The old adage "history repeats itself" has some merit, but needs some qualification. Exact events are not repetitious, of course, but the eternal principles and truths that actuate those events are repeatable, and that's why we can study history and learn from it. Nothing is absolute from the standpoint that God has allowed flexibility in the system He created. Thus, every general truth is just that--only general. "A soft answer turneth away wrath," Proverbs 15:1 reads, and while that is often true, it is not an absolute. And we humans can be very thankful that God is longsuffering for if He gave us what we deserved the first time we sinned, we would be doomed for eternity. Men take advantage of that longsuffering for their own gain (Ecclesiastes 8:11) and God's patience procrastinates their inevitable judgment.
Shakespeare understood it: "Nothing emboldens sin so much as mercy." As a result, sin and wickedness abound, though eventually, no one escapes.
But, the point here is, history (and the Bible) teach us that, overall, things like thrift, hard work, and virtue are better for a country than profligacy, sloth, and debauchery. No country has ever had 100% of either, but the more virtue a people have, the longer they can survive. And you don't need the Bible to tell you that. The quote from Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler in my post yesterday is a good, brief summation. Righteousness exalts a nation, sin debases it; is there anyone, except a Democrat, who would say that profligacy, sloth, and debauchery are better for a country than thrift, hard work, and virtue? Again, it is important to emphasize that, because of the patience of God, the wicked sometimes prosper, individually and even collectively. Such prosperity, however, will not last forever. The longer a people maintain a higher rate of virtue than immorality there will be success and strength. But once the scales are tipped in favor of a rejection of the eternal moral principles of God, the decline and fall are unavoidable. If you keep jumping out a 3rd story window, you might be able to survive a few times. But eventually you are probably going to break your neck.
The question I have been asking myself in recent times is, has America reached that tipping point? It is virtually impossible to accurately pinpoint it; when did Rome reach it? The parallels between this presidential election and the one in 1980 are rather striking--a Democratic President had been elected in 1976 during a time of relative national malaise, but whose policies, because they were rooted in a philosophy that cannot succeed, made matters worse. The American people recognized that, and Jimmy Carter was soundly defeated by a Republican candidate, Ronald Reagan, though, up until the vote, the election looked very close. This year, we have largely the same circumstance. The 2008 election was in the midst of a recession. The American people, not listening to history (or Obama), elected a man whose policies were, like Carter's, destined to fail. Economic law is not as longsuffering as God, and, like Carter, Obama has been a dismal failure. Everything points to a 1980 repeat.
And it might happen. There are some who have suggested that Mitt Romney will win a decisive victory, though nothing in the neighborhood of Reagan's landslide. We are 32 years into the future from 1980, and while 32 years is not really a very long time historically, it can be long enough to allow for major changes. And that has been the question I have asked myself--have the last 32 years sounded the death knoll of America? The northeastern part of the country, which went for the conservative Reagan in both 1980 and 1984, is completely gone. It matters not how incompetent a President is (and how could any be more unqualified or incompetent than Barack Obama?), if the candidate is a Democrat, the Yankees are going to vote for him. Have enough of the demographics in the country changed, in the last 32 years, to push America past that tipping point from (mostly) virtue to (mostly) debauchery? The fact that people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama could get elected to the presidency in the first place is unequivocal evidence that the United States is heading in that direction. Has it gone over the edge? Perhaps it is the depression that I suffer from that leads me to conclude that, yes, it has, which is why, yesterday, I posted that I thought Obama would win. And he might.
However, I'm not sure that's going to happen. America will reach that point of no return; all democracies/republics eventually do. But I can't say I would be surprised if Romney wins. He looks presidential, he sounds presidential, he's a good, decent man, far from perfect and never my first choice. Put him side-by-side with Barack Obama, however, and it is man versus child, a responsible grown-up against a petulant, whining adolescent. The 7,000 who haven't bowed the knee to Baal might yet be enough to keep America alive for awhile longer. If Romney wins, though, even against a far, far inferior president--and person--than even Jimmy Carter, it will be a relatively close election (relative to 1980). That right there says the direction America has been going for the last three decades.
Incidentally, I am right where I was in 1980. I haven't changed because the Bible hasn't changed and history hasn't changed. Have you?