My first encounter with Christians who insisted that there was no other Bible except the KJV occurred in the summer of 1980, when I was working for a company selling books door to door deep in the Appalachian Mountains of West Virginia.  We carried a Zondervan Bible Dictionary, a two set Bible encyclopedia, a 10 volume set of children’s Bible stories and a guide to health and medical care for those who we encountered who might not be active Christians.  While sitting on a front porch discussing the studying of the scriptures with an elderly gentleman who chewed and spat tobacco during the conversation, I was informed that the King James Version was the “preserved Word of God in English.”  This gentleman, who was a leader in his Old Regular Baptist Church, informed me that it had been God’s plan all along to put the Bible in English, and once that occurred, it was not necessary for any other translation to be produced.  Translations into other languages, he insisted, could now be made from the King James without having to consult those bothersome Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

You may smile at that, but you would be surprised to know that there are a whole lot of people out there who believe something similar to it when it comes to the KJV.  There are a lot of people who think that Christians who primarily use a more modern translation are compromising the veracity of their faith, and perhaps even jeopardizing their salvation, by depending on “modern versions” of the scriptures for their understanding of God.  And among those Christians, it would not be hard to find those who insist that if your salvation experience itself is based on a modern version of scripture, it is not a real experience because it is not based on the KJV.

There is no doubt that the King James Version is a remarkable accomplishment, and stands alone in the history of translations of the scriptures.  Of course, at the time the translation was made, those words which seem so poetic and grand to us were actually part of the vernacular of the day.  In fact, what we generally consider to be that poetic, flowing, expressive English actually came along more than a century later, and is part of some later revisions and updates made to the translation over time.  It would be hard for us to recognize many of the words and expressions of the 1611 English that was used in the original translation.  Translating the Bible is a difficult task today, with all kinds of technology and advanced language study available to those who do the work.  In 1611, the task must have seemed monumental, and the motivation must have been quite serious at the time.

But is the King James Version “The preserved Word of God in English,” and if so, what evidence is there to prove this claim?

Those who make it often cite particular scripture passages in support of their claim.  The passages strongly support the claim that the Bible is the written word of God, put together by writers whose words came from the movement and direction of the Holy Spirit which God used to reveal knowledge about himself and his plan for the redemption of humankind.  But there isn’t a passage that directly supports the claim that the KJV is the English version that God chose over all others, though when those passages are cited by people who believe this, they leave this fact out.

Why would God decide that a particular translation in one language would be the “preserved” text, and that any others would not be?  And what is it, specifically, about the KJV that makes it the one?  Is it because the British monarchy, under a Protestant king, put a stamp of approval on it?  Or is it simply because it is old, it sounds “holy” with its elegant, old English language, and it managed to survive as the primary English version of scripture well into the twentieth century?

There are some facts about the KJV that are difficult to accept for those who think that God produced manuscripts on onion skin paper in black leather binders with “thee, thou and thine” as primary pronouns.  It is not the first complete English translation of the Bible.  Later revisions of it reflected the advance of scholarship in both the art of Bible translation and in the understanding and development of the English language.  The version we have, and use, is not the 1611 version, but is almost 200 years newer.  But why, if God does indeed preserve his word, even in translations of it that are made into the thousands of languages that now have copies of the scripture, would his hand not continue to guide translators as they produce more modern translations of the scripture?  The KJV is not, contrary to popular opinion, a word for word translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, but is a “transliteration” of sorts, in that the translators had to sit down and figure out the nuances and contexts of the writers, to render an English text that was grammatically correct, with correct syntax.

God is big and powerful enough to make sure that his written word is preserved for succeeding generations.  The art of translation is gifted with a long history of care taken to preserve the complete and total accuracy of the context, the message, and the very words written by those who were inspired by God to write them.  This has resulted in a number of different English translations which not only preserve the intent of the original writers, but which provide individuals doing serious Bible study with a variety of ways to express one of God’s truths.

What we have right now is a Republican Primary race with three candidates who have attracted the support of at least a portion of the party’s most loyal constituency, commonly known as the conservative Evangelical Right, or the Religious Right.  The interesting thing about this is that two of the three candidates are not actually members of churches that would fall within the broader definition of “Evangelical Conservative,” but are, in fact, active, practicing Catholics.  Now that doesn’t necessarily mean there is some kind of inconsistency, or that it isn’t possible for a Catholic presidential candidate to represent at least some of the values that conservative Evangelicals want to see in their President.  But it is not consistent with the rhetoric that has been part of what has come to be known as the “Religious Right” over the past thirty years or so.

There are a lot of voices calling for two of the three to drop out, so that the anti-Romney segment of the party, namely most of the Religious Right, can form a slight majority around one of them and defeat Romney’s bid for the nomination.  I’m all for that.  But the problem is figuring out which one is best suited to run for President as the Republican nominee.

Newt Gingrich as a lot of baggage that would have to be overcome, having had a highly publicized affair (commonly defined as “adultery” in the Evangelical community) and is in his third marriage.  He also “converted” from being a Southern Baptist church member, one of the groups at the core of right wing Evangelical politics, to the Catholic church which, under normal circumstances and in normal situations would not sit well with most of his former fellow church members.  At least some of the support from among the conservative Evangelical community comes from the corporate wealth of the “One Percenters” which puts them at odds with Ron Paul.  The congressman from Texas is a Lutheran turned Baptist, which puts him within the conservative Evangelical constituency.  But many conservative Evangelical Christian leaders are fabulously wealthy, and aren’t going to support a candidate who is for balancing out the economic burdens of running the country, like Paul is.  And while many of them would like to put their support behind Rick Santorum, who seems to most closely represent their position, at least on social issues, he is seen as “unelectable” as a result of a very bad loss in his attempt to hold his Pennsylvania Senate seat.

The denominational preference of these three men should not be a major problem for most conservative Evangelicals.  The leaders of the party’s right wing considered George W. Bush “one of them,” though they had to go to great lengths to make that connection, and at times, Bush resisted attempts to classify himself as such.  Bush joined a relatively liberal Methodist congregation where his wife belonged after they married, but was heavily influenced on social issues by his more liberal Episcopalian background.  He favored “civil unions” for gays and lesbians, never really put much heart or soul into banning abortion, and his policy on Israel favored the creation of an independent Palestinian state.  He often seemed to be amused at attempts to make him into a fightin’ fundamentalist, and shied away from photo ops at big Evangelical megachurches in favor of appearances with an Episcopalian priest (or priestess) outside St. John’s Church near the White House.  He got a pass on all of that from leadership of the religious right, though it is not possible to point to a single accomplishment in their social agenda that occurred during his presidency.  I think you should measure a President’s perspective by what he put his heart and soul into accomplishing, don’t you?

So it seems to me that if someone is going to accurately and completely represent the interests of socially conservative Evangelical Christians in the White House, it should probably be someone who is a member of an Evangelical Christian church, and has some level of understanding about the Evangelical Christian faith.  Tim Pawlenty ran out of money before he could make a serious appeal for support, which is too bad, since he would have been, by far and away, the best candidate from that constituency.  Michelle Bachmann was too loud, too angry, and displayed an apalling lack of knowledge of both the workings of government and the constitition.  Sarah Palin, aside from a similar lack of knowledge and an apparent lack of desire to become informed, was little more than a “cliche” candidate, saying whatever she needed to say to get a reaction out of her limited audience.  And a few Evangelicals thought her time might be better spent teaching her children values she claimed to have, especially related to sexual purity before marriage.  And Rick Perry turned out to have everything a candidate needed to win, including money, nice hair, experience as governor of a large state, and nominal connection to a church.  All he lacked was a brain.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the field now who actually has a record as such.

The Evangelical Christian culture is hard to explain to someone who hasn’t really grown up in it, or been part of it for long.  There are differences, from theology to sociology, between Evangelicals and “Mainline Protestants,” and obviously between both of those groups and Catholics.  Those differences will be part of the reason why the religious right wing of the GOP will have some difficulty rallying around one candidated for the party nomination.  And the same differences will come to light if Mit Romney, a Mormon, gets the nomination.  Some religious right wingers will vote for whomever the Republican nominee is.  But there will be others who will weight faith against politics, and whose convictions will keep them from voting for Mit.  Ultimately, that might make a difference in who wins the general election in 2012.

Straight party voting has never had an appeal to me.  People generally do not line up so easily or regularly behind political party banners, which is one of the benefits of having a system of totally secret ballots.  And so, over the years, as I have looked at candidates and decided who I would vote for, it has mainly been the person, and the quality of leadership they deliver, or at least demonstrate the potential for delivering, that has attracted me to some, and made me think twice about others.

If I understand the principle behind “representative” government, I think “representative” is the key word.  Politicians who package themselves wrapped up inside a party platform and an agenda are representing the interests of the agenda.  And that means that they are not likely to be hitting very many common interests when it comes to representing me.  I would prefer a candidate who comes from among the people he or she wants to represent.  That’s why I find the Iowa caucuses so intriguing.  Here’s a relatively small, obscure state in the middle of the country which holds the very first Presidential preference event of the election season, which more or less requires all the candidates to appear in virtually every county in the state during the campaign season.  They have to visit county fairs in small towns, shake hands on courthouse steps, speak to small groups of people in small places like church fellowship halls, barbeque restaurants and even someone’s back yard.  Major television ad purchases generally don’t work too well.  The best campaign strategy is to make sure that there is a good representative of the candidate at every one of the caucus meetings themselves.

I’m not an easy sell for any candidate.  I grew up in a very modest, working class home in which my Dad was the sole provider when it came to income, and my mother took responsibility for raising their two adopted children.  My Dad did have a college education, majored in chemistry, and in the early part of my life, worked in a plant that produced explosives for the copper mines in Arizona.  He was an operator on the plant’s “NG” (Nitroglycerine) line” which produced dynamite.  Money was tight, wages weren’t in line with the demands and dangers of the work performed.  Fortunately, he had the foresight to keep an eye out for a job with better conditions, wages and ultimately benefits including retirement, so that he could plan for his future, as well as that of his children.  When the civil service opened up hiring at Ft. Huachuca, a military base about 20 miles from where we lived, he applied for a job as an air conditioning maintenance mechanic in the headquarters building on the base, a job for which he had training from his service in the Navy in World War II.  He got the job, with a modest, but bigger salary, and the opportunity to save for retirement, which he did.  A heart attack and bypass surgery at age 59 qualified him for an early medical retirement.  He lived on a modest income all his life, carefully calculating his buying power.  He was able to own a small, three bedroom house in which my sister and I were raised, and have it paid off before he retired.

He taught his children to work hard and appreciate what they had.  Though I did not have his ability to understand chemistry, or to fix machinery, I did apply the principles he taught about working hard and learning to live modestly.  My career in Christian education has provided a small, but steady income, and my wife and I have worked together to build for our future.  We have struggled through the years, with things like a chronic illness, uncertainty regarding the future of the schools we have worked for, and even a hurricane.  The recession played havoc with the value of our home, though we were fortunate not to be “under water” with it when the time came to move.  In all of this, we are not unlike multiple millions of other Americans.

So the question I ask now is whether or not there is a candidate in the race who has any kind of understanding of the kind of life I live, along with millions upon millions of other Americans.  I’ve been in a position where I’ve had to choose between paying a monthly premium for health insurance, and putting away some money in a retirement account.  I have to drive my vehicles, and keep them running, well past 100,000 miles.  Is there a candidate out there who understands that economic choices that are made in my home generally do not even get to the point where I can consider going out to play a round of golf, or going to a college football game in my case?  Is there a candidate out there who understands what it feels like to know that if he were suddenly unemployed, unless something else came up in a hurry, he would be 90 days from losing both vehicles and his home?  Which candidate understands that an unexpected event like a medical problem or a natural disaster represents a hardship from which financial recovery might not be possible?  That’s exactly the life most Americans, myself included, live every day.

So which candidate exhibits the best understanding of all of that?  At the moment, I am not aware of any one that does.

I’ve never been in the state myself, though I’d like to visit there some day.  I know several Iowans.  From pop culture, the state is characterized, at least for me, by Walter “Radar” O’Reilly, the fictional corporal who was the company clerk for the 4077th M*A*S*H in the television series. 

And so here, in this rather flat, open-country state in the middle of the Midwest, the nation focuses its political interest on its registered voters who turn up at precinct caucuses to cast the first votes that count, so to speak, on the way to electing the President of the United States.  It is one of those places where you get an up-front seat at democracy in action.  As the vote totals come in, the leading candidates are separated by votes numbering in the hundreds, rather than the thousands or millions you see in nationwide elections. 

There are several things here that are very ironic.  One is that since there is no Democratic race, it is a small group of Republicans from Iowa who have one of the loudest and most influential voices in choosing the Republican nominee in 2012.  That’s ironic since the Republicans are a minority in Iowa, and the state’s five electoral votes usually go to a Democrat.  I can see why.  It would be very difficult to go through all of the mud slinging, accusations, fights, and focus of millions of dollars of negative campaign ads, come out the winner, and then try to campaign for president against the nominee of the other party, expecially if he’s an incumbent.  And this time around, with everything that has been said, and the massive amounts of money that have been spent by the candidates who have it, the Republican nominee will very likely have a hard time in Iowa.  All the President will have to do is replay some of the GOP’s ads from the caucuses. 

I think Iowa may also help the GOP leadership get a grip on just how difficult it will be for their party nominee to win in 2012.  Look how many different candidates led the polls here in just a few weeks.  The negative numbers are high.  It will be difficult for any Republican, and if there is one who is more “electable” against President Obama than another, Iowa won’t answer that question. 

I think it is pretty obvious that after tonight, Michelle Bachmann is done.  Rick Perry probably is, too, though he’ll have to get beaten in New Hampshire and South Carolina to drum him out.  Beyond that, this is still wide open. 

Here’s a link, http://debbiekaufman.wordpress.com/  

Enjoy.

I’ve always found this passage of scripture interesting.  It is a very clear and concise description of a human nature as it exists apart from the influence and power of the Holy Spirit.  This particular description certainly had a historical context.  It is obvious, in a letter written by Paul and directed toward Timothy, that the time period he was referencing was one which he expected Timothy to witness, and to experience.  Whether it is the “last days” of the early apostolic ministry of the church, or a prophetic reference to the coming destruction of the Temple, Paul was giving Timothy instruction for dealing with corruption that would most certainly creep in, and have an effect on the church.  After all, Christians are simply forgiven, converted sinners, and when they are not submitted to the Holy Spirit, or not even aware of him, they fall back on their human nature.

Like most scripture, while the specific context in which it was written has passed, the teaching itself is still very relevant.  I tend to think that when God was inspiring the writers of scripture, he was giving them some prophetic words and ability to speak beyond their time and their understanding of life as it existed for them, because there would be all kinds of different situations to which their words would apply.  Reading and studying the meaning of this passage in 2 Timothy, coming at a time when Paul was himself facing his last days, the understanding of human nature that has been revealed to him, and the inspiration with which he wrote these words was indeed prophetic.

I’m not clicking my tongue and shaking my head at just how bad the world is these days.  This passage applies to the church.  Yep, that’s right.  Timothy was trained by Paul in an apostolic ministry to the church, and Paul’s first epistle to him contained instructions about its inner operations.  This second epistle, written while Paul was in prison, was to inspire him in his ministry.  Paul understood that the greatest danger to the ministry of the church, and to the ministry of anyone who was called to serve it, was to fall into a selfishness that caused them to rely on their own strength, to lead by their own sense of ability, and to teach from their own intellect.  Various brands of outright paganism was the standard religious practice of the day, and with few exceptions, it was supported by outright hedonism.  Those who were considered “enlightened” were very critical of the kind of lifestyle and philosophy of Christianity, and looked down at those who practiced it as being less intelligent and less educated than themselves.  As a result, going back to the old lifestyle was always a looming temptation for Christians who had been converted out of the pagan beliefs and lifestyle.

There’s a key phrase in this passage, having a form of godliness but denying its power, that I think is particularly noteworthy for the Christian church as it exists in America today.  In many ways, much of what passes for Christianity in our culture rests almost exclusively on a foundation of human intellect.  That’s why there are so many divisions in the church, so many different denominations, and so much bickering and fighting.  We think that our faith rests on our ability to justify its existence through intellectual means, and on the reasoning that comes out of an education conducted on a classical model, with a classical, rather than a distinctively Christian, philosophical foundation.  So, going back in church history, we’ve separated those called to vocational service into a clergy class, required them to accumulate a pile of degrees, ranked the quality of the institutions from which they got them, and depend on that to interpret our gospel for us.

…having a form of godliness but denying its power…

There are Christians who have found the power in their faith, and churches which have recognized it for what it is.  Generally, in the Christian community at large, they are dismissed as non-intellectual, overly emotional and too rooted in a literal rendering of the scripture.  After all, the intellectuals have declared that the Bible, particularly the New Testament and the Gospels, are largely the invention of second and third century Christian zealots who made an itinerant Jewish preacher into the savior of the world.  Human intellect has created its own god, one who is all loving, all forgiving, and a Jesus who motivates us to be the best person we can be, showing how our good side can dominate our bad side.  Since God is too just and merciful to condemn people to hell simply because they don’t live in a culture with ready access to the gospel message, do we need Jesus as savior and Lord, or do we just need a great moral teacher?

I think I would rather trust my salvation to God, who provided Jesus as a final sacrifice for sin, than human intellect, which, left to its own, produces what Paul warned Timothy about in the last days.

…having a form of godliness but denying its power…

I don’t think we really need any more reminders that our Congress, our elected legislative branch of government, collectively does not have the slightest understanding of the people they represent.  But here we have an action which not only clearly and concisely points this out, but which also demonstrates something even more disturbing.  They don’t really care.

The blame for this specific lack of action falls at the feet of a group of newly elected House freshmen Congressmen, a small minority who represent a small minority of people, labelled as the “Tea Party,” though there is not necessarily a caucus or connection between them.  Together with some other more experienced members of the Republican party, this group knows that the only way they can get their way as a minority is to force their agenda by blocking things that need to get done.  And agenda clearly outweighs the interests of the American people, or at least, of the majority of the American people who have to get up and go to work everyday to earn a living.  That is something that most members of Congress, including a significant number of the newly-elected, do not have to do.  So a small tax break in their paycheck each week, which means a lot to working families, means nothing to them.

But this is not just a problem related to this specific issue.  Congress is composed of people who, for the most part, live a completely different life than the rest of us.  It is a millionaire’s club.  I don’t think that was the intention of the founding fathers when they put all of this together, though many of them also lived in a lifestyle that was well above the common people around them.  But the fact of the matter is that the representative government of the United States consists of elected officials drawn from about 1% of the population on an economic level.  Not only does that prevent them from understanding what the rest of us do on a daily basis, it prevents them from representing our interests and protecting our way of life.  They don’t really know us well enough to know what to do.  And that crosses party lines.

The only solution I know of is to go back to the ballot box and make a change.  The job approval rating of the House of Representatives is about 8% right now.  That should indicate that few of them will be able to retain their seat.  Unfortunately, that’s not always the way it works out.  We don’t like Congress, but that doesn’t necessarily mean our congressman.  It’s everyone else’s congressman that we want to see put out of office.  There is some consolation in noting that polls are beginning to show that a fair number of the recently elected House freshmen are in trouble in their districts, and that some of them may not be returning after the 2012 election, but whether or not that ends the gridlock, or makes enough of a change to make a difference, who knows?

In the meantime, you and I will continue to bear the burden of paying the bills.

Cantatas tend to be predictable, choir numbers interspersed with narrations that help transition from one song to the next, a couple of blended songs, a soloist or two, and a grand finale that allows the pastor to move into an invitation.  This one had all of those elements.  But it was certainly not “run of the mill.”  Whoever arranged this one had a gift for understanding how to lead a congregation to worship.  It wasn’t just a performance.  The visual illustrations, the songs that were chosen, the narrations, all followed a pattern of worship that began with praise and expressions of joy to God, led to conviction and confession of sin, the realization that we have a savior who came to bring us back to God, and the celebration of his birth.  The choir was giving a gift back to God, and they were leading the congregation to do the same.  For about an hour, Christmas was focused on its real meaning.

We were about an hour and a half from home, and maybe I shouldn’t have tuned in to news radio for the ride after a worship experience like that.  There was a call-in talk show on the air where people call in for legal advice and an attorney answers their questions.  For a solid hour, virtually every caller was focused on finding some way to gain some kind of financial advantage over someone who had crossed their path.  From a caller who wanted to know if he cheated his insurance company what the odds would be of them coming after him to collect, to one who was looking how to get the largest possible settlement out of an auto accident, the whole program was a great illustration of human selfishness.

Now I’m not going to head out on a diatribe against selfishness.  The very act of putting yourself at the center of your own universe is the root cause of sin.  What bothers me most about the whole thing is that I’d just come from a spiritual experience in which I believed I had an encounter with the Holy Spirit, and listening to the callers, and yet found myself experiencing sympathy for the idea of someone coming out ahead with something they really didn’t deserve.  Without even thinking about it, while I was listening and driving, I found myself sympathizing with a guy who had been in a fender bender with a delivery truck, and was calling to see how much he could sue for in order to pressure the company that owned the truck into writing him a big check to avoid the lawsuit. It was very subtle, and it took a few minutes for me to pull my thoughts back around to the point where I shook my head, smiled a bit, and realized, “Hey, that was wrong!” 

Everywhere, all around us, the focus of the Christmas season is on anything but what it really means.  A lot of people celebrate it and do their best to separate it from the celebration of the birth of Jesus, God’s son and the savior of the world, including their own soul.  It is ironic that it is such an integral part of our culture that we cannot imagine not celebrating it, and yet public schools cannot perform “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” or a city hall cannot display a nativity scene.  To be politically correct, “Happy Holidays” is considered the appropriate greeting.  The bottom line is whether or not this year’s Christmas gift buying will be better than it was last season, and how big the profits will be.  But if a nativity, or a carol about Christ’s birth, is not permissible, then the real meaning of Christmas, to most people, is nothing more than a day to be off work, and an excuse to spend money in the hope that you will get more in return than you give.

The members of the choir in church this morning invested a lot of time and effort to give the gift that they shared for about an hour.  Those moments can’t be measured in dollars.

1.  Fiesta Bowl, Glendale Arizona.  Stanford vs. Oklahoma State.

Two 11-1 teams, both highly ranked (3 and 4), and evenly matched.  This one will be quite entertaining, with Stanford and a high powered offense against Oklahoma State with a similar high powered offense.  Predicting the outcome of this one won’t be easy.  OSU was rooked by the BCS out of the national title game with LSU and are probably mad and want to prove something.  This is the best Stanford team on the field in a generation, and they will want to finish ahead of Oregon.

2.  Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California  Oregon vs. Wisconsin.

This will be a classic matchup between Pac-12 and Big-10 foes.  Both teams seem to be at their peak, and LSU and Alabama are probably really glad they didn’t wind up in a bowl with either of them.  This will be another knock down, drag out affair.

3.  Alamo Bowl, San Antonio, Texas  Baylor vs. Washington

The matchup that features the Heisman winner will be a dandy.  Baylor is playing close to home, and ought to own the house.  Motivated to get to 10 wins, I’ll go with the Bears by 21.  Washington can’t stop RG3.

4.  TicketCity Bowl, Dallas, Texas  Houston vs. Penn State

The college powerhouse from our old home of Houston versus the college powerhouse of Pennsylvania, our new home.  It may not be an attractive matchup for some, but I’ll be watching with interest.  I expect UH to pull off a surprise.

5.  Orange Bowl, Miami, Florida  West Virginia vs. Clemson

This will be an evenly matched game as well, and a good chance for the Mountaineers and Dana Holgerson to showcase their stuff as an up and coming team, wherever they wind up playing.  WVU 35, Clemson 14.

And the bowls that are real stinkers…

The Gator Bowl features Ohio State and Florida, both 6-6, and who really cares?  Other than being an excuse for people from Ohio to travel to Florida in the winter, the question is, who is really interested in this game? The Arizona State-Boise State matchup in the Las Vegas Bowl is the result of ridiculous manipulation in the BCS.  Boise lost one game, smacked down an SEC opponent, and had to go somewhere.  Las Vegas?  Really? And against a 6-6 Arizona State team that they will smoke and throw in the trash?  I’ll be watching reruns on TV land instead.

And of course, I’ll boycott the big stinker rematch between LSU and Alabama.  It’s too bad they both can’t lose, but there is some consolation in that at least one of them will be beaten.  Maybe an Alabama win will cause the coaches poll to give the top ranking to either Stanford or Oklahoma State so there will be a split mythical national champion.  One can only hope.

Millions of dollars, perhaps even billions, will be spent between now and November 2012 by countless politicians laying out their program and their plan to get voters to place a mark by their name in order to get a job that is considered “public service”.  But I think the time has come for the voters to lay out their preferences and qualifications for those who want to earn our votes.  We have been going about it all backward and the end result is that we have thousands of elected officials who go off to their respective office and do exactly as they please while spending our money on a public relations job to convince us they are doing what we elected them to do.

Yes, I’m one man, one vote, but if you want it, pay attention, because I am going to tell you exactly what you need to do in order to get it.  I’ll start at the top, with the Presidential candidates.  At some point, I may write a little more about what I want to see in a senator, and in my congressman, but I’ll leave that for another post.  Are you ready?  Here we go…

First of all, don’t waste your time and breath trying to convince me that you understand my position, my life, and what I have to deal with day to day, especially from a financial perspective.  You do not know, and cannot pretend to know.  The very fact that you are able to run for office is evidence that you don’t have the remotest understanding of what life is like for me.  It’s not that it is so very bad, it is just different when most of what you work for goes to pay your living expenses and cover a little of your retirement savings, and there’s nothing left over afterward.  You don’t feel it when your insurance coverage increases six or seven percent in a year, or the price of gas jumps over $1.00 a gallon in a year. I do, and it requires me to make some hard choices. So don’t act like you know anything about it.  You don’t represent my interests, so get used to it, because I will hold your feet to the fire about it.

Second, because you don’t really know anything about this, please do more than just give lip service to it.  Make a real effort to understand.  I can’t afford to buy your attention with campaign contributions, or with time given to your election campaign because I am too busy working to put food on my table, pay for health insurance, and put a roof over my head.  So if you will make an honest effort to find out what it takes to represent me, and the multiple millions of Americans who are all in the same boat, we might trust you enough to elect you President.  How do you do this?  With actions.  They are said to speak louder than words, so why not give some real support to the positions I hold on the issues that are important to my interests?  I can see through your rhetoric when you make a pledge not to raise taxes ever in your lifetime.  The tax system, as it is now set up, is designed to bilk people like me, and to help those wealthy folks like you increase their wealth without really paying the cost of doing it.  Don’t act like we are stupid and do not know this.  Take some action that will provide us with some relief.  Then we may trust you enough to elect you as President.

Stop using the term “entitlement” when it comes to my social security and medicare.  I have paid a high price for these benefits over a lifetime of work.  They are not entitlements, they are earnings benefits.  It will be many years after I retire before the dollar amount that I paid into the system will ever be paid back to me.  The odds are that I won’t even be around when that happens.  Instead of doing things with the money other than what it was paid to do, take care of the program and it will work like it should without being “privatized.”  That’s a code word for finding a way for a few people to make a profit off of it.

Finally, stand for something.  I don’t mean tell me that you stand for something, I mean for you to actually do it.  That might not be easy, and at some point, you may have to choose between your convictions and being re-elected to the office you hold.  If you don’t have the integrity to do that, then I don’t want you in there anyway.  This country is crying for leaders who will stand up for what they believe, but all we get are leaders who are interested in protecting their own interests.  If you wonder why Congress has a single digit job approval rating, there you have it.

There is a lot of rhetoric these days about what “The American People” want, and a lot of lip flapping politicians who think they have a finger on the pulse of the country in order to know what that is.  But it is only rhetoric.  It’s been decades since the interests of the American people, myself included, have been represented in the national government.  The very best way to earn my vote would be for someone who is like me, from my segment of society at large, to run for office.  Since that is clearly not going to happen this time around, the next best thing is to find a politician who is willing to listen to what I have to say, and to act on it.

There is no time like the present.  There’s how you can earn my vote.  Don’t expect to get it if you aren’t willing to give this some consideration.