1. Republicans should not be crowing about their “victory.” For the most part, they were not elected because they are favored by voters; they won because voters wanted to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Democrats. Both of the major parties have an overwhelmingly negative image among voters. And most voters do not like the candidates they have to choose from, regardless of the party represented.

2. After being subjected to weeks of mud-throwing and unscrupulous campaign tactics, I cannot help but think that we hold politicians in such low regard – and have such contempt for the work they do – because of the ugliness of the campaigns they run. Does a person of character stoop that low? Does the Golden Rule have no applications to the political process? How did Americans lose such respect for people, for themselves and for the political process that we have allowed such garbage to become the norm? I suppose it’s no different than how we have allowed a faceless contingent of media executives to dictate what decency means in media content. Why don’t we demand a more dignified process?

3. For those who believe that this election will bring better policy outcomes during the next two years, think again. All that happened as a result of the 2010 election is that we pretty much guaranteed a lack of significant legislative progress for two years. Congress will be gridlocked worse than New York City at rush hour. The President will begin running his re-election campaign … today. And certainly we can expect the 2012 election to be the ugliest yet. Both parties will be desperate. They will break the record for campaign expenditures, doing everything within their power to buy whatever seats they can by frittering away obscene amounts of money. No amount of party, candidate and PAC spending, though, will eliminate the public’s disappointment in its elected leaders, and its frustration with the political process.

4. Despite what the pundits have been saying recently, party identification is still critical for candidates. In campaigns in which so much misinformation is bandied about, the issues are so complex, and endorsements mean less than ever, party ID has become a simple (if imprecise) means of determining whom to vote for. Consider this: 95% of registered Republicans voted exclusively or mostly for Republican candidates, and 92% of Democrats voted exclusively or mostly for Democratic candidates. In an ADD culture, where distractions are the norm in our daily experience, labels help cut through the clutter, enabling people to make decisions.

5. Young people, as expected, did not show up for this election. Based on their behavior in other facets of life as well as their attitudes toward the political environment, my view is that their interest in politics and government is based on personalities more than policies. They turned out in 2008 because they were drawn to Mr. Obama (an exciting, young, black, energetic, articulate, charismatic person) and they loved the thought of playing a significant role in a social revolution of sorts. 2010? There wasn’t much that appealed to them. Without a national race to galvanize their attention and passion, they were nearly 40% less likely to vote this year than two years ago. (Among all voters, 18% were 18-to-29 in 2008; just 11% were in that age group this year.)

6. The Protestant community stayed true to form in 2010. Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported conservatives and Republicans; non-evangelical born again voters were more evenly divided, but leaned Republican to a greater extent than was the case in 2008. (In that election, 48% supported Mr. Obama – serving as a major reason why he prevailed.) Black Protestants overwhelmingly supported Democrats. Skeptics went with Democratic candidates by a 2:1 margin. The only noteworthy shift was among Catholics, who returned to the Republican side of the ledger to a greater degree this time. Catholics voted exclusively or mostly for Republicans by about a 3:2 margin. That’s a reversal of their behavior during the past four years. However, their choices were driven largely by economics, not by moral or theological considerations.

7. Do not lose sight of the fact that Americans are typically pragmatic and logical. That translates to being very middle-of-the-road in their political thinking. They have shifted slightly to the right during the past two years, but that has been mostly with regard to economic matters, and even that repositioning has not caused them to lose their centrist orientation. Accordingly, this election was not really about ideology; it was about survival for the present and hope for the future. Millions of Americans have lost their optimism about the future and voted yesterday in ways designed to restore it. They do not consider themselves politically astute or ideologically pure. They consider themselves economically worse off than they were two years ago and do not foresee that changing in the immediate future. Their vote was their mechanism for protecting whatever economic stability they presently possess, and to hopefully communicate that they do not want their children to live with overwhelming debt and financial struggle for the duration of their lifetime. Essentially, they want no more and no less federal government services than they absolutely need in order to get by. With the notable exception of a significant minority of the public who are liberal Democrats committed to substantial government intervention related to social conditions, Americans remain more comfortable with the private sector handling their needs.

8. Having observed Mr. Obama during the past two years, it appears that he believed his eight-point margin of victory over John McCain was a “mandate” to radically redefine the role of government as well as the nation’s political tenor. It seems to me that the election results of 2010 are a correction to that view. Even if people were voting for “change they could believe in” back in 2008, it was also change they did not understand the financial and global ramifications of at that time. Now, more fully apprised of those implications, they have indeed voted for change they can believe in: a return to a less aggressive federal government.

9. The Hispanic vote remains one of the most sought after – and elusive – votes in the electoral game. Although they represent 15% of the population, in 2006 just 8% of the votes cast were by Hispanics, and the number was exactly the same in 2010. At some point this refusal to exercise the right to vote will hamper the gains Hispanics hope to experience in this society. Such consistently low turnout can only hurt them.

10. These past two elections drive home a significant point for leaders: when the public provides permission to lead, the window of opportunity to act and to act appropriately is limited. One of the best indications of that is the complete flip-flop among “independent” voters. In 2008, 52% of independents backed Mr. Obama. This year, that dropped to 39%. If someone is chosen to lead, he/she must get on with it, in ways that reflect the heartbeat of the people, not the whims of the leader. Leadership is not about pursuing the leader’s dreams; it is about representing the people’s best interests and clearest expectations. Immediacy, urgency and competency are critical components necessary to defuse the rampant skepticism and mistrust that characterizes the American political scene.

11. One of my greatest fears is that we may see an escalation of violence in the U.S. in the near future. Why? Look at the combination of conditions and attitudes present. High unemployment and under-employment. Rising taxes with the threat of additional increases in order to diminish an overwhelming national debt. A declining level of public services, and the perception of diminished quality of services. The widespread, nearly universal belief that the public is regularly lied to by its elected representatives. Two out of three adults say the nation is on the wrong track. Three-fourths are angry with the federal government. The same proportion disapproves of the job the Congress is doing. For more than two consecutive years nine out of ten adults have argued that the national economy is in bad shape. A large majority believes that Washington is deaf. Growing numbers of Americans believe they are in a no-win position. They prefer business to provide more services than government. Yet they don’t trust big business, and small businesses are struggling more than at any time in the past fifty years – largely due to forces controlled by the government and big business! Even though they want less government, Americans also have greater needs and fewer resources. What’s a citizen to do? At some point, people become sufficiently fed up with the system that they take more aggressive measures. Time is of the essence for our political leaders to shape up. The people’s patience is running thinner than many assume – or have bothered to notice.

12. My sense was that churches played a very low-key role in the 2010 election. That is extremely unfortunate. Americans are dying for guidance, especially from people whom they trust. Many pastors were scared to participate in the political process, unaware of the extensive rights they have to discuss candidates and policy matters from the pulpit with their congregants. Various political and non-profit organizations have caused tens of thousands of pastors and other church leaders to be fearful about engaging people in political discussions and activity through the local church. In other cases, pastors claimed to be too busy to engage in the political process, or insufficiently knowledgeable about political issues and candidates, or fearful of dividing the congregation by raising such matters. The Christian body needs leaders who will lead them in all dimensions of life, not just regarding theological matters on Sunday morning. Choosing to avoid the electoral process in relation to all but the safest of activities is exactly what has landed America in the moral and spiritual condition it is in today.

END.

Several things strike me about this absurd situation.

First, Mr. Obama ran for the office of President of the United States, not President of Christianity, not President of Heaven. Given the biblical injunction that none of us are to judge the heart and soul of others, it strikes me as personally irrelevant and biblically beyond my call of duty to ascertain whether he is or is not a Christian. If he claims to be a Christian and actually is, that’s wonderful; but, in the end, he answers to God, not us. If he claims to be a Christian and is not, that’s too bad; but, in the end, he answers to God, not us.

The aggressive judgmentalism surrounding this matter is suffocating. Call me naïve, but I am convinced that God can defend Himself and His territory; He doesn’t need me to cast doubt on the integrity and stated commitments of others in order for Him to retain control of the universe. My job is to pray for the president, regardless of what his faith is, and as Paul reminds us in Romans 13, to obey the leaders the Lord allows in public office.

Second, once again Christians are being portrayed – with some justification – as people who are against things. I think the world is now sufficiently appraised of what we stand against. Perhaps it’s time to put up a positive front and show them what we are for by demonstrating the love of Christ in all that we think, say, and do.

Third, we’d better figure out how to handle concerns about the potential of people who believe differently than us becoming president. (No, that’s not a sly way of insinuating Mr. Obama is not a Christian.) Once the mid-term elections are behind us and the 2012 presidential race begins in earnest (i.e., November 10), Mitt Romney will likely be the early frontrunner for the Republican nomination. If you don’t already know, you will hear plenty about how Mr. Romney is a devout Mormon. While our surveys suggest that even in this post-everything culture Mr. Romney is unlikely to make it to the White House (largely because of his choice of faith), he will be a formidable presence and his faith will emerge as a bigger issue than it was in his 2008 bid. It is ironic that the Republican Party – i.e., that which is most closely associated with evangelicals and other conservative, Bible-believing people – is the one that must ponder what to do about a legitimate candidate who is associated with a faith group that most evangelicals and many conservative Christians consider to be a cult.

How will Christians respond to Mr. Romney’s candidacy? I think the answer to that question may wind up being more important than who gets elected president in 2012.

I don’t know about you, but all of the wasted energy and public anguish that we Christians devote to pursuing marginal concerns is awfully tiresome. When do we get to the part where we focus on cleaning up our own house and demonstrating genuine humility? At what stage do we impress the world with the abundance of our love, generosity, and tenderness? When do we abandon the witch hunts and the lust for power in favor of justice, service, and compassion?

I guess I don’t really care if Mr. Obama (or Mr. Romney) is Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist, Hindu, Mormon, or Scientologist. I simply want a true leader who honestly reveals what he/she believes, offers a full-blown vision for the future, makes good on his/her promises, and serves the people in harmony with the values that have made this country great. All things being equal, I’d probably prefer a genuine Christian to someone who is not a devoted follower of Christ. But, then again, all things are never equal and past experience has shown that being a committed Christian is not necessarily a recipe for successful political performance.

When I began Barna Research Group (as it was originally known), our first significant client was Disney. It was odd because Disney’s VP of Research called me out of the blue. The call was placed by their research director, a woman I had previously worked with at a large media research firm. After some discussion, she asked if I’d be interested in taking on some of Disney’s work. Trying to get a toehold in the research industry, I was ecstatic, but asked her why she’d offer such a privilege to a virtually non-existent company. “Because I know I can trust you,” was her reason. Upon further questioning, she described her observation of my honesty in telling clients the truth rather than what they wanted to hear, and a commitment to conducting research properly, even if it cost more or took extra time. She said that in her experience with research suppliers those qualities were hard to find.

Fast forward 10 years to a hospital in Denver. I have an incurable disease that affects my vocal cords and requires periodic surgery. (Eighteen operations and counting…) I had heard about a surgeon in Denver who had a “cure” for the disease. I flew to Denver to discuss his process and his past results, which were very impressive. I decided to allow him to use the treatment on me, which was administered during the usual surgery. To make a long story short, I nearly died on the operating table. Afterwards, confused about the outcome and searching for an explanation, I dug more deeply into his research process only to realize that the numbers he trumpeted were grossly inaccurate. I had trusted him because of his pedigree, his position and his presentation of the “facts.”

Think about your role as a leader, and the importance of having people’s trust. Why do they trust you? Have you earned it based on stellar character and performance or is it based on their unfounded hope that you will justify their faith in you?

Over the years I have thought about how we can earn people’s trust. The best lessons for me have come by studying God, whom I have learned to trust implicitly. I had to ask myself why that is. Sure, the scriptures say we should trust God with all our heart, but I’ve been burned too often to blindly trust anyone anymore. So what makes God trustworthy?

Your experience may lead to different conclusions, but my trust in Him is based on the fact that He is very clear and upfront about His values and expectations backed up by His consistency. He has proven to be predictable and reliable in what He has communicated, how He has treated me, and in His responses to people throughout history. He has earned my respect and trust through such consistency. Even when I do not agree with His decisions, I have to admit that they are consistent with His expressed ethics and innate character. And it is much easier to trust someone who has made his non-negotiables clear through simplicity and repetition.

I have also been moved to trusting Him because it seems evident that He genuinely cares about me. Trust relates to the belief that the other person wants what is best for both of us. That has become an important insight for me. Over the years I have interacted with business partners and ministry leaders who have been honest and upfront, but whose purposes are consistently selfish and competitive. I know they will do whatever it takes to win what they seek.

Another way of stating these things is that the Lord’s trust has been earned by His character and performance, and His performance is predictable on the basis of His character. The consistency between the two tells me that He can be trusted even in situations in which I have no direct experience with how He will behave; what I have experienced causes me to believe it is reasonable to have faith in Him.

By the way, I think the trust issue is one with which President Obama is struggling in ways different than he expected. When he was elected, the public gave him what we might call “tentative trust” – belief in him based on what they had experienced during the campaign, but not sufficiently deep as to give him free reign. Believing he had a broad mandate to change government and lifestyles in the U.S. the president began pursuing sweeping and expensive reforms in the midst of financial collapse and uncertainty, without having earned people’s trust. After all, he had never governed anything in his life, he was black (i.e., representing a group of people previously not trusted at that level of leadership), and his agenda was only vaguely clear in its implications. Had he moved at a more moderate pace, perhaps he would be facing less opposition and arrived in a place of “earned trust.”

Personally, I wonder if I have earned trust in leadership situations by being a man of consistent character, one who is worthy of respect and loyalty based not on my words but on my actions. It’s one of those questions that is worth pondering on a regular basis.

• 36 public workshops (including some streamed online) that elicited the involvement of more than 10,000 people. The input received formed the basis of the eventual bill.
• 31 public notices that incorporated more than 23,000 comments – some 74,000 pages of reactions to the initial proposal
• Nearly 1,100 ex parte filings that added another 13,000 pages to the discussion
• 9 public hearings
• Extensive interagency dialogue and collaboration to address the complexity of the task and compensate for the limitations of the FCC’s operations and expertise
• 130 blog postings on the FCC’s special website for this project, generating more than 1,500 comments
• Interaction with the 330,000 people who follow this via the FCC’s Twitter account?

If you want engagement in the process, it’s hard to imagine being more inviting than this! Why did the FCC go to such lengths? After all, its mandate is no different than it has been for years. My read of the situation points to several factors.

First, leadership changes at both the White House and FCC facilitated greater openness to broad external input. In a governmental process, people really only have a voice if the leadership provides them with the platform for using that voice. In this case, both President Obama and his FCC chairman Julius Genachowski offered people that platform.

Second, there is a burning need for something to be done about our broadband situation. The U.S. is currently 17th in the world in access to broadband connections. With an ever-increasing emphasis being placed upon the Internet for communications, we need a better system. By 2015 it is estimated that the amount of information we will be moving through the Internet each year will be the equivalent of the content contained in the Library of Congress – times 50! Right now, only 27% of Americans have high-speed access, and the average speed is not very fast – about 4MB per second. Most developed countries exceed that average. For the United States to remain competitive economically; to remain safe in a fast-paced, dangerous world; to have an informed electorate, government and commercial sector; and to enable people to remain connected with each other, we need a serious upgrade.

Third, the public has a personal interest in this matter. This plan would increase broadband connectivity to an estimated 100 million households by 2020, at speeds averaging 100 MB/second (25 times faster than today). With young people completely beholden to the Internet and all the mobile communications devices it empowers, millions of Americans consider this enhancement a necessity more than an option. A national broadband system might also lower the cost of connectivity. (I’m reluctant to accept at face value the government’s claim that costs would be reduced.)

Here are a few thoughts for church leaders about lessons we might learn from the FCC’s process.

Personally, I was intrigued by the extensive engagement that they sought in this process. Unlike past FCC efforts, it was not a simple posting of intent in a few poorly-circulated government bulletins and a couple of sparsely attended hearings on the Hill. They aggressively pursued the participation of many people. This was not a “build it and they will come” approach to getting feedback. They targeted different groups to get in the mix – from end users like you and me, to communications and technology lawyers, representatives of the business world, voices from the educational community, and so forth. The variety of means made available to the public showed how determined they were to give people a chance to add their ideas.

How aggressive – and inclusive – are you at getting valuable input when you have a new initiative you wish to develop?

By the same token, I think the scope of what the FCC undertook begs the question of how much input is too much? Bureaucracies do not blanch at the thought of dealing with more than 100,000 pages of documents to read, categorize and analyze. Yet I’m in the information business and I’m on the verge of passing out at the thought of handling that avalanche of data. Typically, such extensive information collection results in wasted time, dashed expectations, and a product that is compromised beyond true value.

Perhaps the question we need to ask is: how much information – and what kind – is needed to make the best possible decision?

Finally, I’d be willing to argue that the entire public’s participation is not necessary – or helpful – in every decision that the FCC makes. The same goes for ministry. Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone’s opinion on every matter is of equal value or usefulness. My neighbor has strong opinions about terrorism, but I’m not willing to let him – someone who has never travelled outside our county, never been involved in law enforcement or the military, never studied the mind of militant groups or the Muslim world – form national policy on this matter. There are approprioate times for an inclusive process for developing solutions and there are times when a more limited process is wiser.

What is the mechanism you have developed for figuring out when to involve everyone in your community, the full congregation, your lay leaders, the aggregate staff, or perhaps just you and a trusted confidante? How do you figure out when it’s smart to allow plentiful input and when it’s wiser to limit the flow of ideas?

Recent experiences in the worlds of sports and politics, though, remind me that when you are doing God’s will, great things can happen in spite of pressing circumstances. Specifically, if I were a professional golfer over the past several years, I probably would have resigned myself to the idea that as long as Tiger Woods was on the scene coming in second was the moral equivalent of taking first place. And then, out of nowhere, Tiger is gone. A whole pack of skilled professionals suddenly had a new lease on life, completely unforeseen or predictable. It is unfortunate that it came at the expense of another person, but the outcome was undeniable: new life and opportunity for the rest of the field.

Barack Obama’s recent fall from the heights of popularity is another case in point. One day he’s “the next big thing,” he handily wins his first national campaign, and then he’s coronated. The next thing you know, he’s no longer the man of the people. The same abilities that were widely heralded – his intelligence, deft instincts, smooth communication, regal presence – suddenly became liabilities, now interpreted as naiveté, misreading of situations, teleprompter expertise, and arrogance. Incredibly, studies show that his presence on the mid-term campaign trail actually hurts the prospects of some of his colleagues seeking re-election.

Granted, our culture changes very rapidly, producing an abundance of new information, connections, opportunities, heroes and villains. We are able to influence some of those shifts, but not others. Perhaps more importantly, we sometimes forget that in a society in which few people have a solid, consistent worldview based upon permanent truth principles, everything is always up for grabs. The implication for leaders is that you have to be driven to lead by appropriate motivations. You are more likely to finish the race – and to finish strong – if your reason for participating has less to do with you than it reflects a desire to honor God by using the gifts He entrusted to you.

With the 2010 mid-term election approaching, I have watched in dismay at the nature of the political conversation that has emerged in several key states, the national media, and the blogosphere.

While I am not a fan of some of the public servants who are being excoriated in the media, I am nevertheless saddened by the superficiality and coarseness of the conversation related to their performance in office and their re-election prospects. Perhaps the most disturbing monologues are those that savage various public officials for outcomes over which they have no control. Among those who seem to be skewered most unfairly are Arnold Swarzeneggar, Ben Bernanke, and even Barack Obama. Yes, I am aware that all three of these gentlemen, and many other officials like them, asked for and willingly accepted the jobs in which they are serving. And I certainly realize that when you campaign for and then are given the mantle of leadership, criticism is part of the package.

But don’t we, as American citizens, have a responsibility to be well-informed before we hurl our criticisms as these people? Don’t we have an obligation to accept some share – and frankly, sometimes a major share – of the responsibility for the unfortunate results that plague the jurisdiction in question? Isn’t it part of the bargain that before we insult or criticize a public official we should do some fact checking and be measured in the tone of our critique? Add another layer of responsibility – that of being a Christ follower – and we have to consider if our task is to criticize or the assist those who seek to do good, regardless of your party affiliation or ideological leanings.

We have become an attack dog society, happy to take unfair shots at those who are striving to serve us. To my knowledge, few elected or appointed officials – even those whom I do not care for, ideologically or in character – have ever claimed to be perfect or capable of solving all of our problems without some missteps. Together, we create absurd expectations and then declare those who fail to meet them to be incompetent, an enemy, or an incompetent enemy.

We live in a complex age. It is also an age when communications opportunities abound. Perhaps one of the lessons we ought to teach our children – and, of course, personally master – relates to self-restraint. There are times when a public response or critique is appropriate and other times when it is not; it’s important to know the difference and to behave accordingly. Ours is not only an over-stimulated society but also an over-communicated society. Just because we possess an idea or feeling, and the tools with which to share it, doesn’t mean it should be broadcast to the world. Self-restraint will help us filter those comments that make us feel good from those that produce good.

And, of course, the challenge for leaders is to know whom to respond to, when to do so, and with what content and tenor. Leadership is not about having the last or the loudest word. Just as there are times for people to raise their voice in protest, so there are times when it makes sense for leaders to not respond to specific charges. In the course of speaking with many leaders over the years, and most recently in the interviews for the Master Leaders book, I learned that leaders are sometimes better off absorbing the body blows of criticism and continuing to move forward than halting their progress in order to strike back. The media love to cover a good blow-for-blow confrontation, but great leaders do not get distracted by the public’s morbid curiosity about such battles.

Knowing when to resist the temptation to respond or retaliate depends upon the self-control of the leader as well as his/her capacity to read the situation and discern whether a response would add value to the lives of the people being led. Effective leaders also realize that should a response be desirable there are different ways of responding that might defuse an explosive situation. Understanding the different types of responses available (e.g., through a spokesperson, using a different medium, by providing facts and figures that expose the absurdity of the criticism, etc.) is a significant part of the leader’s cache of tools.

All leaders must be able to take the heat. No matter who you are and what you lead, if there are people involved then there will be criticism. Some of it will be unjustified, based on inaccuracies, emotion, competition, or irrelevancies. Having enough confidence in your motivations and choices to handle such criticism wisely – i.e., knowing when and how to engage your critics – is one mark of a good leader.

How is it that so many intelligent and articulate members of the media consistently misunderstand leadership as well as the political process? A non-negotiable truth of leadership is that people must trust the individual before empowering them to lead. Should Huckabee be disqualified as a “serious candidate” because he has an accessible weekly talk show? Is it inappropriate for him to dispense political perspective in ways that the average voter finds more appealing than the mind-numbing and audience-repelling exercises that typify the content on Meet the Press and This Week in Washington? Should he be spanked because he does things in an unconventional way? Is he wrong to believe that Americans do not want a four-year presidential campaign? Was Ronald Reagan a lightweight because he had personality? Can we name a president in the last 40 years who has not had a book that he was “hawking” while he was not in office? Is it accurate to argue that to be a serious Republican contender one must be “the voice of an intellectually vigorous conservatism”? If a viable candidate must discuss serious proposal regarding the economy, why doesn’t Huckabee’s oft-mentioned support for the “fair tax” qualify, along with his weekly statements on his talk show and his daily radio program regarding unemployment, taxation, trade policies and federal bailouts? He has written extensively about his views on such matters as well.

Mr. Douthat describes President Obama as an example of a leader who “prefers the responsibilities of leadership to the pleasures of celebrity.” Really? It strains credulity to label Mr. Obama an effective leader at this stage of his presidency. Roughly one year into his reign millions of Americans have already lost their trust in Mr. Obama because of a string of broken promises. Among other campaign promises, the President told voters that he would allow five days for public comment before signing bills, eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, allow Americans to withdraw funds from 401(k) and retirement accounts without penalties, ban lobbyists from serving in his administration, reform earmarks, bring all combat troops home from Iraq in 16 months, sign the “Freedom of Choice Act,” give Americans $4,000 in credits for college, and run a “transparent” administration. (Of course, there were over 400 other campaign promises made, but fairness requires us to give him time to implement all those promises. It shouldn’t require more than two decades…) Great leaders are honest and transparent, qualities which millions of Americans hoped were part of the man they voted for. Sadly, the President has turned out to lack the strength of character to make good on his promises and to transform the political process.

So, what do you make of Mr. Douthat’s allegation that candidates like Ms. Palin and Mr. Huckabee are lightweights and are unqualified for the presidency because they are operate effectively within the mainstream of pop culture?