Truth And Leadership in America.

Personal thoughts and   QUESTIONS I'VE BEEN ASKING MYSELF:

Leader:  a person worth following?

Surveying the American political landscape I begin to ask myself many questions, like "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where is the person fortified with integrity, who adheres to an external moral code, un-swayed by expediency, popular opinion, or opposition, who places right above opportunity and service above self? What makes a leader worth following in the eyes of our nation? What do I expect from a leader? Isn't one worth following one who maintains consistent convictions without regard to their audience, unbendable against the opinion of others? Shouldn't it be unquestioned that a trustworthy leader holds the truth to be essential and extremely valuable, refusing to diminish or dismiss it to avoid personal loss or for some hope of personal gain? Have I lost your interest already; are you already sighing "too idealistic and impractical"? Do you know or have you known some trustworthy person with these qualities? If you have they most likely resided in obscurity, unknown, unsung, and unheard, and likely even mocked for their simple-mindedness or archaic views. I bring to mind some iconic national leaders from our past that have become hallmarks of truthfulness. "Honest Abe Lincoln" is remembered this way, and George Washington; we still tell the story to our grandchildren that he said "I cannot tell a lie" when he cut down his father’s Cherry tree. Do modern leaders still aspire to leaving a legacy of honesty, trustworthiness, and being persons of truth or has telling the truth been abandoned as too expensive and too impractical for modern leadership? Isn't speaking the truth held in high enough regard to be mandatory for national leaders, or is the truth only expected from political figures when one is under oath?  Have I at times encouraged leaders to abandon the truth in a given situation because I feel I am not the one being duped and as long as the result of the lie is that I get what I want? Have I labeled some political person a liar, even without any evidence other than from the media, claiming moral high-ground and thereby acknowledging that telling the truth is good and moral when it serves my interests? Have we not all witnessed statements by individuals that we suspect are delivered as truthful only because proof to the contrary is thought to be unavailable? Are we now to just accept that the definition for a true statement no longer means 'facts that are in evidence or verifiable' but now means 'data that has not been proven to be false'?  Isn't it sad that such blatant and rampant disregard for the truth has spawned a whole new industry of "fact-checkers" "whopper-watchers", and fact-checker checkers?  Have we come so far that "truth" is handled as subjective, relative, and based in one’s own opinion? Do we nationally or personally model a world view that objective empirical truth is only a fable that is impractical for modern life? What will our children and grandchildren do once truth becomes meaningless, marginalized, and relegated to the domain of the archaic and simple-minded? Who will lead future generations if leaders are not expected to be persons of truth? Now you see what storms surge in my mind.

TRUTH REDEFINED:

I fear today's children are growing up with a poor understanding of the original concept of truth. Where can we now send them to find it; in what institution, organization or body is it still held in honor? Truth, until recently, has always meant agreement with reality or actuality. Since most understand that reality isn't subjective; that is that the very thing that makes actuality "actual" is that it is the same for every person and not based in personal opinions,  it would seem logical that one who understands this would also believe that truth is likewise objective. However the words and actions of many of our nation's most honored individuals demonstrate they have approved of a quiet divorce of truth from actuality. Disassociated from actuality, truth in practice loses the nobility of definition and takes on muddy shades of gray. That very attribute of grayness is for-some-reason socially protected by an unholy union to the 'right to one’s own personal opinion'. The unnatural cohabitation of truth and opinion reduces the nobility of truth while elevating the common opinion, resulting in both sharing equal respect. In this state a common opinion in lieu of accredited credentials or facts-in-evidence is all one needs to demand to be heard. The modern blogosphere (including this one) is case-in-point. One no longer needs to be believable to garner an audience, one simply claims the right to disseminate one's own personal views as truth and have the requisite resources to inject that personal version of truth into the collective public consciousness. Why do we still listen then? ...Still reading?

OUR NATIONAL DIET:

We all hope to find truthfulness in the information we encounter every day from our political celebrities, aspiring candidates, and the endless stream of opinions gushing from the self-proclaimed pundits, charismatic critics, and the profit-focused media. Sadly many, if not most, sources of information available must be received, swallowed, and assimilated with a laxative of caution. We have learned the-hard-way that sources of information that were once considered trustworthy and truthful are now dubious at best, and partisan, biased, spun for advantage, or white-washed  with a self-promotional agenda at least. Still, even with so little believable information readily available, our society remains strangely and hopelessly addicted to it.. America's insatiable craving for information drives them to constantly devour it as if devouring pie in a pie eating contest (which will by-the-way actuate a very lucrative "pie-making" industry, one focused on profits through volume at the expense of quality). Thus our multi-media information driven society parallels our fast-food, gotta-have-a-cupholder, oral-addicted lifestyle. Both are fixated on a profligate diet of frequent snacking or a quick bite at a drive-thru, but rarely as a wholesome nourishing meal. Correspondingly, our incessant ingesting causes little concern with how healthy the fare. Our primary concern is with taste, gorging our highly developed libertine palate on informational candy and the tasty sound-bite.  The average consumer of information makes no insistence for reliable truth from the popular media they attend.  Affixing a warning on the label that says "I approved this message" or "The opinions expressed here... bla bla bla..." has no effect. Providers of information are chosen just like a favorite snack, sidewalk vendor, or diner, from those that prepare the menu choices according to personal preference.  Whole facts in their original form are treated as too bitter or too pungent for enjoyment by the American consumer. Truth in raw form is simply unmarketable. It's too unsavory to the modern palate, unsatisfying in the contemporary belly and simply unfashionable to be seen ingesting. Hip consumers want their facts peeled and pared, boiled and buttered, and sauced and spiced so they trade-in their objectionable acerbity for caricature designer-flavors suitable to the epicurean tastes of the client. The art of delivering information to your personal bistro table in an aesthetic presentation is the lucrative craft of the profit-driven info-chef.  However too much gourmet-info digested metabolizes into fat-info carried on the waistline of the individual's world view, or worse unabashedly regurgitated into the lap of friends and bystanders. The old proverb is realized here too, "you are what you eat". This must be what the Apostle Paul was trying to explain to the church at Philippi when speaking of those who in willful ignorance of the truth "set their mind on earthly things" he says  "whose god is their belly", "whose glory is in their shame", and "whose end is destruction" (Philippians 3:19)

CIVIL WAR:

In 1863 at the grave-site of 51,000 Americans killed in two days of an ideological battle at Gettysburg PA, the then Chief Executive of the Nation, Honest Abe, gave a two minute speech in which he stated that "our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal". He was reiterating the concept penned at our national conception that these truths were held to to be "self-evident". The destruction caused by abandoning this truth was never more evident than at the dedication of that national cemetery. His speech demonstrated that he saw through the error and lies that violated self-evident truths and served to justify the evil domination of the powerful over the weak. He could see that continued abandonment of self-evident truth would eventually result in the destruction of our nation by further stating "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure." Today we are no less divided in a moral civil war testing whether our nation or any nation so 'deceived' can long endure. Our division today is not one of North against South but one of truth from above against relativism from below and each patriot must once again choose sides. The choice before us is ultimately not one of capitalism or socialism, liberalism or conservatism,  left or right, or even the entitlements of the rich against the entitlements of the poor, but our choice is one of standing for Truth or falsehood. Both sides will promote their leaders and each must support leaders who live, model, and refuse to abandon the party ideals and both must reject all would-be leaders who fail to do so. I am a Christian, and Jesus Christ made the bold claim "I am The Truth".  Likewise the Bible states about Him that "no deceit was ever found in his mouth"(1 Peter 2:22). We now have before us a contest of two political parties that have put forth a candidate who aspires to lead our nation. By failing to insist on truth from these candidates Americans have encouraged both parties to no longer include a commitment to truth, honesty, and integrity in their party platform. I fear they must simply feel there is no popular support for these ideals even though no party that abandons them is worthy to lead even their own disciples. Likewise, no government that abandons the truth is worthy of the peoples allegiance, just as no one who calls themselves a Christian and abandons the fundamental devotion to The Truth is worthy to be called a disciple of The Truth. If our nation is comprised of a majority who claim the name "Christian" then it would follow that this nation is one of a majority who are committed to The Truth, and a commitment to truth means a commitment at all costs. Where then are the leaders for the followers of truth?

PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS:

I'm not claiming to have never lied or stretched the truth. That in itself would be a lie.  I admit I have at times been a part of the problem, but what I do claim is that I have grown to recognize the destructive power of deception in all its forms, have come to detest it, and have made a personal commitment to being a man of truth even if it means standing alone. Furthermore, I am raising awareness that we should insist from those who aspire to leadership that any form of deception for personal advantage is unacceptable to the cost of disqualification. When I speak of politics to friends and acquaintances one thing I find in common from both sides of the contest is how universally fed up we are with the negative and deceptive campaigning.  Everyone seems to feel they are not being told the whole truth, but mostly in statements from the opposition camp. But once I mention that I feel both sides are culpable of deceptive campaigning, I have yet to receive a disagreement.  This tells me that either people are agreeing with me just to avoid conflict or their agreement is tacit proof that they acknowledge their favorite candidate is in collusion with deception and they accept it as part of the process.  Most probably justify it as fair play because the other side is doing it worse in their opinion. No one likes to be lied to but we are too ready to overlook our own candidates political deception when we think our interests will be served by it. When we blink at deception by our leaders we fail to realize we are encouraging the practice of deception by both sides of the contest. We are actually getting what we deserve because we have failed to stand for truth and insist that deception is a deal-breaker for our support. Who would want a leader that is at ease with the tall-tale? I recognize that deception in our land as all the momentum of a freight train and we are not likely to reverse its course quickly but as many as are called by The Truth must lay our full weight against the brake lever or be found to be in collusion with the problem. I further recognize that telling and living the truth can at times be costly and deception can appear to be immediately less expensive, but I am convinced that all deception is destructive and will eventually demand its price -in-full with interest; a bill we will not want to pay when it comes due. If the term "Christian" refers to us than it must mean a follower of The Truth at any and all costs. This following demands a single allegiance and obedience and will not abide co-following both truth and error. Therefore reject lies and refuse to attend to those who spread them following only The One whose eyes are "too pure to look on evil" (Hab 1:13). If you do not call yourself a Christian and are still reading this I say to you be careful in what you place your trust. Only truth is solid footing and will stand the test of time; only the one who calls himself The Truth is the trustworthy solid rock that endures forever. 

"Who is wise? Let him understand these things. Who is prudent? Let him know them. For the ways of the Lord are right; The righteous walk in them, But transgressors stumble in them." (Hosea 14:9)