Strong Leaders And Holiness Make America Great
by
What kind of leader do Americans actually want?
The results of the Nov. 3 elections have been horrifying for Republicans and greeted with triumph by Democrats. The leftists are having fantasies of spitting on the policies and perhaps the person of Pres. Trump as a failed leader.
Since he announced his candidacy for his first run in 2015, many Dems continue to hope that Trump would somehow be another Nebuchadnezzar. Trump’s enemies hoped he would lose his authority; leadership skills; and position as a television star, a world-class builder, an owner of golf courses, and the owner of the Miss Universe contest. They hoped, like Nebuchadnezzar, that he would wander as an animal for years.
Instead, he overcame two impeachments, vicious personal attacks and denigration, at least two assassination attempts, multiple lawfare attacks, and continuous public disparagement worse than any other leaders have faced in American history.
This writer has watched a number of political analyses on TV and read articles about this “tsunami” against the Republicans, with manifest gloating by many commentators about Pres. Trump’s dramatic decline in popularity in the short time since he singlehandedly made his great comeback in 2024.
The overwhelming victory of Democrat candidates in the voting for representatives and senators has been understood by most Democrats and Republicans as a repudiation of Pres. Trump’s leadership as president of the USA, especially since our president campaigned so aggressively for Republicans. Then, with his usual high school bravado, he replied after the voting that if his name had been on the ballot, the results would have been quite different.
However, listening to the various analyses of the election explaining the eclipse of the Republicans, this writer is struck by the lack of historical understanding of some issues that have been driving Western political issues and conflicts since the 17th century. Those issues pertain to the nature of political power, and also the role of religion in our society and political institutions.
Since the 16th century, there has been an ongoing debate about what the appropriate executive power for the body politic should be. In the 16th century, England’s King Henry VIII was annoyed with the pope for deciding not to annul one of his marriages, and separated from the Catholic Church, declaring himself head of the Church of England and appointing an archbishop to administer the CofE. Could a king literally claim to found a national church?
After King Henry, there continued to be contention about whether to return to Catholicism. Queen Elizabeth stood by the Church of England as the official religion. Following her, James I of Scotland became king and instigated a translation of the Holy Bible into English, which translation we now call the King James Bible.
King James was followed by Charles I, who intensified royal prerogatives and power by levying taxes without the consent of Parliament, imprisoning people without specific charges (no habeas corpus), declaring martial law, and quartering soldiers in private homes in peacetime.
Clearly, England and then a united England and Scotland were wrestling with the question of the extent of authority of the political leader (king) of their country. This debate was intensified by the debate between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes believed that the people should turn some of their rights over to a strong king, whereas Locke, a physician and philosopher, wanted more legislative power to lie with Parliament.
Convened in November 1640, the Long Parliament initially sought to strip the king of his arbitrary powers and assert parliamentary control over taxation and governance. Tensions escalated after Charles I attempted to arrest five members of Parliament, and this led to his trial and execution in 1649.