Our comments

The battle against reform

As we shared in the previous posting, Warren G. Harding's 1920 U.S. presidential campaign focused on a "return to normalcy" and a distancing from the incumbent Woodrow Wilson's "abnormal" policies. As we also shared in the previous word, this year's presidential battle in America between John McCain and Barack Obama is, in a sense, a spiritual "sequel" to the 1920 battle between Cox and Harding. Therefore, Obama's run for the presidency represents an attack against the spiritual principles represented by Wilson's presidency.

If you study Woodrow Wilson's life, you will see that he was, in essence, a man bent on reform. He did not see the presidency (or any position of political leadership) as a merely administrative role intended on keeping the "business running" under the accepted paradigms. Instead, he saw leadership as an opportunity to produce utter transformation through the shaking and reshaping of fundamental structures that may seem "normal" and "acceptable" to those who only care about "keeping the queue moving". As indicated on wikipedia.org, Wilson wrote a book in 1885 that served as the basis for his Ph.D. thesis at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore; the book is titled "Congressional Government in the United States". In it, he makes an in-depth analysis and dissection of the flaws in America's Congressional system. At the time, he was an admirer of Britain's parliamentary system, and much of his thesis was intended to promote a move in America towards that system. Later in his life, he moved away from an endorsement of full-blown "parliamentarism", but he still stood by many of the criticisms that he had made against America's political system. Wilson argued that the American political system required that politicians make great compromises since public opinion varied on so many levels; this made practical reform to the government very slow. He also argued that "politics" needed to be separated from "administration"; to Wilson, "doing politics" was the act of drafting laws and guidelines, and "administration" was the act of implementing these laws and guidelines. Wilson argued that these two arenas were so intertwined in American politics that it became difficult for the American people to truly understand who was to blame (or praise) for the consequences of policies enacted. To Wilson, the authority to draft laws and policies was so disperse that it became very easy for governments to play the blame game, with one element of government "passing the blame buck" to the other, without anyone actually taking responsibility and without anyone being able to truly effect change through corrected policies. All of this has become evident in the recent financial crisis in America. The Democrats have taken advantage of the crisis to blame the Republican administration in the White House, when it was in fact the Democrats in Congress who fought against regulation of the lending industry because it was, in their eyes, an attempt by the "rich-loving" Republicans to prevent the low-income people of America acquiring a home and fulfilling the "American dream". As indicated on wikipedia.org and nytimes.com, inept Democrats such as Barney Frank (chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) fought the White House efforts to create a new agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Barney Frank even cancelled his committee's oversight of these 2 companies, claiming that they were sound institutions that were in the business of providing affordable housing to those who needed it. This "noble" Democratic stance "on behalf of the less fortunate" fuelled the large numbers of risky mortgages and speculative "flipping" that inflated the financial bubble, a bubble that burst when those whom the easy loans were given to were unable to fulfil their payments.

It is also worth noting that the Bush administration shares in the blame, for no one in the Cabinet sounded the alarm on the excessive borrowing and the convoluted financial schemes going on in the American lending sector, and Bush has yet to condemn or fire anyone, either at the SEC or the Department of the Treasury, for their obvious lack of oversight. Whilst financial institutions were devising complex contracts to trade debt amongst themselves using intricate mathematical models that were intended to magically produce wealth out of nowhere, the SEC and the Department of the Treasury remained silent, and, to this day, neither Bush nor anyone appointed by him has been honest enough to admit that they did anything wrong. They continue to attribute the current crisis to "mere circumstance", as if it had been a force of nature, a hurricane from the Atlantic, that no one could have done anything about. In the meantime, the Democrats blame the crisis on the "anti-regulation" Republicans, even when they themselves were the ones who opposed regulation on mortgages. Demagogues such as Obama go so far as to blame the crisis on Republican tax cuts, without explaining why taking less money away from the American people could have possibly triggered the current crisis. In American politics, politicians prove their arguments through correlation, not causation. They take advantage of simultaneity to prove causation. Why? Because they are bent on seeking positions of administrative power, not on creating new laws that transform their environment. Those who seek after laws and principles allow God to train their minds to discern true causality and to overcome the mirage of causation that may be caused by two things happening at the same time.

Interestingly enough, Woodrow Wilson had a complete dislike for the "committee system" used in the American Congress, a system that creates an elitist scheme of serfdoms, each of which is ruled by a "chairman lord proprietor". By clustering power in the hands of a few, the committee system fosters corruption and inefficiency, for the focus is taken away from brainstorming, from formulating new ideas, and is directed towards finding a way to please the right people at the right committee in order to get your idea through. As shown by the House Financial Services Committee mentioned above, Congressional committees are dominated by the personal agenda of a few, thus becoming strongholds of personal interests, instead of being places where creative ideas are sought after and where underlying problems are unearthed. Woodrow Wilson argued (in the 19th century, mind you) that the congressional committee system enabled lobbyists to have the corrupting influence that they have had in Washington politics, allowing them to "turn legislation to their own uses".

Woodrow Wilson's incursion into politics began when he ran for governor of New Jersey in 1910. His campaign emphasised his independence from the corrupt political machinery, and he promised that he would not be a governor beholden to party bosses. Unlike Barack Obama, who rose to prominence in Illinois by working within the corrupt Chicago political machine, Wilson rose to national prominence by defying the political elite. He won the governor election in 1910, and immediately set in place his reformist agenda. As governor, he established state primaries, which took the party bosses out of the presidential election process in New Jersey.

Wilson then ran for president in 1912 and won. Interestingly enough, he defeated two former U.S. presidents in that 1912 campaign, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft. As most modern history pundits would admit, Wilson's two terms in office were amongst the most significant in U.S. history. The foreign-affairs philosophy that he developed and wrote about became so influential that it still guides European politics to this day, and it heavily influenced American foreign policy during the 20th century (even if it was distorted and overly "pragmatised" by most of his successors).

According to answers.com, Wilson toyed with the idea of running for the Senate before choosing to run for governor. This correlates with what we shared before regarding the spirit of "senatorial elitism". Being an anti-elitist, it made more spiritual sense for Wilson to begin his political career as a governor and not as a senator. Ironically, he was succeeded in the White House by the first sitting senator to be elected president.

Wilson became the first sitting president of the United States to travel abroad when he went to Paris in 1919 to help create the League of Nations and shape the Treaty of Versailles. This reveals his outward-looking approach, which contrasted with America's inward-looking tendencies. In that sense, therefore, we can say that there was a green-horse tendency in him, since green-horse riders have their hearts set on the sea of nations. They are seafarers by nature who perceive the potential in the sea. It is no wonder, therefore, that the "Seaman's Act" of 1915 was passed during Wilson's first term. This act was designed to improve the security and safety of American seamen. Curiously enough, this act was supported by the Secretary of Labour William Wilson, who, according to wikipedia.org, was born in Scotland. This correlates with what the Lord has had us say regarding Scotland and the sea. What is even more curious is the fact that William Wilson was born in Blantyre, which happens to be (according to wikipedia.org) the birthplace of David Livingstone, the famous explorer and missionary, a man who definitely had his eyes set on the sea of nations.

Interestingly enough, Woodrow Wilson is the only U.S. president to have earned a doctoral degree, and he is the only political scientist ever to become president. This emphasises the thinking nature of his presidency. He was not only able to forge new policies and principles but he was also able to communicate them in a coherent and organised manner. In the last months of his life, however, Wilson was unable to defend himself from mounting criticism against him due to a debilitating stroke on October 2, 1919 that left him partly paralysed, after which time he would only communicate with the public using messages transmitted through his wife. There is a prophetic reason for this "political muteness" during the last months of his presidency. As we shared before, the 2008 presidential elections in America are, in a sense, a "replay" of the 1920 elections (with hopefully different results). As the incumbent, Wilson played, in 1920, the role currently being played by Bush, a man who has had many good intentions, and who has actually done some good things, but who has been unable and unwilling to communicate the reasons that justify his good actions. In an elitist and Canaanite effort to stay "above the fray", he has allowed his opponents to define him. Stymied by the mind-numbing effects of conservative simplism (which indoctrinates people into accepting traditions and values without understanding their underlying justifications), Bush and many other conservatives in America have given little more than simplistic and standardised reasons to justify their actions and beliefs. These answers may be good enough for the Bible Belt, but they are not enough for the rest of America. Even McCain has fallen into this "political muteness", as he has shown an inability to express the fundamental differences between Bush and himself, allowing Obama's lie about a "third Bush term" to stick. He has also been unable to unravel Obama's lie that has created a link in people's minds between economic conservatism and the current financial crisis. Furthermore, he has been unable to point out Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, which has led to the huge debt the government has piled up during his 8 years in office, a fiscal irresponsibility (shared by Reagan) that is inconsistent with the principles of economic conservatism and which goes against McCain's history for opposing budget carelessness. McCain had originally opposed Bush's tax cuts during his first term because he wanted them complemented with a serious effort to cut government spending. After his cries for budget cutting went unheard, he eventually supported the tax cuts, figuring that half a dose of medicine was better than no medicine at all. If there was no political will in Washington to end budget deficits, it was better to at least have tax cuts that would stimulate the economy and increase tax revenues. Massive spending with high taxes would have spelled doom for the American economy, especially after the devastating effect of the 9/11 attacks. Being the demagogue that he is, however, Obama has capitalised on this apparent "flip-flop" by McCain on Bush's tax cuts to paint McCain as "erratic". Debunking Obama's lie requires a non-simple explanation, and McCain's camp has been unable to express it, which shows that they have fallen under the influence of the "political muteness" produced by Republican conservatism.

According to behindthename.com, the surname "Wilson" means "son of William". The name "William" points to the William the Conqueror, the first Norman king of England. In a positive sense, therefore, the name "William" speaks of someone who comes from the outside (just as William the Conqueror did) to impose a new order and initiate a new era. In other words, the name "William" speaks of "conquering reformers". In that sense, Woodrow Wilson was indeed a "son of William". According to behindthename.com, the name "Woodrow" means "row of houses by a wood". Therefore, it speaks of a group of people living in temporary homes by a boundary, waiting for the time to take the forest before them. In other words, it points to a remnant standing at the edge of the Promised Land, waiting for the time to invade it and conquer it unto God. This is a remnant of reformers who are waiting for the moment when they can shake down the Church's and the world's matriarchal structures. This remnant army are struggling to bring down the pastoral cedars that have been holding God's people back for centuries on end:

"¹Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars. ²Howl, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; because the mighty are spoiled: howl, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the vintage is come down. ³There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds; for their glory is spoiled: a voice of the roaring of young lions; for the pride of Jordan is spoiled. ⁴Thus saith the LORD my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter; ⁵Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not. ⁶For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour’s hand, and into the hand of his king: and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them. ⁷And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock. ⁸Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me. ⁹Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. ¹⁰And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. ¹¹And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD." (Zechariah 11:1-11)

It is worth noting that Woodrow Wilson's first name was actually "Thomas", even though he became known for his middle name "Woodrow". There is a prophetic reason for this. As we have shared before, America became a "land of Thomas" in 2005, a land that doubted God and hesitated when it came time to cross the Jordan and enter into the fullness of her green-horse calling. This prevented God's reformers regenerating the American Church and America in general, delaying their spiritual entry for 4 years. Therefore, the fact that Wilson was originally called "Thomas" means that he was born in a land that doubted reform, and the fact that he became known for his other name, "Woodrow", means that he chose to live on the edge of the forest, waiting for the day when the forest would be reformed; he waited despite the fact that he was expected to doubt, just like everyone else around him.

Woodrow Wilson died on February 3, 1924. As we said before, Eva Cassidy was born on February 2, 1963, which means that Wilson died on the calendar date immediately following the calendar date of Eva Cassidy's birth. As we also said before, Eva Cassidy died on November 2, 1996, which is the same calendar date as that of Warren G. Harding's birth (who was born on November 2, 1865). This means that, if you ignore the calendar years, Eva Cassidy was born one day prior to Wilson's death and died on the same day as Harding's birth. What makes this even more curious is the fact that Wilson and Harding were consecutive American presidents. The fact that Eva Cassidy was born just one day prior to Wilson's date of death is a figure of how she represents a continuation of Wilson's "reform spirit". Spiritually speaking, she arrived just in time to receive Wilson's mantle, meaning that her life was a continuation of his. An odd fact to consider is that the year 1900 was not considered a leap year, even though 1900 is divisible by 4. This is because years divisible by 100 are not considered leap years unless they are also divisible by 400. This is the reason why 1900 was not a leap year but 2000 was. Had 1900 been a leap year, the date of Wilson's death would have been February 2, 1924, which would have been an exact match with Eva Cassidy's date of birth.

There is a reason why the Lord has had us talking about Woodrow Wilson, the political reformer. As many of you may know, the word "reform" has been heard a great deal in this year's American presidential election, especially with the entry of reformist governor Sarah Palin. Even though Obama speaks of "changing the way things are done in Washington", his track record shows that he likes to play along with the established machinery. During his time in the Senate, he has done little to promote either campaign finance reform or lobbyist reform. He has no track record of confronting party bosses the way true reformers such as Woodrow Wilson, Sarah Palin, and John McCain have. Reformers are not defined by the words they recite from a pulpit. Reformers are defined by the pain and torment they are willing to endure to see their vision through. Reformers such as Martin Luther and Wycliffe are men and women who are willing to be ostracised for their beliefs. They are men and women who are unwilling to settle into a state of "contentment" and "happiness" that requires ignoring the changes that need to be made. They are men and women who are willing to live "unfulfilled" lives, lives filled with depression and dissatisfaction because they are willing to settle for nothing but true change. They are Elishas who often die (figuratively and even literally) with their dreams unfulfilled. Even so, they are buried with their dreams firmly grasped in their fists. Therefore, it is "interesting" to me that the brief Woodrow Wilson biography posted on answers.com, which was probably written by an unbeliever, ends with the following words:

He suffered depression following the death of his first wife and by the time of the Paris conference had an almost Messianic view of himself. By the time he set sail for Europe, he was already exhausted both physically and mentally. He spent his last years believing that what he stood for would come about. "You can't fight God!", he told visitors. He died with his dreams unfulfilled.

As a postscript, it is worth mentioning that Woodrow Wilson allowed many of his cabinet officials to institute segregation in most federal offices. Having been born and raised in the South, Wilson had a rather mixed attitude on race. Even though some may be quick to label him a "racist", Wilson does not fit that label, at least in the simplistic sense of the word. He would use the word "gentlemen" when speaking to black people, and, even though he fired many black Republican office holders when he took office, he also appointed a few black Democrats to replace them. As indicated on wikipedia.org, Wilson wrote the following in a 1923 letter to Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas, referring to the Ku Klux Klan, "... no more obnoxious or harmful organization has ever shown itself in our affairs". It is also a known historical fact that he was a friend of the Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie, and he kept a sword that was given to him by Selassie as a gift (which is now on display at Wilson's Washington, D.C. home). This ambivalent relationship with black people made him the object of criticism from not only black Americans but also racist white Southerners who thought that Wilson had not done enough to prevent black people working in the federal government. In his ambivalent mind, he failed to see segregation as "humiliation", seeing it instead as "a benefit" for black people. Apparently, he did not believe black people to be inferior, but he seems to have believed that black people would have "suffered" from the culture shock and harassment that would have come with having much contact with white co-workers. In this sense, therefore, he was not a reformer, for he failed to see the need for a painful process in order to make America a fairer place for all people. Had Brooklyn Dodgers president Branch Rickey been trying to shield Jackie Robinson and baseball from the pain of change, the baseball colour line would have never been crossed. In this area, therefore, Wilson was an abysmal failure, but this goes to show a fact that most people, especially believers, seem not to understand. Human nature is inherently complex, and it is wrong to label people as "totally good" or "totally evil" based on a few simplistic parameters. God takes in the fullness of your complex nature before making a judgement on you, and that judgement evaluates all the good and evil that may reside inside of you. Unlike natural man, God does not judge solely on the basis of whether you are a "Republican" or a "Democrat", a "Tory" or "pro-Labour", a "conservative" or a "liberal". He cuts right through superficial distinctions and penetrates into the deepest recesses of your heart, weighing all the good and the bad in you and applying His righteous and unadulterated truth as a parameter. Therefore, you cannot determine whom the Lord approves and whom He disapproves solely by reading the external labels placed on a person's heart.

"⁶Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: ⁷Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. ⁸For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. ⁹For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. ¹⁰For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: ¹¹So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (Isaiah 55:6-11)

"¹¹Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. ¹²For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. ¹³Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." (Hebrews 4:11-13)

"⁶And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD’S anointed is before him. ⁷But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart." (1 Samuel 16:6-7)

There is much more to say regarding this word, but we will do so in a future posting...