Leadership

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he campaigned as a center-left politician who eventually got in trouble for pushing nationalized health care (Hillarycare) and taking the nation in a liberal direction. He was rebuked by the avalanche of the 1994 elections (remember the “Contract With America“) when the Republicans swept both the House and Senate.

A course correction was needed to serve the people and the American vision.

President Clinton needed to listen.

That’s the essence of both servant and democratic leadership–the will of the people should prevail. The American vision is people rule (self-government) under God.

I wrote a book on servant leadership in 1989 called Leadership for the 21st Century: Changing Nations Through the Power of Serving. The book centers on ten attitudes and ten actions of a servant leader that are exemplified in the life of Jesus. Servant leaders always put the needs and desires of others above their own.

If you’ve never read Leadership for the 21st Century, I’d be glad to send you a personalized copy. Besides the ten character qualities, the book is worth the “prophecy” contained in the first chapter that amazingly became true over the past twenty years. The other is the Appendix where I shared William McDonald’s twenty-five qualities of leadership that made Jesus the greatest servant leader of men.

Drop me a note with any donation (YWAM, P.O. Box 1634, Port Orchard, WA USA 98367) and I’ll send you a copy.

It would make a great Christmas read.

Then there’s the aspect of democratic leadership. In republican democracies, representatives of the people are elected for two primary reasons: 1) To protect the God-given rights of the people, and 2) To legislate their concerns into law.

Servants care about people’s desires and real democrats do too. Democratic governments are uniquely designed to benefit the people.

Now back to President Clinton.

After a shellacking in the 1992 elections, to his credit, President Clinton recognized democratic realities (and also good politics), admitted that the nation had spoken, and that he needed to change.  Over a number of months he pivoted to the political center for the good of the nation.

Before his pivot he had become “The Incredible Shrinking President” (remember that cover story of TIME magazine in 1992?). After he humbled himself and changed course, he became a relatively successful president. What followed was a season of bi-partisanship in politics, social stability, and economic growth led by a Republican-controlled Congress and a begrudging but cooperative presidency.

Bill Clinton was willing to change course when shown he was wrong. As a result, he ended up getting major credit for the first balanced budget in years, and despite the Monica Lewinsky sexual scandal, ended his term in high popularity with the American people.

He listened. Both he and the nation were blessed.

Now fast-forward to 2008. 

A nation tired of war and worried about economic uncertainties again voted for a supposed center-left politician–Barack Obama. He was well-spoken and charismatic–although grossly under qualified for the highest office in the nation. He had never run a business or met a payroll. Most of the life had been spent on the public dole or in community organizing activities. He was a state senator for seven short years and US Senator for only two. He’d never led anything, and had been involved in politics for less than a decade.

His major track record related to radical causes

Yet, because of a supportive press, and the failure of the Republicans to live up to their ideals, the American people elected Barack Obama to lead the most important nation on earth.

Upon assuming office in January, 2008, he immediately tacked to the left just as Bill Clinton had done sixteen years before–and Jimmy Carter sixteen years before that.

We seem to get a liberal assault every sixteen years or so.

And now–after two years of radically liberal policies:

• Three trillion dollars in excessive government spending
• Chicago-style arm-twisting, back room deals, and appointing numerous “czars” 
• Pushing destructive environmental causes (Copenhagen Summit and Cap and Trade legislation)
• Weakness in the war on terror (refusing even to use the word),
• Expanding the federal government by 10% and scores of thousands of jobs
• Pushing through national health care–worse than Hillarycare–that bears his name.
• And vowing to vastly alter the American nation through massive income re-distribution,

Barack Obama has arrived at the “shrinking president moment” faced by Bill Clinton in 1992. Repudiated by a landslide election on November 2–far worse than the 1992 debacle on a national scale–President Obama had the opportunity to humble himself, accept a political defeat, and be servant-like, and democratic by turning back to the traditional American center.

He could have pivoted America back toward fiscal sanity and moral rightness.

Instead, he pushed for a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (the homosexualization of the American Armed Forces), and continued to hold out on raising taxes on successful small businesses and wealthy individuals–the ones who create jobs in the economy.

He’s not listening.

So he’s neither being democratic nor acting as a servant leader.

Barack Obama has proven to be a radical ideologue who doesn’t understand democracy and appears to have no desire to serve the will of the people. He ultimately lost the battle to raise taxes, but not because he’s repentant and willing to change.

He just doesn’t have the votes.

As long as he proudly stays the secular-progressive course, he will continue to shrink as a leader  (now down to 39% in public popularity) and hurt the American nation.

We are witnessing a colossal failure in democratic, servant leadership.

It pains me to write these words. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, to stay clear of questioning others’ motivations, and give them a chance to perform. For the past two years I have been waiting for a “wiser” Barack Obama to emerge or evolve. I wishfully thought that the awe and realities of the office of the POTUS would soften his perspective on the great issues of our day.

I have been deeply disappointed–as has much of the nation. After the November mid-terms, which were an historical tidal wave for conservative candidates on both a state and national level, I again hoped Barack Obama would step to the teleprompter and say something like this to the American people:

“My fellow Americans, you have spoken clearly through the election results. I have been humbled by your voice and want to respond to the will of the people. “Let me be clear: the people are the true leaders of the United States of America, and as our leaders you have told us to change course.”

“You do not want us to increase the size and growth of the Federal government. You want power returned to the people and also to the states. You don’t want us to follow the pathway of Europe, but return to the American dream of individual freedom, a Constitutional republic and limited powers of government control.”

“I have heard your concerns and will respond to your will. Together, let us do the right things to make our nation great again.”

I’d love to hear those words from our 44th president.

Humility and truth are beautiful things.

So is the ability to listen.

But it doesn’t look like they will be forthcoming. Barack Obama is more a radical version of Jimmy Carter than a pragmatic-oriented Bill Clinton.

In my heart,  I hope that President Obama will still see the light and pivot toward the truth. If he doesn’t, the American nation could be in store for some very dark days ahead.

We are sadly witnessing a colossal failure of democratic servant leadership.

Let us pray fervently for our president–and live as servant leaders in the spheres God has given to each one of us..

I have been saying for many months that the most important election of our lives may take place on November 2. The present administration in the United States is dangerously veering this nation down a road of reckless spending, social experimentation and class warfare.

As both believers and citizens, we must cry out to God for his mercy and grace and exercise our incredible right to vote for a change of direction. That vote will take place on November 2nd. My cell phone and e-mail box are already filling up with messages asking my opinion on how to vote.

Here are the principles that guide my own votes, and also some recommendations for Washington voters on how to navigate the many Initiatives on the ballot this year.

If you are a Washington State resident, please forward this e-mail to those it might help.

First of all, the principles.

There are a number of things I take into consideration when deciding how to vote for a candidate.

1. World view – Which candidate has the clearest and most consistent Judeo-Christian worldview both on economic and social issues? I actually put this before a candidate’s professed faith. You can be a Christian in heart but have a secular world view in terms of policy positions. This was the problem with Jimmy Carter in 1976. He professed faith in Christ but did not have a biblical worldview. That’s one reason why he was a poor and ineffective president.

2. Personal faith – this does make a difference. One who believes in God and has made Jesus Christ the Lord of his or her life will generally make wiser and more noble decisions in the public arena. A person of genuine faith is likely to have greater integrity and honesty than the secular candidate who has lesser restraints on his actions and words (a lack of the fear of God).

3. Do they believe in individual freedom in economic issues and government restraints on morality? This is the biblical balance. A strict libertarian believes in individual freedom in all areas, including morality. A consistent progressive believes in government controls in all areas. The biblical Christian desires freedom for business and commerce which encourages personal responsibility and prosperity but also supports government restraints on sinful behavior (abortion, pornography, homosexual marriage etc.). God wants people to both have liberty to soar and to be protected from sin.

4. Who is supporting the candidate? Endorsements tell you a lot about the views of a candidate. If I am in doubt about a particular candidate, I will look at his or her backers for a signal as to their beliefs. This is especially helpful when looking at initiatives. Birds of a feather flock together.

5. Who do I trust to have a wise and fair view of the candidates in question? I have a friend named Mary McQueen who for many years managed the Washington State Supreme Court. Mary is an attorney who shares a common faith and desire for good and principled leaders. She personally knew every judge and prominent attorney in the state. In many judicial races, where there just didn’t seem to much be information on the candidates, I would give Mary a call because I trusted her personal knowledge of the people involved.

Trust is the basis of most of the great decisions of life–including voting.

These are the questions I ask myself about candidates. For initiatives and referendums, there’s another set of questions that I use to make wise voting decisions.

1. Will this issue grow the state or empower the individual? This is the crucial issue of 2010. We are involved in a great struggle between statists (the world view of secular progressives) and freedom- loving patriots (think the Tea Party movement and average faith-based American).

2. Is this activity something that God has assigned to the governmental domain (protecting citizens) or to the private or eccesiastical spheres (providing for human needs)?

3. Will this law raise taxes?  I always say no to new taxes. Why? Because biblical tyranny begins when government takes more than ten to twenty percent of personal income. We are now approaching fifty to sixty percent in America, and some European nations are over the seventy per cent mark. We don’t need more taxes. We need better use of resources.

4. Is this initiative pro-freedom and entrepreneurship? Motivated-and-lower-taxed individuals create the jobs, not government bureaucracies.

5. Will this issue protect the God-given family and our precious children? The family, and its crucial role in nurturing the next generation of children, is the bedrock of any enlightened society.

6. Does the Bible deal directly with this issue (such as marriage and various crimes)? God’s ways always produce freedom and blessing when followed by a wise people.

7. Does this issue encourage good stewardship of the environment and natural resources while looking market forces and individual decisions for direction (not rabid environmentalism)?

8. Does this issue encourage or squelch religious faith?

I hope this set of guidelines helps you make some wise and critical votes on November 2.

For fellow Washingtonians: I have never seen such a complicated initiative ballot than the one we’ve received in 2010. After studying those issues myself, I came across some information from the Faith & Freedom Network, that is extremely helpful to me–especially on Initiatives 1100 and 1105.

Here’s where the issue of trust comes in. Matt Shea is a Spokane-area representative that I know and trust a great deal. He’s one of the shining lights in our current legislature. Matt has taken the time to give his perspective on the labyrinth of initiative issues. I agree with his assessment.

BALLOT MEASURE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Initiative Measure No. 1053 – Concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government. This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval.

– Vote Yes. “All power is inherent in the people…” Washington Constitution Article 1, Section 1. The people decided to put another limitation and check on an out of control government. What’s more Republican than that?

Initiative Measure No. 1082 – Concerns industrial insurance. This measure would authorize employers to purchase private industrial insurance (a/k/a workers’ compensation) beginning July 1, 2012; direct the Legislature to enact conforming legislation by March 1, 2012; and eliminate the worker-paid share of medical-benefit premiums.

– Vote Yes. Washington is one of only four states that do not allow a private option. This measure would lower the L&I cost and provide much need relief to our struggling small business owners.

Initiative Measure No. 1098 – Concerns establishing a state income tax and reducing other taxes.
This measure would tax “adjusted gross income” above $200,000 (individuals) and 400,000 (joint-filers), reduce state property tax levies, reduce certain business and occupation taxes, and direct any increased revenues to education and health.

– Vote No. This violates the State Constitution Article 7, Section 1 which reads “All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word “property” as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.” The State Supreme Court has correctly ruled on multiple occasions that income (defined here as the fruits of one’s labor) is property. That is consistent with the founding fathers view as well.

Initiative Measure No. 1100 – Concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits). This measure would close state liquor stores; authorize sale, distribution, and importation of spirits by private parties; and repeal certain requirements that govern the business operations of beer and wine distributors and producers.

– Vote Yes. The role of government is to protect our God given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property not run liquor stores. Like taxpayer funding of abortion clinics, it is also morally reprehensible to use tax payer dollars to distribute liquor.

Initiative Measure No. 1105 – Concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits). This measure would close all state liquor stores and license private parties to sell or distribute spirits. It would revise laws concerning regulation, taxation and government revenues from distribution and sale of spirits.

– Vote No. This expands the size and scope of government through new mandates and licenses effectively trading one monopoly for another. It also proposes two tax increases.

Initiative Measure No. 1107 – Concerns reversing certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws.
This measure would end sales tax on candy; end temporary sales tax on some bottled water; end temporary excise taxes on carbonated beverages; and reduce tax rates for certain food processors.

– Vote Yes. Cuts taxes and eliminates a massive regulatory burden on businesses to figure out which items are “candy” and should be taxed.

Referendum Measure 52– Concerns authorizing and funding bonds for energy efficiency projects in school per EHB 2561 as passed by the Legislature. This bill would authorize bonds to finance construction and repair projects increasing energy efficiency in public schools and higher education buildings, and continue the sales tax on bottled water otherwise expiring in 2013.

– Vote No. This is deficit spending and dishonest. This would allow “projected energy savings” to be the asset against which to bond half a billion dollars at a total cost to tax payers of almost $1 billion.

Senate Joint Resolution 8225– The Legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment concerning the limitation on state debt. SJR 8225 would require the state to reduce the interest accounted for in calculating the constitutional debt limit, by the amount of federal payments scheduled to be received to offset that interest.

– Vote No. This is an accounting trick to allow the state to borrow more money above the current constitutional debt limit while our spending remains out-of-control.

Engrossed Substitute House Joint Resolution 4220– The legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment on denying bail for persons charged with certain criminal offenses. ESHJR 4220 would authorize courts to deny bail for offenses punishable by the possibility of life in prison, on clear and convincing evidence of a propensity for violence that would likely endanger persons.

– Vote Yes. This would restore the original understanding of when bail could be denied for “capital offenses.” Had this been in place it likely would have prevented the infamous Lakewood shooting.

Don’t forget to pray and don’t forget to vote on or before November 2. Edmund Burke wisely said that “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

That’s another principle you can take to the ballot box.

Many of us are filling our primary ballots this week or in coming weeks. The number one reference for all of our voting decisions should be: 

Who will govern the most like Jesus?

He was the greatest leader of history. He is now the President of all presidents, Senator of all senators, Rep of all reps, Judge of all judges (King of kings and Lord of lords in ancient language).

No human being is as good a leader as Jesus. But some are closer than others. Some display some or much of his character–others very little.

If we want a good society, led by good leaders, we need to choose people who–among the voting choices–most resemble Jesus.

My 1989 book on leadership (Leadership for the 21st Century) contains the most concise description of Jesus’ leadership qualities that I’ve ever seen. It was written by William McDonald. I encourage you to study the points and then vote for people who most resemble Jesus.

But always remember to place your ultimate trust in…

Jesus -the Greatest Leader of Men

By William McDonald

1. Jesus clearly envisioned the destination to which he was leading his people–the kingdom of God.  The first principle of his leadership was that he knew precisely where he would lead the faithful and how to get there.  Reversals and mid⌐course corrections were unnecessary under his leadership (Luke 9:51, 22:15,16).

2. Jesus led without forcing his values on anyone or coercing anyone into following.  That is, he never drafted anyone in violation of individual autonomy.  Much prayer preceded the call of those who would be his closest colleagues in ministry (Luke 6:12,13).

3. Jesus was not obsessed with gaining the psychological power of great numbers of warm bodies.  Volunteers who would not pay the price of total commitment were turned away rather than being signed up on their own terms (Luke 9:57-62).

4. Jesus won the hearts of his followers by leading through friendship rather than fear.  He shared with them his secrets and his strategy as rapidly as they could benefit from and implement them (Luke 18:26-30).

5. Jesus had no reason to hide his human finitude by impressive staging.  Instead of barricading himself in inaccessibility (behind walls and many subordinates), he ate and slept with the troops, leaving them only for quiet times alone with his Father.  Even little children had access to him (Luke 18:15-17).

6. Jesus was unafraid as all great leaders must be.  The visible faces of clay could neither intimidate nor dissuade him from his objectives.  Nor could the invisible powers of darkness deter him from accomplishing his mission (Luke 13:31⌐35).

7. Jesus never compromised his moral integrity in order to accomplish his objectives of his revolution.  He operated above demeaning dirty tricks, back⌐door gifts, assassinations, rash unredeemable promises, or even flattery (Luke 11:52-54).

8. Jesus was patently selfless in his motives of leadership. He sought to bring believers to the depth of experience with his Father that he already enjoyed (Luke 10:22).

9. Instead of providing distracting entertainment for people to enable them to forget momentarily their confusion, guilt, suffering, loneliness, and unmet needs, Jesus provided solutions, corrections, and resources to meet those basic needs.  The result for believers was lasting foundation for joy (Luke 4:40⌐44, 9:37⌐43).

10. Jesus did not squander nature and its resources;  he took control as Adam was told to do, taking “dominion” without wasting or polluting, in order to utilize nature to bless and help humanity (Luke 9:17).

11. Jesus, a forceful public speaker, could hold the attention of large gatherings without taking advantage of people.  His speech was spiced with colorful, unforgettable sayings and illustrations.  When facing large crowds, he did not become superheated and tyrannical.  There were no harangues, but always with them there was a deepening of his compassion. He gave clear and simple directions for finding one’s way into the kingdom of God (Luke 5:1, 8:4-15, 13:22-30).

12. Jesus was appropriately tough or tender in dealing with everyone and every crisis.  He gained the respect and loyalty of men and women alike.  His leadership style of personal relationships fit the situation with just the right amount of pressure being exerted in every case.

13. Jesus never “pled poverty” for the kingdom of God, “took”offerings by psychological jerks, or extracted monies legalistically from the reluctant.  But likewise he never did refuse people the privilege of giving who offered their gifts prompted by love (Luke 8:1-3).

14. Jesus’ genuine wholesomeness was that of a man who was sure of himself.  This made it possible for people to confidently put their faith in him and to gladly follow him.  His winsomeness consisted of a perfect balance between self-assurance and affability (Luke 6:20-49).

15. Jesus was the concrete expression of what he taught (Luke 6:20-49).  If one could not clearly understand where he was leading by what he was saying, he could find the same truths expressed and reinforced in Jesus’ whole demeanor and activities.  Those who were not abstract thinkers (four out of ten) could see the truth unfurled in his unforgettable actions and lifestyle (Luke 23:47).

16. Jesus was able to lead effectively and with full respect without the advantages of special identifying clothing and insignia that are universally recognized as symbols of authority.  Royalty, the priesthood (Exodus 28:2), and the military must all step down to this leader dressed in ordinary clothes (and a special anointing) whose presence commanded respect wherever he was (Luke 4:18-22).

17. In decision⌐making, Jesus was neither indecisive nor rash. Prayerfulness was the fulcrum of his administration.  Hence, the kingdom of God was never held back for want of resolute action, nor did it lurch forward on opportunistic whims and crash programs (Luke 6:12-16).

18. The power that Jesus tapped was not that whose source was in individuals;  rather it was the power given him by God. This made it possible for him always to have something valuable to give freely to the people who followed him. (Most worldly leaders aggrandize power by first taking it
from people, abrogating some of their rights and confiscating certain of their resources; and later in a display of paternalism they return some of what was previously taken.)  Jesus did not need to do that for he depended heavily on divine resources to found the kingdom of God (Luke 3:22; cf. Acts 10:38).

19. Jesus was consistently resolute in that he followed through to the end with his goals for the kingdom.  He would not surrender his aims for lesser ones when the going become difficult and his leadership was misunderstood.  Thus he never backed off from the full⌐time responsibility of leadership (Luke 2:45-51).

20. Jesus knew well his followers and dealt with each one appropriately–not using the same patterns of assignment and expectation with such diverse men as Peter and John.  He cultivated the development of the two⌐talent man and one twice as talented by giving each the proper resources and relationship in which to develop (John 21:17-22).

21. Jesus knew how to pace both himself and the revolution, sensing when to advance and when to withdraw from the crowds of people, when to refuel, and when to face up to his most trying hours.  In the words of the Old Testament, he knew when and how “to go in and out among the people,” and as a result his timing was never off (Luke 9:18⌐27, 19:28).

22. Jesus’ settled concept of his own identity and of the one who sent him made his leadership rise above popularity.  Therefore, he was psychologically impervious to popular praise of himself–it did not inflate him–and to negative criticism of himself–it did not deflate him. Knowing at all times what the Father thought of him gave great evenness and steadiness to his leadership (Lk.4:22,28,29 19:37-41).

23. Jesus had a uniquely positive revolutionary methodology (John 18:36):

• not arms, but faith, hope and love
• not explosives, but mountain⌐moving faith
• not sabotage of the enemy, but doing good to those hating you
• not fear, but the love that crowds out all fear
• not crowd-pleasing propaganda, but the truth
• not firing squads, but raising the dead
• not deceit and intrigue, but parables, proverbs and enigmas

24. Jesus accomplished his revolution without dependence on the power structures of the world.  He operated without any of the following standard foundations for kingdoms (Luke 29:1-8, 19-26):

• institutional backing
• political machines and party affiliation
• government support or anti⌐government patriotism
• class⌐struggle exploitation–playing on desires for upward mobility

25. Jesus met all of mankind’s deepest needs–those that only the Creator and Savior of man can supply.  Consequently, he is the only leader of all time that when the deepest gratitude of followers wells up, and admiration calls for praise and exultation, it is not wrong to actually worship this leader as LORD AND GOD (Luke 24:52).

Vote for people who most resemble Jesus.

And worship the only Leader in whom we can put our complete faith and hope.