Bush In Good Company With Moses, David
By Gregory J. Rummo (10/08/04)
Much is being made of Senator Kerry’s performance in the first presidential debate. According to one poll, Bush’s double-digit lead has been erased and the two candidates are now in a dead heat.
But a performance by the senator is exactly what it was and nothing more. His success can be explained by several factors, among them, questions aimed at Bush’s record in the White House, not Kerry’s senate record, thus keeping the president on the defensive for almost the entire evening.
This allowed Senator Kerry to appear unruffled. His responses were smooth. Viewers immediately noted his relaxed demeanor compared to the president’s. Since we live in a culture that is largely obsessed with appearance, loathe to ponder substance and in the lazy habit of recalling only the most recent political shibboleth—the mainstream media is complicit here, failing to challenge liberals with their prior statements—it was easy for pundits to characterize Kerry as looking like a leader and, well, presidential.
Having said that, I think it is only fair to concede that President Bush may be one of the least eloquent orators in recent memory. In comparison to Sen. Kerry, his performance during the first debate was poor.
On top of this, President Bush has also been on the receiving end of much vitriol, coming from his opponents and some members of the media. It’s not just disagreements with the president’s policies. There’s some deeply rooted hatred for the man.
But the distinguishing characteristics of poor oratory and being on the receiving end of hatred place him in good company with two of the greatest leaders from the annals of Jewish history; Moses and David.
When Moses was presented with the challenge to free the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt, one of his concerns was an inability to speak. “I am not eloquent…I am slow of speech and slow of tongue,” he told God.
The two worked out a compromise; Moses asked his brother Aaron to do the talking for him. But it was the leadership of Moses that resulted in the deliverance of Israel from hundreds of years of bondage.
Despite Moses’ inability to articulate his point of view, he was able to deliver his message in a bigger way. His actions spoke louder than words and 20 million Jews walked across the Red Sea on dry ground to their freedom.
Another of Israel’s leaders, King David was hated by some of his own people. It was a time of war. Ziklag, a city in Judah, had been burned to the ground by the Amalekites and the wives and children of the Hebrews had been taken captive.
Samuel records the people’s reaction: “Now David was greatly distressed, for the people spoke of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved, every man for his sons and his daughters.”
David resolutely pressed on and ultimately defeated the Amalekites, rescuing all of the hostages unharmed.
David and Moses, despite their shortcomings, successfully laid the groundwork for their successors to take the reigns of leadership and achieve the ultimate victories of promise and prosperity for the Nation of Israel.
It was Joshua, Moses’ successor, who led the Jewish people across the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Similarly, Solomon, David’s son, built the temple in Jerusalem, ushering in Israel’s glory years.
Eloquence and popularity are not evidences of successful leadership. An ability to speak plainly and to lead in the face of opposition are the real marks of leadership.
Jesus had something to say about both.
He warned about flip-flopping, saying that men ought to let their “yes be yes” and their “no, no” and that anything else was “from the evil one.”
Commenting on popularity, he warned, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”
America's departure from its Judeo-Christian roots has resulted in a general dearth of biblical knowledge. This has impacted our culture in a number of ways, one of them being that we have become incapable to apply biblical principles to every-day life. And that has resulted in the inability to discern what comprises true leadership in an individual.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gregory J. Rummo
