I can’t fault the idea of a genuine leader and protector of freedom. Though our discussion has ranged beyond those limits.
This country was created upon an, as Lincoln put it, “great experiment.” It was an idea I believe, from my reading, many of the founders themselves believed to be naive, that of “the people” using their God- given rights to properly lead themselves without just such a “point man.”
I used to think such an idea was obvious, but I came to realize that I’d conflated innate rights with the idea of the innate ability for self-governance. As such I’ve come to understand the “doubting founders” better. Although even the “true believer founders” worked hard to create a system of checks and balances predicated upon mistrust of people’s good will (which was genius, I might add).
So, pragmatically, I believe that it will probably take true leadership for freedom to lift everyone up. But spiritually, I do not believe everyone required such leadership. In fact, if everyone did, I don’t believe the true leadership could defeat evil. There must be a backbone of people who have made their peace with God without the need of leaders, otherwise freedom will fall. Those people still exist. Maybe not as many as in the past, but nevertheless. And as they rely on God, what they can accomplish is unlimited, because it is not their doing. And ultimately they even keep the “good” leaders in line.
/soapbox
Another way to say that: culture trumps politics.
And one might add that religion shapes culture, a reality alas only all too well recognized by the Frankfurt School and the likes of Saul Alinsky who set out to secularize America, actually destroy its religious foundation, and, of course, shape the culture and steal elections.
I think it was John Adams who said that ours is a government for men of virtue. That was his conviction even though he was aware better than most that it was equally a government designed to frustrate men who lacked virtue, as you point out.
All the best.
