Donald Trump: Political Dynamo

I am using the archaic definition of 'dynamo' in relation to President Trump: dynamo from the Greek dynamis (δύναμις) meaning force or power.

How else does one man (or group) rule over another (other groups) if not by some form of force or power?

This is what government is, whether legitimate or not, whether de jure or de facto have always done.

A great example of de jure governance was when Rome adopted the Christian faith and laws changed accordingly, acknowledging Yeshua Christ as Lord God and King over all kings on earth.

The de facto transferred to the de jure.

This change was not by force nor power in human terms because Rome had all the power and force at its command...and the Christian community held no temporal power; the kingdom of Christ.

An example of de facto governance are the systems that have come about by force, at the end of a sword or another weapon...and the world's histories are full of such examples; the kingdoms of men.

As for what the United States of America 'is' can be defined in different ways.

To one person, it is de jure...to another, de facto.

To the native populations of the land, their de jure rights were ignored due to the fact of their powerlessness to the colonial force.

To the subsequent generations born under the de facto paradigm, it seems purely de jure from then on.

A body of legislation desires to convince of this.

It seems one does beget the other eventually, for de jure does express itself with force and power in due time...and the patterns repeat.

But can a de facto situation be realized as de jure?

Does it matter when the individual must navigate either reality regardless of how that reality is portrayed to us by others (those in force and holding power)?

Does it matter when power is expressed either way?

What if it is YOU who is wielding that power?

Perhaps it does matter for those who must justify their positions and their work.

This is why I entitled this article "Donald Trump: Political Dynamo".

It isn't a slight against the man, for I don't know him personally and regardless of popular sentiment for or against him, the fact is he occupies a very influential public seat.

Some say the most powerful public office in the world, but I don't think so.

Plenty more people who are private, and hold private interests, are much more influential and 'powerful' than the office of the President of the United States.

Who are these people?

I have my ideas...and the factual 'chain of command' I speak of reflects my earlier words in this article about transition.

In my view, Trump represents the distaste many people have about collusive bureaucracy that career politicians represent.

Trump also represents the power behind bureaucracy that typically favors business interests over public sentiment (yet, one also goes in hand with the other).

If only his rhetoric and delivery was more palatable, perhaps then the focus could be on the subject matter and not the personality.

Since we all have to earn our bread somehow, and the way of the world has brought all things into a price / cost perception (including human beings), we see why the aims of promoting business also somehow feeds people...but not perfectly.

I'm not sure I understood why Bernie Sanders was more distasteful than Donald Trump aside from people's fear of the term "socialism".

Regarding personalities, Bernie was quite objective when discussing political issues.

A career politician albeit an expert in talking about the issues.

I think that fear had more to do with decades of state propaganda defining that 'socialist' term in a warped way and less to do with understanding that term's factual definitions.

By surface definitions of these political terms (all the isms we desire to fully understand and identify ourselves through), the teachings of Yeshua and the 1st century church's efforts resemble aspects of "communism" and also "socialism" that is misunderstood today and is taboo.

Most (one or several) of the isms are vilified or worshipped, depending on which side of an imaginary political line you stand.

What is understood to be today about capitalism has turned out to be, arguably, very different than what the early church exemplified according to historical evidence.

The church was personable to society, treating people like family rather than a means to exploit markets with money as the main motivator and people being utilized like commodities, expendable and stamped with a price tag.

This is why hypocrisy reigns among certain politicians who claim to be Christians (like Christ) yet they are forever exploiting the machine against their fellow human beings.

I personally see a mixture of all of the political definitions (capitalism, communism, socialism, et al) in the United States today, aside of what politicos would argue.

In the United States, you can own your property and business (capitalist idea) so long as you pay taxes (tribute towards a communist collective / monarchy).

However, if you get into financial trouble, the government will buy you a free lunch for a period of time (socialism / communism / church benevolence).

Only if one has a disability can one receive a paycheck (communism - others work while you do not).

Perhaps treating people more like family rather than a copper-top battery (a theme in the Matrix movie), or a commodity, could help correct the plague of the hired-hand phenomenon that most politicians end up being...with very few exceptions.

Whether Donal Trump is a hired-hand, or the very hand that does the hiring, is a side issue I think.

The main issue is how the people will navigate their own lives regardless of the winds of political change.

The early church had NO rights or standing before the Roman political machine.

Only with Paul do we see the first example of a Roman citizen and also a believer standing in a court of law defending himself (and you can read about that leverage held by him having citizenship in a de facto state).

He still had to navigate the times...and eventually lost his head for the faith despite the 'rights' the legislative body of his time afforded him.

Will the people continue to be pulled apart and divided by political discourse?

Will the people be more united than ever in love and view the 'business' of life as it is; a sorry and dismal business?

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating any particular political agenda or leaning wholly.

Depending on the subject or topic, I could be labeled a capitalist, socialist, communist, anarchist, whatever...it all depends on the issue at hand.

To allow others to label me personally according to what others have defined as a political ideology and that group's list of ideas...is crippling to the reality that we hold inside as conscious and sentient beings made in God's likeness and image.

Men label and categorize the things of this world, and to do so when looking at each other is the problem (when we label one another any 'thing' outside of a brother or sister).

When more people begin to 'see' one another as the mirrored reflection of Christ and ourselves, is when those invisible political lines will eventually disappear from our minds and hearts.

The confusion will erode and the clarity shine.

De jure government is found already on earth, yet it is not perceivable by human eyes.

Each of us are called to work in order to eat...a free lunch is not a constant, but simply gifts given in charity and love.

Are you doing your part regardless of the status quo, your government's ideology, or your religious leaning?

Do your actions justify popular government sentiment, or any particular leader's ideas?

You have some level of power and force within and around you.

Do you express such force through love, or through the confusions of this world?

Do you imitate the world and justify your actions, or can you see beyond the confusion as Paul's letters remind?

Will you be a good shepherd, or a hired hand?