A long, cold winter

Several Decembers ago--I wish I could say it was when I was very young and still impetuous, but in fact it was in 1993--I proved to readers of this column that I should stick to talking about past events and not try to forecast the future. Quite foolishly, I tried to predict 10 things that would happen in 1994. Only three of them actually occurred!!!!

Now, the temptation becomes huge once more. It's a very hard assignment to send this column off to the printer just 72 hours before the polls close for the Nov. 5 election, knowing that you readers will have heard all the election results before you see these words. So I need to show off a bit with a successful prediction.

Yet the usual subject matter of predictions--the economy, foreign wars, scandals--is pretty hard stuff. To look a little better, you have to make your forecasts ambiguous, the way Chinese fortune cookies do it: "A great world power will be brought to its knees" or "Someone will get unexpectedly rich today." Fire enough buckshot, and some bird somewhere will fall to the ground. But will Castro collapse in 1997? Will the stock market crash before April? Will Mrs. Clinton be indicted?

Hard as accuracy is, it's noteworthy heading into the election how much unanimity exists among observers right and left about what probably lies ahead for American society, regardless of who has won the White House or a majority in Congress. Here are some samples:

Foreign affairs: Pick your problem. Boris Yeltsin's poor health virtually guarantees an unstable Russia. North Korea's attitude toward South Korea, China's toward Taiwan, and the U.N.'s tendency to dither over Iraq's playing with nuclear weapons--all these mean that apart from God's extraordinary grace, something big is bound to bust out somewhere. Those examples say nothing about massive problems in Africa and a continuing war to the death between Islamic fundamentalists and those who are only nominal Muslims. Start wishing for the simplicity of the Cold War.

The economy: Almost every president since Eisenhower has experienced economic recession. Only Kennedy, whose term was short, and Johnson, whose economy was pumped by the Vietnam War, escaped. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush all faced slowdowns that turned off voters. Why should the next president escape the pattern? Meanwhile, the stock market is overdue, if not for a crash, at least for a major adjustment. And the moment of truth gets closer for dealing with big-dollar issues like Medicare and Social Security; not doing so, one observer said recently, is like cleaning out the garage without noticing the Winnebago. For Medicare, that moment of truth comes during the next four years--regardless of who sits in the White House.

Scandals: No serious observer of the present administration holds any longer to the excuse that Whitewater, Travelgate, and the FBI files are merely political charges carried to an extreme. Almost everyone knows now in his heart of hearts that something will blow and that there are still other shoes to drop. The only questions are how big and whose shoes. Jerome Zeifman, a life-long Democrat and top lawyer in the Nixon impeachment inquiry 23 years ago, wrote last week: "In my view there is now probable cause to consider our president and first lady as felons, who are likely to be indicted after the Nov. 5 election."

Yet, as I say, making such specific predictions is risky business. For the most part, I must leave the task to others.

Still, there's one specific prediction i will make. Whatever mix of hardship hits us in the days ahead--whichever predictions concerning the economy, foreign affairs, or scandal--we're not ready. Our society is a sitting duck in a way we've never been vulnerable before. I say that based on the very words of both presidential candidates. #By their own testimony, both men are thoroughly secular people.

I've heard Mr. Clinton presumptuously using scripture to make a point, but regularly showing how superficial his biblical understanding is. Yet Mr. Dole told WORLD in an interview last spring that he can't remember a single time in his political career when the Bible has helped him make a decision. Which is worse--to manhandle the Bible or to ignore it?

In calling both candidates thoroughly secular, I mean that both are "bootstrap achievers"--Mr. Clinton with his liberal instincts, Mr. Dole a bit more conservative. Both see human beings as captains of their own fate, makers of their own futures, and shapers of their own destinies. The God of the Bible, who means to intrude into all of our lives and occupy an exclusive place on the stage of history, plays a minimal role in the day-to-day thinking of both men.

That should hardly be surprising, since the same thing can be said of most of the people the new president will govern for the next four years--including thousands of people who think of themselves as Christians. God-centered thinking and God-centered doing are not characteristic of our age.

But God-centered thinking and God-centered doing are essential when problems come. The fabric of our nation's thinking and doing has become frighteningly threadbare. It doesn't matter who won last Tuesday; we may be in for a long and cold winter.