President Me!

What if I were President?

Tuesday, August 5, 2014


Tuesday, August 5, 2014
President Me!
 

President Me!


By

Francis William Bessler

August 5th, 2014

 

Note:

       I am hereby declaring my candidacy for President of the United States of America in the 2016 Presidential election.  Just kidding!  I am not interested in being a "president" of anything - anymore than I think the real Jesus would be; but if I were interested in running for the office, I think I should declare my intention - and define my objectives - as much as possible.  Then if I were elected, I should choose as cabinet members and advisors only those who are comfortable with my intentions and objectives.

       Too often, I think, we elect people based on what they claim to represent - and then once they have been elected, those elected officials choose cabinet members and advisors who contradict a previous "candidate's declared agenda."  That might happen to me, too, if I were elected President of the United States, but probably not.  Why?  Because I would not be looking to go into another direction than claimed by my candidacy - simply due to a thing called "integrity."

       For what it's worth, though, I do believe that most politicians are somewhat honest in the presentations of their candidacies, but once elected - because they lack integrity - they can change to go with more "practical" stances.  Thus an "anti-war" candidate can change to become a "pro-war" elected official by virtue of the advisors he or she selects.  A "pro-abortion" candidate can become a "pro-life" elected official, etc.  That would not be because they were not sincere as candidates; but I think it would be because, in the end, integrity is missing. 

       That is mostly to say, I think, in reality, they did know who they really were - or are; but having to react in an official capacity, they soon learned who they really are.  Like drunkenness brings out the "real person" inside, events tend to cause an elected official to react as the "real person" inside too.  The problem is, quite often, the candidate we elect turns out to be other than what he or she sincerely thought he or she is.  Again, events have a way of demonstrating who one really is.  Don't they?  Ideally, however, all candidates should already know who they are before settling into some elected office.  Some do, of course; but many others do not. 

      The following is more or less a presentation of the "real me."  As you will soon come to realize, if you read it, the "real me" is considered to be "impractical" in that I do not fit into the "real world."  You will see what I mean as I go forward; but even though I would have no chance of actually being elected because of my "impractical" views, wouldn't it be nice if all candidates could be as equally candid as this "mythical" candidate for the Presidency of the United States - one Francis William Bessler.

       Oh, by the way, if I were to run for the Presidency, I would definitely run as an Independent - simply because I think political parties impede officials thinking for themselves and having individual initiative.  If I had been around when our founding fathers decided on such things, I would have argued for outlawing political parties for the reason stated.

       If I were to run for the Presidency, I would also choose a lady as my "Co-President" - not "Vice President."  Of course, she would have to be of my mind to be chosen to be my Co-President, but she and I would have a ball being kind to everyone we meet - and probably ruling without missiles.  Francis & Frances, Frances & Francis, what a team we would be - needless to say, such as the world has never seen!  America, are you ready?

       That is not to assume my Co-President and I would always agree, but I would always consult with my Co-President on all issues.  If she and I were to agree, fine, consider it "our" decision; but if she and I were to disagree, as occasionally would be the case, then I would decide which way to go - even as I would publicize our disagreement to maintain an essential candidness and honesty.  Of course, if the tables were turned and I were to be the partner of a leading lady, then if we disagreed, it should be the leading lady who would decide.  That would only be right.  Right?

       Be that as it may, let me continue.

     

Thanks (FWB)!

    

 

       I may be somewhat naive, but if I were the President of the United States of America, I would simply be me in my conduct of all affairs - AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.  I realize that it might not be possible in all instances to just "be me," but if I were to take the office of President - dedicated to being me as much as possible, I suspect that events would go rather smoothly because others would know that I would not be one to "make trouble" as much as one who would be dedicated to "resolving trouble."  If some world figure, foreign or domestic, were to try to make trouble for me - or my nation - I would simply treat them as a brother.  My guess is if I would do that, others would see me as their brother too - and I would not have to compromise myself by being harsh with anyone. 

       In one of the gospels of the BIBLE, Jesus said that if someone were to strike me on the left side of my face, I should turn to that one the right side of my face.  That is simply to say - do not return injury for injury.  Well, that makes a lot of sense to one like me because "I know myself."  In knowing myself, I know that whatever I do will impact my soul in the same way that I acted toward another.  So why in the world would I choose to "injure" myself by injuring another - regardless of the reason?

       Now, many have heard that same Jesus counsel that we should not return injury for injury, but when confronted with some incident that has attack written on it, most who claim they love Jesus would not turn the other cheek and would, in fact, claim that it is preposterous to do such a thing.  Why?  To put it simply, I think, they do not know who they are as "equal sons (or children) of God" and certainly do not know that what they do will reflect upon them in the same way as they acted - or reacted.

       For one who really knows himself, or herself, however, it is "action" - not "reaction" - that is most important.  Even if someone were to strike me, ideally I should not "react."  Ideally, I should "act" - not "react."  I should return my hand in friendship rather than with a knife in revenge.  Ideally, ones "actions" should always be ones of friendship.  It was to emphasize continuity of "action" (of constant friendship), I think, that Jesus counseled us all to turn the other cheek when an opposite cheek is struck.

       That makes sense to one like me - because I know myself and know that anything I do will come back on me.  It would not make sense to one who does not realize that truth, however.  Would it?

       Amazingly, many Christians act contrary to the counsel of Jesus and do not even know their action is contrary to his counsel.  Personally, I think that is because they confuse Jesus with Jehovah, regardless of whether  Jehovah is fiction or real.  Jehovah, of course, is presumed to be another name for "God" - according to Jewish/Christian tradition.  In believing that Jesus was the "son of Jehovah," they conclude that Jesus had - and has - to be the same as Jehovah.  Like father, like son - or whatever.  Since Jehovah struck back at his enemies - or alleged enemies - then Jesus as the "son of Jehovah" should be perceived as one who would do the same.  Thus, Jesus is often portrayed as some end of time "judge" when in life he counseled against judging others.  And so many do not see the contradiction.  Amazing!

       Accordingly, even though Jesus "encouraged" his followers to forgive ones enemies - because Jesus is confused with Jehovah and Jehovah did not forgive his enemies, Jesus has been portrayed as approving revenge in the name of justice.  What a terrible confusion to merge Jesus with Jehovah when the two were about as opposites as one could imagine. 

       Be that as it may, how many do you know who would agree that one should turn the other cheek when struck?  How many "Christians" do you know who would strike an attacker and then claim that they had done the right thing - probably as a matter of "justice"?

       I realize, however, that ideals may not be so easy to follow in the real world of conflict.  Personally, I have experienced only a few incidents in which I have been attacked.  Well, actually, I have not experienced any actual attacks in my life - though I have been confronted with a few potential attacks.

       In one case, I was confronted by one who had a knife who threatened to stab me if I did not step out of the way.  He was angry at another beyond where we were standing - and I stood in his way.  He was not angry at me - or with me - but I chose to try to stop him before he could do injury to another.  As it happened, I managed to convince that person to put down his knife.  Accordingly, I was not attacked as such.  If I had been, what would I have done?  I do not know for sure, but I do know what I should have done.  I should have treated that fellow with kindness - which I actually did do.  There is a good chance that if I had chosen to confront my potential attacker that he would have followed through with an attack, but as it happened, I guess he "turned the other cheek" and decided not to follow through with an attack - on me or the other person.  Lucky for me - and him - and the other person!

       But I do believe that incident demonstrated that potential attacks can be dissolved before they happen if we just maintain the same conduct of "friendship for all."  Of course, not all potential assaults can be avoided, but one way to make sure they will happen is to "stand your ground" by doing the same thing to the other fellow that you think he would have done to you.    

      

       Let me get back to being President, though.  If I were President Bessler, how would I now be dealing with President Putin of Russia, for instance?  President Obama is choosing to "punish" Putin for helping some Russian Ukrainians try to break away from Ukraine.  He is doing that by imposing some economic sanctions on Putin and Russia; but what will that do?  Will it make President Putin a friend - or a foe?  Or will it make President Putin more of a foe than he already is?  In all likelihood, it will make President Putin more of a foe than he already is.  Won't it?

       Now, consider turning the other cheek as a strategy to diffuse the situation and perhaps avoid war in the end.  Why not turn the other cheek before it is even hit by extending a hand in friendship?  Hey, give it a try.  It might work; and even if it did not work, I would not be compromising myself by becoming my own enemy by doing to my enemy what my enemy would do to me.  That is really what "turning the other cheek" is all about.

       What would a "President Jesus" do?  I smile when I ask that because based on his life of choosing kindness to all - friend or foe - and encouraging the same for all, I know what he would do.  President Jesus would do as I would do.  I am quite sure of that.  If Citizen Jesus chose not to attack his attackers, the Romans, President Jesus would not attack his attackers either. 

       Of course Citizen Jesus lost his life by refusing to return injury for injury - and that could happen to any of us; but what a wonderful world we could have if we all chose to "imitate" Jesus and not our enemies.  Don't you think?

       What harm would it do to invite President Putin to the White House?  What harm would it do to invite President Putin's wife to dinner?  How about inviting the President of Ukraine to join them - and some of those who oppose that President?  Why not dine together - and discuss issues of concern?  You might just find that there is really no reason to fight one another because you might find that everyone is the same.  Why act like it is not so?

       Call me naive, but I think we could all get along much better than we do if we just elected Jesus as our President - simply by following his counsel and treating each other as we would want to be treated and forgiving those who injure us by not returning injury for injury.  An eye for an eye, a life for a life, might have been fine for Jehovah, but Jesus would never approve it.  At least, I don't think so.  We could do so much better than we have ever done by electing Jesus as our President - and making his ways of kindness, forgiveness and brotherhood our own.

 

       At least I think so.  How about you?

 

Thanks (FWB)!