Vote For A Bad Guy

Obama's togetherness message is beginning to cloy, the newspapers say. They're loving him in Europe, of course. He's embodying all that the world wants America to be.

But at home, the pundits are calling for some muscle behind the message. He's mushing out, as the editors say when a story gets so nicey-nice that there's no substance to get your teeth into.

As an aside, it ought to be noted that among all those walls he's promising to break down, the one between him and the Clinton partisans is still standing. It's the only wall he's had a chance to do more than talk about. And it is not crumbling beneath his charms. The defenders of that wall are finding him aloof. He's arrogant. He's too Ivy League.

Criticism of Obama shows once again that being villainous is easy. It's being good that's hard.

Nobody ever calls the bad guy naïve or snooty. Nobody ever calls the bad guy a hypocrite. The bad guy can always soften up, go good and he'll get extra points for repentance. But the good guy only has to slip up once, and he's done for.

I like the good guys better than the bad guys. Most people do.

The bad guys like to use muscle. They glorify greed, cave into the power. But at least we know where they stand.

It's the good guys we really need to watch out for. They're the ones who do the damage.

The most obvious reason is that everyone thinks of himself and his friends as the good guys. You only get a really glorious, lovin'-it bad guy in the movies. In real life, the best we ever get is used-to-be bad guys, who've turned their lives around and now want extra credit for having come so far. Even thugs (as the Sopranos so brilliantly showed us) are family men just making a living.

McCain supporters, in the unlikely event there are any reading this blog, would be fuming about my characterization of Obama as the good guy. For them and for McCain himself, it's the Democrats who are the bad guys.

But luckily, neither of the candidates is actually the good guy. If they were, we'd have reason to be really afraid.

I'll demonstrate my point by directing your attention to the only bona fide good guy in this election. Jesus. Both candidates are putting considerable effort into convincing voters that they are controlled by him.

Thank God neither of them is.

Giving Jesus control of the country is not what anybody wants.

Forget abortion and gay rights. There's no reason to think Jesus would do anything about abortion since he never mentioned it. He probably would give as much consideration to condemning homosexuality as he gave to other sexual matters, which is to say not much.

Taxes, however, would no longer be a matter of moral dispute. Jesus wouldn't bother with taxes at all. He would demand everything. If anyone protested he would say as he did to the rich young ruler, "Sell all your goods and give to the poor."

Once he got everyone's money, he would give it all away to hungry countries. If anyone protested that we need our money for ourselves, he'd point to the lilies of the field.

He'd give away all the stockpiled oil and food. If anyone protested, he'd say, "Feed my sheep."

He'd abolish all national borders and outlaw immigration restrictions. If anyone protested, he'd say such rules do not apply to his Father's children.

He certainly would destroy all the weapons, stop training troops, and cut the military budget to zero. If anyone protested, he'd reference his own behavior when the Romans arrested and crucified him.

He'd be saying with every action that whether America lives or dies is of little consequence. Living within God's will is all that matters.

That's a genuine good guy for you. Dangerous. Disastrous.

Don't vote for him. He could never win.

Comments

[lewes17266]

A messiah had been promised who would be king but Jesus redefined what it meant to be a king - not at all impressive.

[hrayovac]

The Sopranos weren't the first to discuss the mafia in realistic tones, it was I believe, the Godfather series of films that first painted mob folks in greys. What this piece misses is that people already know the game, that the good get shot then made into impossible heroes such as MLK..but when MLK comes back in the flesh he gets trashed by everyone, including those who long for another JFK...just like MLK was eviscerated when he was still living. Today it's all about strategies to win an election. So, good and bad..? Meaningless in this context. For all we know, John McCain may be the sweetest guy ever, had some marital problems like normal people have..worked his way through the power politics the best he could, using unethical means..like almost everyone does. Why I like Obama is that he is genuine, truthful and as smart as they come and hasn't bent over as much as the others. He will be our greatest president. And Hillary's die-hards should really try to believe in our country instead of looking to "get even" or bring back the nineties...not everyone did so well in the nineties. The NAFTA was written by the Clintons. Not that her supporters care after elections have been won about the political effect on poor people.

[Freesia2]

What an interesting premise. If Jesus ran for President. You're right. It wouldn't work. And while I admire the heck out of Obama, and think he's genuinely a good man, he's no Messiah.

Although you know....that Sermon On The Mount Thing? He might be pretty good at that. Big crowds :-)


Obama-Biden 08