The Inherent Problem With Politicians

Posted: July 7, 2012 in Uncategorized

I was doing some research for a class I teach on the Book of Genesis when I came across this very provocative comment by John Calvin. His insight into the inherent problem with human politicians is as relevant for our day as it was his 500 years ago.

“It is a very common disease, that men of rank and great authority, while making all things subservient to their own private ends, feign themselves to be considerate for the common good, and pretend a desire for the public advantage” John Calvin

In reading that quote I was brought back to the biography of John Adams by David McCullough. Adams comes off, as do many of the other founders of The United States, as a man who was more concerned with the public good than he was with his own place of fame or fortune. Adams was so concerned about principle over popularity that he very ably served as the defense attorney for the British soldiers who were accused in the Boston Massacre. When confronted as to why he, such a staunch revolutionary would so vehemently defend British soldiers in court, Adams was clear that the rule of law was paramount and superseded his own feelings and popularity and these men deserved a fair and honest trial with the best lawyer they could get. Adams attitude was not unique among the founders of the United States. The case could be made that for many of the founders, public service was in fact a sacrifice. There were no massive pensions that set them up for life. There were no astronomical book deals that cushioned their wallets when they got out of office, or even while they where in office. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue as the wealthiest members of congress are evenly divided between the two parties and book deals know of no party boundaries. It seems that many in office today have lost sight of it being public service and not personal kingdom building.

This has got me thinking of the book Thomas Hobbes wrote titled, Leviathan. In it he essentially argues for the benevolent dictator over any other form of government. He does so for a very simple reason. Such a person has no need of the acclaim of the masses, no need of the funding of special interest groups, no need of pleasing others. If they are already independently wealthy and secure, they are free to do what is best in principle for the good of the greatest number of the public. Given the deadlock in the American Democratic process these days, one begins to wonder if Hobbes wasn’t on to something and Calvin understood the root issue. The root problem is that people, even the most sincere sounding of politicians, are prone to look out for their own interests and desires before those of the general public. Just look at how much discussion goes on that points to getting re-elected as the reason a politician takes a certain stance. It’s not about what’s right, it’s about what get’s or keeps on in office. In the worst of cases they dupe the public into believing that they are all for the common man or woman and do so by hiding the true motives of their actions. 

I have often wondered why anyone would want to be President of the United States, at least in these days. It is a thankless job that ages you faster than anything I can think of and you are subject to powers and events well out of your control. Think of Jimmy Carter and the Iran Hostage Crisis. What is it that such leaders have as a need that drives them to seek high office? If Calvin is right, for many of them it is their own agenda for what they want out of life. It may be financial gain. It may be fame and significance. It may be the power the office is perceived to wield. It is well known that from the time he was a boy Bill Clinton aspired to be president. was it because as a boy he had a vision for how to make the country right, or was it because as a boy he was enamored with fame and adulation?

Early on in his political career Ronald Reagan was dismissed as being nothing more than an actor. How could you trust him and know when he was being honest or acting? Well let’s never confuse Ronald Reagan with Laurence Olivier or Humphrey Bogart. He wasn’t that great an actor. But what he did have was a life that already achieved fame, wealth, and stature. He didn’t need to be president in order to fill some inner, unspoken, personal agenda. Like him or not, Reagan seemed to want to be president in order to make the world a better place according to his world-view and it really didn’t matter to him what people thought. He had already made his reputation and fortune.

So what does all this have to do with Provocative Christian Living? Simply this, Jesus is the ultimate non-political, benevolent dictator. It is called the Kingdom of God, not the Democracy of God. Jesus has no need to make a name for Himself. His name is already above every other name. He has no need to gather riches to himself. The world and all that is in it belongs to Him. He is the opposite of what Calvin warned against. There is no hidden agenda with Jesus. He came to serve, suffer, die, and be risen and ascended on your behalf. He really was only concerned with the benefit His life could have for others. That included bringing ultimate glory to His Father and making salvation in this life and the next possible for you and me.

This should also be an important reminder for Christians who engage in the public square. You cannot be there for your own agenda. You must be there, as Jesus was, for the benefit of others. Sometimes that means taking an unpopular stand because it is the right thing to do. Deciding an issue based on public opinion polls is as sensible as flipping a coin to decide your position. You just never know which way the coin, or public, will flip. Acting on principle, sound judgment, and keeping your own self-interests at bay it the only way to be Christ-like in the public square.

Comments
  1. While it’s true that some may have a distorted or misplaced sense of responsibility to run for political office, I believe there are those genuinely called by God to make a difference in politics.

  2. Dan Lacich says:

    I agree Donna. Wish there were more of them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s