THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: BIBLICAL MODELS

I think I have found the perfect post to antagonize everyone, but I sincerely hope not. Christians in America are presently divided between two warring camps regarding the validity of results from the 2020 election, and I thought it might be instructive to see if I could find any biblical parallels from the period of Jewish history recorded in the books of Samuel and Kings. Both are filled with examples of political conflict.

A Failed Coup (MSNBC Model)

This version of events follows somewhat closely the rise and fall of Absalom as described in II Samuel 13-18. Absalom is the obvious heir-apparent to the throne as long as he does nothing too bad to mess up his chances. But his basic evil and conniving nature gets the best of him and is unleashed against those who have wronged him in one way or another. His first victim is his half-brother Amnon (II Samuel 13:20-29), whom he murders in cold blood. With the great help of the rather unscrupulous power-broker Joab, Saul is able to return to Jerusalem after being banished by David for his actions. But when even that is not satisfactory enough for Absalom, he turns against Joab and destroys his field just to get his attention and let him know that dedication to his own person must be absolute or be prepared to suffer the consequences (II Samuel 14).

At that point, Absalom becomes impatient with waiting for his father to die, and suspects that he may not inherit the throne by legitimate means even when that time comes. So he takes things into his own hands by (1) cynically promising everyone who has a gripe with the existing government that he will do better if and when he comes into power, and (2) spreading out-and-out lies about David. In that manner, Absalom is able to rally a group of dissatisfied people around him who believe everything he says, because he says what they want to hear (II Samuel 15:1-6).

Absalom secretly rallies his supporters by masterminding a violent overthrow of the government to be carried on a given day when he says the word. The attack is carried out on the capitol building as planned and would have been successful in destroying all opposition except for the fact that the key government leaders managed to escape just in time (II Samuel 15:7-18). By his actions, we see that Absalom has no regard whatsoever for duly-appointed leadership or for the fate of the nation; his only concern is to gain personal power at all costs.

Using this model, we would have to characterize our previous president as the devil incarnate who has absolutely no socially redeeming features at all. Personally speaking, my problem comes from writing off anyone with whom I don't happen to personally agree, especially one who claims to be a believer. Our attitude instead should be to look inward at our own faults and consider ourselves as Paul did as being the chief of sinners. Judging others is an act reserved for God, who alone knows the truth of the situation and has the right to address it.

A Successful Coup (Fox News Model)

Alternatively, I looked for a close parallel in the Bible to the scenario that says the last presidential election was in fact a successful coup in which the will of the people was completely subverted by the concerted and illegal action of a large group of conspirators who managed to tamper with the ballots in a number of key swing states. And they did it in such a clever way that (1) no trace of their actions could be found even upon repeated investigations and recounts and (2) even sympathetic state and federal judges sided with the opposition and refused to give a hearing to those who wished to overturn the election results or allow more time for investigation of possible election misdeeds.

I have no doubt that elections have been stolen by fraud or through other underhanded means. There is persuasive evidence that the first political victories by both Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were won in that way. But these were relatively local elections where much less scrutiny was taken. And in addition, I always have justifiable skepticism regarding widespread and coordinated conspiracies in which not a single conspirator leaks out details of his actions and no proof is uncovered to show that a conspiracy ever existed.

This scenario is especially ludicrous in light of the Democratic Party's inability to agree on much of anything among themselves even when they come into power. And Biden's harshest critics would have great trouble convincing anyone that he was one of the Machiavellian masterminds behind such a plot.

Moving to the Old Testament for some parallels, one runs into problems right away. For one thing, the successful coups carried out within the Divided Kingdom were all rather bloody and obvious affairs. There was no doubt in any case that a coup had come about. Another problem in getting any of these events to fit this proposed model is that in almost all of the cases the action is taken in order to oust a reigning monarch for his abuse of power and sins against God. This applies to both Zimri overthrowing Elah and killing his whole family, and being killed in turn by another army captain named Omri (I Kings 16:6-22), and to Jehu dispatching the whole house of Ahab in Israel as well as King Ahaziah of Judah (II Kings 9-10). In the latter case, Jehu has even been secretly anointed by Elisha and given his commands straight from God.

In order to propose any of those events as apt parallels to more recent happenings, one would have to admit that just as God saw fit to place our ex-president in power to begin with, He also saw fit to remove him when it became obvious that he was incapable of handling the job. I doubt that anyone on Fox News would ever suggest that possibility.

The only case in which an actually innocent party suffers from a coup is found in II Kings 11 when the queen mother of Judah illegally seizes power by slaughtering 69 the previous king's sons. However, one of them named Joash manages to escape, and his supporters bring him back to power when he has grown old enough to take on the responsibility. No matter how hard I try, I cannot picture our ex-president as a completely innocent babe who was almost martyred by a sinister figure.

So the bottom line is that this whole scenario appears to be more a matter of wishful thinking or a cynical refusal to admit the truth.

A Suspected Coup (An alternative model)

So is our ex-president as devious and evil as Satan or a righteous martyr to the truth of his cause? As long as Americans stick to one of these two diametrically opposed views of reality, there is no hope for reconciliation between the two groups. And so I would like to go even further back in Jewish history to propose another model that may provide a glimmer of hope in bringing people, especially Christians, together again. That alternative model is King Saul, and I will have to engage in some armchair psychological analysis in order to make my point. And I must admit that neither side may see much merit in my suggestion.

One of the first things we learn about Saul is that despite having some innate advantages in life (in this case, his imposing physical appearance), Saul suffers from a pronounced inferiority complex. When he is picked for his role as a leader by God, Saul replies to Samuel, “I am but a Benjaminite, coming from the least of the tribes of Israel. Not only that, but my tribe is the least of all the tribes of Benjamin. Why are you paying attention to me” ( I Samuel 9:22, my paraphrase). Without realizing this underlying aspect of Saul's personality, it is impossible to understand his subsequent behaviors.

And Saul was not just being modest out of a sense of politeness. We see this in the repeated instances given in the biblical account. In the first place, he refuses to brag about his new status to his uncle (I Samuel 10:14-16). Then, when the time comes for all the tribes to chose their first king by lot, the lot falls to Saul but he can't be found because he is hiding among the people's baggage (I Samuel 10:20-22).

Saul starts out on the right foot as the new leader by winning a decisive battle (I Samuel 11-12). But when the time for a second major battle comes up, Saul is not quite so sure of victory and sees his popular support among the troops slipping away. Thus, instead of waiting for Samuel to show up in order to ask God's blessing and offer the sacrifice, Saul decides to go ahead and do it himself. Samuel informs him that since he has gone against God's commandments, God will not allow him to continue in power forever (I Samuel 13).

Saul's next misstep is found in I Samuel 14 when he makes a solemn curse before God against any of his troops who eat food before the victory is won. Inadvertently, his son Jonathan violates that order and faces execution. Although that would have been the right move to make, Saul knows that he will lose the respect of his soldiers if he does what he should do, and so he takes no action against Jonathan for political reasons.

Another act of disobedience to God's will comes in I Samuel 15 when Saul is told to wipe out the Amelekites and destroy all their belongings. Instead, he keeps King Agag alive and takes the booty for himself. This move demonstrates not only that Saul's prime concern is for his own welfare, but also may provide a window into the inexplicable motive of why those who are deeply insecure as to their own fitness to be a leader sometimes look up to a more powerful role model even though that role model is a sworn enemy of one's own country.

Even at this point in Saul's career when he should have been well over his initial insecurities, Samuel knows that Saul has not changed at all. In I Samuel 15:17, Samuel has to tell him, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not king over all Israel?”

The rest of the story is more familiar to most of us. God turns to David to be the next king because Saul's actions had proved that he was unworthy. Saul doesn't realize that fact, but he becomes insanely jealous when the people begin to idolize David more than they do him. And Saul is so insecure that he constantly seeks and demands total devotion to himself only. It is not good enough that he “has killed this thousands” since “David has killed his ten thousands.” (I Samuel 18:7). Saul must be known as the best at everything.

Saul's insecurity deepens to a sense of growing paranoia against everyone close to him, whether it is David, his own children, or God's priests. He becomes convinced of a growing conspiracy against him and strikes out with increasing violence, alienating even some of his former friends and allies. When he can't accept the reality of his rejection, he becomes increasingly irrational and even consults occult forces.

I have personally observed people who are just as I have described above, if not quite to the same degree. The most obnoxious person I have ever met was at a previous place of employment where he was hired on about two years after I was. Our boss suggested to him that he talk to me about my research project to get some pointers. Instead, this new hire curtly informed me that if he ever had the time to spare, he would sit me down and point out the errors I had made in my research. He rubbed everyone else at work the wrong way. But at one point, he was assigned to be my lab mate and I got to know him better. At last he confided in me that he grew up dirt poor with inadequate food, heating fuel, or clothing. So apparently his way of coping was to overcompensate by putting on a bold front to everyone.

I saw the same thing in a high level manager who grew up in an environment in which he was put down by bigots due to his ancestry. It turned him into a person who was insanely attuned to any possible public criticism that he sensed from others, and he would treat them as his avowed enemy from that point on. I encountered a much milder form of the same insecurity in a very intelligent man raised in a blue-collar environment who was determined to escape from his upbringing through education. But once he attained a position in management, he became obsessed with getting his next promotion through concentration on the superficial appearances of competence rather than on actually doing the work necessary to earn it.

Three other supervisors I have had to work closely with over the years had been somehow promoted to their level of incompetence and found themselves way over their heads. All three of them coped by turning against anyone else in the organization who was more capable than they were, either by simply ignoring their contributions or by actively trying to sabotage their careers.

While I don't know much about our ex-president's upbringing, his niece's admittedly biased account makes it clear that he was constantly being put down by his father. It is knowing that little fact that, at least for me, helps to look at him more with pity than scorn. It may help to explain his pathetic insistence on having been elected by the greatest landslide in U.S. history, having an inauguration ceremony attended by the greatest number of people, being a “sane genius,” and telling a group of seminary students and professors that he probably knew more about the Bible than any of them. Once you begin to understand the background of someone with whom you may disagree, you are one step away from anger and one toward eventual reconciliation.