Long Game Players

There’s plenty to worry about without even looking at international relations, but sometimes you need to do what you don’t want to.

I wrote last week about Syria, all I want to write and beyond. But I’ve had a specific question about our president and his long-term strategy. I’ve talked this over with the Spherical Model household, and we seem to have a consensus opinion in answer to my puzzlement.

It is a given that our president is a power monger. He loves control, and seeks more control wherever he can get it. Nevertheless, he acts in ways that weaken the United States on the international scene—apology tour, leading from behind, setting red lines which he manages by hoping they won’t be crossed and then dithering when they are. He has verbalized his belief that America is no more exceptional than any other country, and he believes we have been arrogant, so he is purposely taking us down a few pegs.

Here at home he seems pleased that the economy falters and sputters, and gleefully proud that more and more people become dependent on government. He has devalued the dollar, and our credit rating, to the point that we are at serious risk of losing our economic status in the world. He seems pleased at this new depressing normal.

So my question is, why would someone who seeks ever increasing degrees of power act in ways that reduce his status? What is his long game?

Does he see a path from what he is doing to increased power, such that he could leap from the lowly position of US President to something bigger, something more global?

I think he does see that path. I think he holds the belief that claiming connection with the Europeans and third-world nations, letting them know he’s not like the rest of us ugly Americans, will raise his image in their eyes. And their eyes are more important to him than the eyes of his fellow Americans, who are beneath him—evident in the sneering and condescension showing up his ubiquitous speeches.

He’s the un-American president. It’s a little like that phrase “compassionate conservative”; it implies that the special “compassionate” ones are different from the run-of-the-mill conservatives, who are, then, by definition, compassionless.  He thinks of himself as something other than American, and he believes that having such a self-perception makes him more appealing to the world.

But, as in most things (maybe everything) he is wrong wrong wrong! No thinking person in any country actually likes our president for his anti-Americanism. If they are our enemies, and thus anti-American themselves, they might like what he is doing—the less for them to fight against. But no one supports him as a better leader for tearing down the world’s greatest country—the economic, social, and freedom dream of the oppressed everywhere. No one trusts him as reliable. No one would say, “He’s so wise; why don’t we make him ruler of the world?”

So, if he is a power monger (and I think that is evident), and if he sees the US presidency as merely a career step to even greater power, then the logical conclusion is--he must be deluded.

On the bright side, concerns about him becoming the Left-Behind-Series style anti-Christ world tyrant are unnecessary. Likely his future role will be a more feckless Jimmy Carter, occasionally sniping from the sidelines, but without a listening public.

Do we need to worry instead about Putin? I’m not sure. After the “rescue” Putin did to dissuade the president from a Syrian strike, the metaphor was going around that Obama was playing cards while Putin was owning him at three-dimensional chess.

Star Trek 3D Chess
image found here

I was an adult by the end of the Cold War, so I’m beyond trusting anyone from the KGB. I’m sure Putin wants increased power, and I’m sure he’s playing an actual long game to get it. But I have my doubts that he can do it.

There’s a new book by Ilan Berman, called Implosion, subtitled, The End of Russia and What It Means for America. The author spoke with Michael Medved on radio Thursday (last third of first hour; these details come from that conversation). Much of his theory relates to demographics. Russian culture and people, Slavic Christians we could say, are disappearing. Russians lose half a million of their population a year, to death and out-migration. Life expectancy for men is about 60 years, a good two decades shorter than American men. Women live longer, to about 73, but still on par with Saudi Arabia, well short of Western longevity. Birth rates are well below replacement. The population will be 25% smaller, and still shrinking, by mid-century.

Meanwhile immigrant Muslims abort less, drink less, and support the traditional family more, so their numbers are growing. Some projections show Muslims will reach 50% of the population by 2050, subsuming the native population.

Young Russians are leaving in droves. A shocking 40% of 18-35-year-olds are considering leaving the country. The most popular Russian blog is titled (translated) “Time to Scram.” In the US and Canada there are large, thriving Russian populations, including scientists, engineers, symphony musicians. When a country is bleeding so many if it’s intellectual talent, that’s a county in trouble. And as long as the country continues as an uncertain threat to intellectual property, the bleeding will continue.

So, while Putin is posturing as powerful on the international stage, his country is floundering at home. It is my guess Putin will not be able to satisfy his power mongering hunger either.

Here's the better, Spherical Model long game: limited government that fills the role of protecting natural rights, free enterprise, adherence to the Ten Commandments, and strong families may not lead to world domination but will lead to unequaled flourishing.

What Is Power?

During one of our Sunday lessons this week, the teacher (a good friend of mine, who embarrasses me by saying I’m one of the smartest people she knows, but who is also very smart in various less sedentary ways) put this word equation on the board:

Belief + Action = Faith, and Faith = Power

This was a religious lesson, about not feeling ashamed that your belief is not yet knowledge; if it is a strong enough belief that you then act on it, trusting it to be true, then that is faith. And it is by faith that the world was created and all miracles happen.

But the Faith = Power part intrigued me. I have written here before about the word power; specifically about the difference between leaders and power mongers. Leaders serve, while power mongers act in ways to increase/protect their power over others. So I wondered if this equation could be applied also to power in a more general sense, or whether there is an actual difference.

Phenomenal Cosmic Power; Itty-bitty Living Space

What is power? In a lot of youth literature, people have special powers, maybe magical or super powers, or at least special talents and abilities beyond normal humans. And then there’s the dilemma that, “with great power comes great responsibility,” (according to Spiderman’s Uncle Ben). I don’t think I want to deal with that kind of issue today. I want to deal with something closer to real world power. I went to the handy dictionary. There are a lot of layers in defining power. So I think I’ll pick and choose how I mean it here.

Power is the ability to act, produce, accomplish, do. It can also be the ability to influence the behavior of others, which could be either very good or very bad. In the world of politics—which most of us would prefer to avoid but can’t if we care about our own freedom to act, produce, accomplish, and do—power might also mean the authority to act, or to control the actions of others. Such power is like fire, important for use in certain limited circumstances, but dangerous in the wrong hands or in the wrong situations.

I’ve previously asserted that seeking power is evil, but I think I need to clarify the definition, because having the power to do good, and wanting that ability, is not a bad thing. The power to act in a positive way is good, but power to act in a negative way is, well, bad.

So how do we make sure that we’re seeking power for good? And how do we prevent others from gaining power for evil?

Power needs a source. So if we’re going to a good source—THE Good Source—then we can be pretty certain our power will be for good. If you have something Good to do, and you ask God for the power to do it, when that power is granted, you know you didn’t supply it yourself; you put in the work, but you got the ideas, the energy, the opportunities—the power—from the source for good. There’s a sense of humility in the heart. If you’re missing the sense of humility and thankfulness, and in its place find a sense of superiority or entitlement, you’re probably seeking the wrong kind of power.

I don’t think there’s any problem with wanting power from God to do His will. That is very different from power mongering—loving power for self. But power to do God’s will is always about serving His children, even when leading and influencing them. The evil kind of power is about controlling, rather than serving. Originally, I said it this way:

A power monger is the polar opposite of a leader. He/she uses coercion as a basic tool. A power monger uses deception to gain power, not trusting honest persuasion to get people to give it to him/her. A power monger doesn’t recognize God-given rights, but only the privileges he/she decides to grant, usually to those most likely to return political favors (money, votes, support). A power monger can coerce at any level from family to international, but those with an appetite for power generally seek it over a larger and larger circle of minions.

A power monger sees him/herself as elite and superior over the other lower beings, as opposed to seeing him/herself among fellow citizens as a leader would do. A power monger doesn’t avoid chaos, but rather uses it (sometimes even creates it purposefully) as an opportunity to cause more people to succumb to the desire for protection, which he/she offers. A power monger is selfish, doing good for others only if it will increase his/her personal power.

I think the Spherical Model helps explain the difference. Those who choose to dwell only in the southern hemisphere, in either statist or chaotic tyranny, think there are only two choices: control others, or be controlled by others. They seem perversely unaware of the entire northern hemisphere where people work and live freely among one another—using limited government to help with the limited times people fail to consider one another’s rights and self-govern. It’s the hemisphere where freedom, prosperity, and civilization thrive. It’s not a dog-eat-dog world there; it’s a mutually respectful world. Unlike the power mongers in the tyranny hemisphere, leaders in the freedom hemisphere must be servant leaders, who lead by persuasion, information, and example.

Why don’t we simply choose that? Some of us do. But we live in a world where we do not have a critical mass of people choosing the better way.

I believe God used the faith of righteous people to establish this country in the first place. God has power to do anything. I believe He can bring us back to the freedom zone; I do not know if that is His plan, or if some sort of disastrous version of natural consequences is more likely.

But this will continue to be true:

Faith in God → Power to Do Good

We can act on our desires to do good in our homes and communities and country, and He will give us power to accomplish enough good that we can still enjoy many of the blessings of that northern hemisphere that so many others are too blind to see. If we act on faith, miracles will still happen.

Power versus Individual Freedom

I realized something this past week that has stuck with me, so I wanted to write about it. It’s about the Tea Party, what it is, what it represents. This is something pols and media seem to miss. It isn’t about gaining power; it’s about regaining individual freedom.

In Spherical Model terms, desiring power over other individuals is anathema to freedom. Power hunger is a southern hemisphere trait (the tyranny side of the sphere), while desire for individual freedom combined with voluntarily working together for good in the community is a northern hemisphere trait (the freedom half of the sphere). (I wrote a three-part series on the difference between power hunger and leadership here, here, and here.)

Tea Parties are not a power seeking movement, where you measure effectiveness by how many legislators they get elected. Effectiveness has to do with how much freedom all Americans feel as a result of their efforts.

First, it is not a political party; the word “party” refers to the original Boston Tea Party, which was a statement (actually a rebellious act, a demonstration) against unfair taxation. “Taxed Enough Already” is an acronym often used. It is a movement, and a revival of the original founders and their revolution against tyranny. It is not a call to demonstrate with acts of lawlessness; it is a call to action through whatever legal, constitutional means are available. It is a groundswell of regular hard-working Americans across a wide spectrum of income, experience, and backgrounds, most of whom have left the political world well enough alone up until now—until things have gotten so bad that they’re not going to take it anymore. They don’t come asking, “What can this group do for me?” but they ask, “What can I do about this mess we’re in?”

There was talk about what kind of influence they had in Texas’s senate race, where Ted Cruz beat David Dewhurst. Ted Cruz appealed to Tea Partiers; it was at my first Tea Party rally that I first heard him speak, and he made enough of a positive impression that I was willing to consider him as my candidate this year for the senate. But it wasn’t because he associated with the Tea Party; it was because his message resonated with the people going to Tea Parties: we need smaller government, lower taxes, and adherence to our US Constitution.

The local tea party group that I attend regularly (we meet every three weeks) receives no funding, collects no dues, and has no expenses. We use free social media (Facebook and Google groups), and meet in a party room at a local restaurant that lets us use the space for free on the assumption that many of those attending will buy their lunch there. We voted as a group that we would not endorse candidates. Individuals could endorse and share their opinions, but the group as a whole would give no endorsements. And yet during campaign years we have candidates come and speak with us at every meeting. They know that just having access to our group, meeting people in person, is good for their campaign.

Our purpose is two-fold: educating citizens, and helping citizens know what they can do to have an effect on government. We have learned about the US Constitution, the legislative process in our state, the specific issues before our legislature and how to best become citizen lobbyists on specific issues. We’ve learned about how the court system is set up in the state. We’ve learned about the Railroad Commission and its actual role in natural resource use.

We invite opposing viewpoints, and we share articles and ideas and discussions. We do essentially what the early Boston patriots did when they met beneath the Liberty Tree. We’re not party affiliated. Democrats get invited to come and share their positions (so far, though, they don’t come). We have lively discussions between various Republican and Libertarian viewpoints.

I expect the Tea Party, as a loose association of individual community groups across the country—as well as other-named similar groups—will continue as long as there are people who want to learn more about their civic responsibilities and ways they can work toward the greater individual freedoms that we’ve been deprived of even though they’re guaranteed to us constitutionally.

What we don’t have are people with a desire to wield power over others, only to break off those shackles that have been placed on us. Because, to those who love the great experiment in freedom that is America, it’s not about exerting force over others; it is about exercising our God-given rights.