every effort to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. This desideratum, however, must be implemented with due concern for a nation’s own citizenry.