Free Candy*

As we move toward the coming November election it is too early to tell for sure who the presidential candidates for the two parties are going to be, but so far I don't like what I am seeing on either side. In my previous post, The Election and the Direction (11/16/2014), I expressed that though we had experienced a political change by reason of the mid-term election of November 2014, what we needed even more was a change in moral and spiritual direction. I am disturbed that this appears not to be happening.

One of my major concerns has always been the country's economic problem, which too is a moral and spiritual dilemma (see my post, The Economic Crisis, Jan. 2014). If our economy does not collapse under the weight of the now over 18 trillion dollar debt during the remaining months of King Obama's reign, it will almost certainly do so under the next president, regardless of which party wins the election.

The reason that I see so little hope at this point is the fact that every leading  candidate, on both sides of the aisle, is luring voters with promises of "free candy"* and it seems to be working for them.

Hillary Clinton's income equality theme resonates with many, despite the fact that the cost of this is always passed on in the form of higher prices for goods and services further down the line. Just what we fixed income folks need! I don't know about you, but I would rather keep more of my own money than get more of someone else's. But we're going to make those billionaires and multi-billionaires pay their fair share (all 536 of them)!** I'm sure that this will encourage them to expand their business endeavors and hire more people**. Out of the three leading candidates, Hillary is the only one who wants to disarm law-abiding citizens in order to reduce the criminal use of firearms. She also is out to demoralize our law-enforcement officers and destroy their will to protect us and our communities. Perhaps she will disarm them too. I have to confess that I am not all that worried about her making it to the Whitehouse. If this email scandal plays out to its fullest extent she may be heading for the Big House  instead. At the very least, it seems that the electorate is waking up to her dishonesty.

Bernie Sanders is even more eager to pass out the free candy. Hey Bernie, I don't suppose that you could make that student loan forgiveness retroactive to 1969? I watched and listened to him last night on TV, and was impressed at how resonant he is with the young people (including the young women, much to the dismay of Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright). This made me think back to another presidential candidate of the 60's, George McGovern, who led the young people of an earlier day around like the Pied Piper with the promise of free candy. I recall that he was trounced in the general election, winning only two states! On the upside, Mr. Sanders seems to respect the constitution and probably will not run roughshod over it as Mr. Obama has.

Donald Trump isn't really any better. He seems to be on the conservative version of the free candy wagon, and his mouth continues to write checks that his body can't cash.** He says that he wants to cut spending, and I'm all for that. He says that he wants to rebuild the military, and I'm all for that. He says that he wants to use tax incentives, and rebuild the nation's infrastructure to create jobs to rebuild the economy. That too sounds like a good idea. But what about the "19 trillion dollar debt" (that's the figure he used on TV last night)? Maybe Donald will give us a loan until his proposals start paying off. **

Recently I heard a commentator say that Donald Trump is a narcissist who views the American Presidency as a prize to be achieved, and that he would say or do whatever he must in order to win it. I am not sure that this is entirely true. At the very least this is an overstatement, and I think that he has the country's  best interest at heart, but I also think that all of the above could be said for Mrs. Clinton as well.

There are other candidates in the race also, including some true Christians, but they don't seem to be able to get any traction. So far we had only seen two state's primaries (yes I know that one was a "caucus" and not a primary), and the usual speculative and somewhat unreliable polls, but it is not looking good for  the "home team."**  Lou Dobbs on Fox News commented about his impression that in this election year Christians are willing to support anyone for president who will not hate us. I find this to be the mindset that I am in at the present time.

I read a scripture this morning that touched me, Zechariah 11:16:

" . . . behold, I am going  to raise up a shepherd in the land who will not care for the perishing, seek the scattered, heal the broken, . . . but will devour the flesh of the fat sheep, and tear off their hoofs." (NASB)

While I know that this was a prophecy that came true in the life of Israel, I cannot help but wonder if God is saying something similar to us today: "If you folks won't follow me, I will give you the leadership  that you deserve!"

I also read an interesting article this morning in the Olive Tree Ministries newsletter, Understanding the Times. The article in the edition dated February 11, by staff member Jill Martin Riche was entitled: Saving America: We Are at a Fork in the Road. I recommend that you access and read the whole article at www.olivetreeviews.org

One statement in particular struck a note with me:

"If millions of Christians walk away from the choice God gives us this year, the result will be another Barack [sic] Obama. . . our job is to DO SOMETHING to defend our families and our country against [evil]"

We need to pray about the election. We need to ask God to raise up both a presidential candidate and candidates for the other offices that we can support. We need primarily, and above all else, to seek His will in our votes.

Thanks for sharing this moment with me today.

*It has been pointed out to me that some may take my rhetorical, tongue-in-cheek remarks such as this seriously. Please understand that "free candy" means the promise of government benefits at someone else's expense.

**also a tongue-in-cheek statement