“By the way, I assume you’ve finally jettisoned your libertarian label?”

I’m deeply, deeply conflicted and unresolved on a number of political issues these days.

I can never tell when I’m joking either. #1 or #2 would be my preferred options, insofar as your post is limited to arguing that an OT psalm about the ideal rulers care for the weak and the poor should apply to modern governance.

The part of your post that gives rise to misconstruction is the last ‘amen’ and the fact that you posted the entire psalm, most of which in my reading has nothing to do with the duties of the sovereign.

And, at least for me, my natural reading of the psalm is not that the the King’s exaltation and power are extended so widely solely because he everybody thinks he’s a nice guy for helping the poor. The King here is at least extraordinarily charismatic and powerful. His enemies fear him.

Anyway, based on what you’ve said here, I misread you. My apologies. By the way, I assume you’ve finally jettisoned your libertarian label?

Gary North, a frequent author at lewrockwell.com, makes an interesting case for the idea that the US Constitution is a covenant document, and by making “we the people” the author of the covenant, God has been taken completely out of the picture.

See CONSPIRACY IN PHILADELPHIA: Origins of the United States Constitution for all the interesting details.

However, there is a good amount of adulation throughout the blogosphere and even in the bloggernaccle, and I share in it and to paraphrase Brigham Young, I say “Hallelujah!”

Nevertheless, I can understand the reaction of someone who becomes uncomfortable with anything that has the slightest hint of adjulation or unspoken comparison of our chief executive with something biblical or messianic.

Had this been posted the day after GWB’s reelection, I might have misread it as applicable in some biblical or messianic way to GWB, even though that is clearly not what it says or what the intent is.