What are we electing: A president, a savior or a Santa Claus?

By Dr. Mark Hendrickson

Let’s consider a simple question: What exactly are we electing when we choose a president of the United States? The traditional answer would be: “Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces and the CEO of the executive branch of government.”

Those two roles alone make the president the most powerful person in the world, but for some Americans, the presidency has taken on an overtly messianic character.

One of the leading candidates for the next president, Hillary Clinton, once stated, “I can’t save every undercapitalized business in America.” Question: Since when was it the president’s job to “save” businesses?

Apparently, the notion that consumers are supposed to sort out the winners and the losers in the competitive marketplace is now regarded as old-fashioned, even outdated.

The traditional concept of a president being entrusted to preserve our freedom so that we can achieve whatever our God-given talents and individual ambition make possible to us has been supplanted by a pagan superstition: The president plays a deific role in deciding who is saved (on earth, not in heaven, of course) and who is not.

This candidate’s statement is not the most extreme example of the president-as-savior school of thought. In fact, acknowledging that some special interests won’t find a place to gorge at the government trough is a relatively centrist position.

The most breathtaking declaration of the quasi-divine concept of the presidency was uttered by Barack Obama’s wife: “If we win Iowa, then we can move to the world as it should be.”

The scary part of such a statement is that there are Americans who really believe that. Where earlier generations prayed to the Almighty for assistance in meeting our human needs, millions of Americans now offer obeisance to the proverbial strong man (or woman) of government in exchange for providing for our wants.

The Apostle Paul’s exhortation that we pray “for all that are in authority” (1 Timothy 2:2) has morphed into a pagan tendency to make supplications TO those in authority. To many Americans, salvation is not of the Lord, but of government. Heaven help us!

Today’s presidents may have far more power than earlier generations of presidents, but in actuality, with members of the legislative branch and also the “permanent government” of massive federal agencies and departments having their own agendas, the will of the president is frequently thwarted.

And in terms of our international relationships, in a world full of conflicting interests, fickle allies, implacable enemies, evil individuals and divergent values, presidents are all but powerless to make “the world as it should be.” Presidents are NOT saviors.

Having said that, the next president will be the first one ever to oversee the spending of $3 trillion per year. This president won’t be a savior, but will play the role of Santa Claus to a lot of people. Witness the way the candidates are tripping over each other in their haste to promise relief to homeowners who are having a hard time making their monthly payments.

In the Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama wrote that these individuals deserve government assistance — especially since they also are struggling with soaring college tuition, “skyrocketing medical bills” and under-funded retirements.

While such promises of financial relief will undoubtedly win political support for this candidate, two important truths are omitted from the discussion. (Such omissions are due either to economic ignorance or a desire to deceive voters, either fault being sufficient to disqualify such a person from being president in my eyes.)

The first omission is that government “assistance” to higher education and health care is a primary cause of their rapidly rising prices, and that the government’s Social Security program has undermined Americans’ retirement prospects. As Ronald Reagan used to remind us, government is the problem, not the solution.

The second omission is any mention of who will pay for the proposed federal bailout. Unlike Santa Claus, government can only give people wealth that it has taken from others. If presidential candidates were totally honest with us (I know, that’s a HUGE “if”) they would tell us that the rest of the middle class will have to bail out their debt-ridden fellows because there aren’t enough rich people to pay for all of Uncle Sam’s extravagant programs.

The Santa Claus approach to government being touted by several of this year’s candidates can be encapsulated in this pithy political slogan: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

OK, I admit it’s not original, but, hey, it fits.

But would Americans really elect a pied piper offering communism on the installment plan? We will find out in November. As H. L. Mencken once observed, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

[Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is a faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City (Penn.) College.]

login to post comments | The Citizen's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Jersey Girl on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 4:38pm.

This writer has alot to say, I'm just not sure why he's saying it!!

President should be the Commander in Chief and the CEO of the government, giving reference through the article that the Democratic candidates are not that. Well, maybe he should look at who's in office right now! Not much of a Commander in Chief or a CEO in most American's eyes!!

Says the rising costs of secondary education and health care shouldn't be a burdon of the government. That when the govenment assists in these matters, it's what makes their costs go up!! Where does that come from? Says no one is talking about where the money to help these areas of concern is coming from and that middle class America will be footing the bill. I have an idea - get out of Iraq!! At 10 Billion Dollars a month, I think that should probably go pretty far!!

Or did the writer not give any consideration to the fact that if middle America is going to pay for education and health care, then I guess that means that's who's paying for the war as well!!!

Doctor, please, go back to being a 'scholar and faculty member of the Center for Vision' and leave the opinions to those who have one that makes sense. I'm so tired of everyone thinking they're an expert.

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:40pm.

I would be suspect also, of any essay or editorial that was written by an 'economist' or 'faculty member' from Grove City College. This college is well known for emphasizing/teaching politically conservative thought and principles, smaller government, and adherence to strict moral values. Not unusual really for a private Christian college, but they obviously have their own agenda by offering a politically conservative humanities and science curriculum (creationism/intelligent design).

'BLENDING' SCIENCE AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN AT GROVE CITY COLLEGE

So, the Grove City College editorials, printed in the Citizen, whether focusing on economics or science, will never be unbiased or nonpartisan.


yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:47pm.

The Princeton Review, arguably the best source for rating colleges in the United States, picked Grove City the most conservative school in the nation. Pretty hefty baggage. Keep the faith

Democracy is not a spectator sport.


yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:33am.

The most breathtaking declaration of the quasi-divine concept of the presidency was uttered by Barack Obama’s wife: “If we win Iowa, then we can move to the world as it should be.”

Seems like the good doctor conveniently forgot that Bush II entered into a "holy cruasde" in the middle east for just such a reason. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:03am.

This guy is an economist? Reagan ran up the national debt more than all other presidents before him combined with his expansion of government. Bush I was a little better but not much. Bush II has loaded us with so much debt that we are now spending an extra $161 million more per day just on the increase in the interest payments on the national debt. This while expanding the government more that ever before in the history of the world.

And Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson insinuates that the Democrats would be Santa? Uh, Dr., it’s the Democrats who are fiscally responsible ones that left you Republicans a balanced budget and a surplus.

Forget quoting Mencken and Marx; Hendrickson should study P. T. Barnum: “There's a sucker born every minute."


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.