There comes a time about every four years when I get severely disturbed and tired of political mudslinging. It just so happens that this cycle coincides with election year. A connection? Perhaps. Anyway, with the conventions in full swing I have taken a few moments to look seriously at the issues and at the people. What I found? There is not a single person in this country fit to run it, not even me (not that I'm all that, but usually I have a better opinion of myself than others). Having said that, and thus having eliminated any potential candidate, what are we really left to hope for. Since there is no possible way that an absolute ideal can be met, due to an innate problem with humanity, how do we begin the search? I would like to suggest a starting point about 6000 years ago, a time when known modern humanity was just arriving on the scene according to recorded history.
There are many who would like to tell us that this time in history was much less absorbed with trouble than other times. That men were less destructive and that freedom was pretty easily practiced by anybody and everybody. I suggest that this is not the case. I suggest given the quantity of human reproduction that we know of from the time, that there were considerably greater numbers of people than most want to claim. I suggest that given this great number of people, problems, quarrels, fights, and even wars, abounded. Was I there? No, this is just my opinion, it is based on many years of ancient studies in history and language record. Whether you wish to deny it or not, the Bible remains our most complete ancient record. Even if I manage to debunk the time frames and apparent prophecies, I cannot deny the validity of its ancient record, it has been proven historical. (If thou believest not, do some serious, open-minded study. Consider the best academics in the field today, Biblical and Secular, and I think that you will see that as an historical document the Bible is accurate). But we won't start with the Bible, I will start with the oldest known written documents, shards of pottery sent as a proof of transaction from a seller to a buyer.
In ancient times, before the advent of modern written communication, farmers learned that sometimes when they sent sheep to a buyer, not all of them would arrive. This often was unknown to the buyer, or he assumed that the seller had cheated him. To counter this issue, sellers at first began putting small pieces of pottery, marked with the item(s) sent, in a sealed jar along with the delivery person (a slave, or farmhand of sorts). So when the slave arrived with the goods, the buyer would break the jar, remove the pieces and count the goods. He would then send a sealed jar back with the amount that he received as a receiptThis worked well until they needed to transport mass quantities, at which point they began to develop symbols that look oddly similar to both Hebrew and early Eastern (Chinese) written languages. I do not tell you this so that you can understand language, I tell you this to point out the problem: greed. The surmised reason that receipts were developed in this manner was due to theft. If a slave wanted to steel and there was no communication (however primitive) he could easily sell 1 or 2 or 10 of whatever (depending on initial quantity), make a profit for himself and deliver the rest, it would then be a matter of word-against-word. Once the pottery receipt system was invented it was much more difficult.
We live in an information age; in our age receipts, paper trails, databases, and other various systems for preventing theft, abound. Did you realize that the cash register was not invented for the consumer, but as a theft prevention device? A bartender calculated that he had been sustaining heavy losses and figured if he could calculate everyones tab quickly and easily he could prevent the loss. I find it terribly disturbing that the origins of written language, so far as we can tell, were an attempt to stop greedy people from being greedy. Does this say something about human nature? Perhaps greed is a facet of human nature that will never be overcome (Hey, we've been here 6000+ years and haven't gotten very far) . If I say then that greed is a natural part of human nature and that all people are greedy in one way or another, perhaps I can begin to entertain the idea of a human being a leader. I no longer feel that the candidate has to be completely free of greed, simply that they have acknowleged their greed and have shown some success in curbing it. I say, that the issue is still not over though; Greed is not the only way in which humanity fails.
I do not play games with the fact that Egypt was an ancient civilization. I recognize them as having accomplished things that no civilization has since accomplished. I also recognize that much of their greatness, like many nations before and since, was borne on the backs of slave labor. Largely, that of the nation Israel. Granted, Israel was in a position for this to happen, having received for a number of years the fruit Egypt, being kept from starvation solely by their wealth. Here is where the question of justice pops in. Regardless of having fed the Israelites, was Egypt just in their slavery of them? I use this as just one example, though there are many. What exactly defines justice? As we look throughout history we undoubtedly see the occurance of what we feel is injustice. As I see it, what is justice largely depends on your perspective. Egypt could have said that the injustice was for them to harbor a nation that gave nothing in return. Israel could counter with the question of whether 480 years of slavery is compensatory or usury and torment. Regardless of who I am, I have an idea of what justice is, or ought to be. My view of justice differs from that of a Muslim, a Chinaman, an Israelite, a Palastinian, an Englishman; we are all products of our past, no matter how ugly or beautiful we think they are. Man has an innate justice problem.
Having this justice problem, perhaps I can accept a candidate for a leader who doesn't have a perfect record of justice, but who has acknowledged his just failures and has a history of conquering it.
"O tempores. O mores," Thus Cicero said. "O times. O morals." I lament the same many times. To what have I now fallen. Where is the character that at times seems to poke its head more than at others. I realize, rather than note the lack therof, I should take the truth that mankind in general has a character problem. Scholars and philosophers have wept for ages over the loss of the soul of man. I am no different. Can I accept less than perfect morals? I will concede that a leader may have less than perfect morals (we all do), so long as that leader has acknowledged their failures and has a history of improvement.
I am empty. Where is my heart in this? Should not I want the greatest ideal in a leader? Where do I find myself, willing to overlook immorality, greed, justice, just so that I can ACCEPT a leader. I make no apology, my heart is in this. I talk as if the decision for who will lead this great country is one of issues, of saying the right things, of voting the right way. We could sit an discuss the day long every issue that plagues my soul around the world and we could match up what candidate better assuages the trouble I feel, yet I do not fill up.
I will face the truth, who I vote for is who speaks to my heart. The person who brings to me the humanity of his soul. Issues, pollsters, media, speeches, debates, tax-cuts, veto-strength, against-the-grainism all be damned. If I do not have the strength to know who I am then I am not fit for office and neither is anyone else. If a candidate's heart is not highly visible, then he is unfit for office. No candidate running fits the bill! THIS IS THE REALITY! All I ask is a very simple request, cut out all of your speeches about what your going to do, or at least follow through on every count. Media, stop trying to make up my mind for me Barack Hussein Obama is no better than any other candidate when weighed on my scale, leave me alone. Give a speech that has some substance to it, that makes my heart want to trust you. I don't want to hear about all of the ways in which you are a hero. I want to know whether you are 100% comfortable with who you are and whether who you believe that you are is a person of Character, Justice, and Humility. If you are reaching for these characteristics, and not just playing political games then perhaps I will find you fit, but I will tell you that I can spot a game a mile away. So far as I can see, all of my options are playing games with their lives. If they play games with their lives, imagine the destruction that they can wreak on an entire country.
Is there a conclusion to this issue? Perhaps, if we have recognized that man is human, woman is human, human is corrupt, corruption is rampant, honesty is elusive, and there is little hope in the political situation in America. The worst part: I am no better than any one of them on any side. I play the same games. I tell the same lies. I desire the same power. I am human, humani a me nihil alienum puto.
So what is all the political crap and speech really besides just an extension of myself. Ah there's the rub. My leaders will not change who I am. They cannot make me better, hence they cannot change the country I live in. I am not their responsibility, I am my responsibility. My morals are the morals of my country. My character is the character of my country. My justice is the justice of my country. Who I am is who my country is. Here's the big one: He who I make myself to be is he who my country makes itself to be. If I make myself a robber, my country follows suit. But if I make myself honest, just, humble, of high character, so does my country. In the end, I do not have to worry about everyone else. Who I am leads my country, my world, to success or to failure; it is my choice.
