Desiring The Failure Of A Leader

Should we desire the political failure of a President of the US if we disagree with his policy? Is the following statement absolutely true?

It is wrong to endorse failure of the president because you don't like or agree politicallywith him. If he fails, our country does too.

The philosophy that success of a country is directly related to the success of it's leader is flawed. Similarly, the notion that the failure of a leader could never lead to the improvement (or, success) of the nation he leads is a false premise.

Consider the possibility that a citizen of North Korea might endorse the failure of President Kim Jong Il, and that his failure might result in the betterment of that nation.

I should think that someone in Iran might not like or agree with the policies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And, it could be that if Ahmadinejad were to fail, the country of Iran would experience success and prosperity.

In these scenarios, it is imaginable that the chief cause of the nation's success is solely the failure of the leader.

In all of this, it seems to me that we've lost sight of one of the most remarkable aspects of our form of government; namely, that it was set up to encourage political discourse. Those patriots in the Revolutionary war indeed had every hope in the failure of their pre-war leader. If there is no hope of the failure of your political opponent, what benefit is there in political parties, elections, or representative government?

I wonder when it became taboo to oppose the [political] success of a leader who, if successful, could be the cause of a country failing. Could it be possible that by the leader's [policies] failing the country avoids failure? Could it be possible that the [political] opposition to the leader is, by definition, the success of our nation (and it's political system). This seems especially to be the case in a democratic system of government.

My feelings about the success or failure of President Obama aside, I do not believe that his political success/failure and the country's success/failure are mutually inclusive. And I strongly believe that the government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is not directly connected to the success or failure of its leader. It's bigger than any single leader's success or failure. Its virtue is precisely rooted in the freedom of the opposition to oppose.

The Prodigal Father

I was just listening to Pastor Terry's Message from two weeks ago and he was telling the story of the Prodigal Son. Then he explained how the definition of the word prodigal is "rashly or wastefully extravagant." It is amazing how wasteful the son was with the inheritance that the father had given him. But then Pastor Terry made a very profound point. He pointed out that the story should be titled the Prodigal Father; because it was the father who allowed him back in his house after all the waste. It was the father who welcomed the son back after the son had done the most embarrassing, insulting, and unforgivable acts. It was the father who put the signet ring on the son...basically telling him "you are part of the family, you can do business in my name, you can have the family credit card, you have my seal of approval." He wastefully threw him the most extravagant party to welcome him back.

I'm so glad that the Heavenly Father acts rashly or wastefully extravagantly toward me when it comes to His grace. I've throw away the inheritance a thousand times over, and I've eaten with swine spiritually, but time and time again He puts his signet ring on me. Time and time again He puts his fine robe on my back. The Father doesn't view His children as prodigals...He views them as valuable. He finds it a joy to extravagantly pour out His love and grace. I'm so glad He's the Prodigal Father!