Political Lessons from Tanakh

BY OZZIE HOLLANDER

George Washington once observed, “To rectify past blunders is impossible, but we might profit by the experience of them.” Frederick Douglass similarly argued that “We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and the future.” Winston Churchill later echoed this insight when he remarked, “The longer you can look back, the farther you can look forward.” Across different centuries and historical moments, many of our greatest political thinkers have returned to the same idea: the past is not merely something to remember, but something to learn from.

If studying the words and actions of great men and women offers us any insights, we would be wise to return to the earliest sources of political thought, as they provide the deepest lessons. The Hebrew Bible is rich with instructions on political accountability, exercise of power, and responsible leadership; through the figures of Moses, Samuel, and King David, a political thinker can learn much about the principles that continue to impact modern governance.

Moses to Joshua: Effective Transition of Power

In the Book of Deuteronomy, the transition of power from Moses to Joshua provides our first essential model of true leadership. As Moses nears the end of his life, he publicly appoints Joshua as his successor, thus ensuring political stability for the Israelite nation. Moses’ ו statement to Joshua, “ חזק אמץ ”— “Be strong and be brave” (Deuteronomy 31:7), captures two key principles: first, a leader should publicly demonstrate support and confidence in their chosen successor to enable the smooth transfer of power and the successor’s legitimacy in the eyes of the nation. Second, a good leader mentors and trains his potential successors to ensure their success. Moses actively instructed Joshua by giving him real leadership experience and authority while he was still alive.

In the Biblical narrative, Moses also recognizes his own limitations as an outgoing leader. He explicitly states that he is no longer capable of leading the people into the promised land when he says “לא אוכל עוד לצאת”— “I can no longer go out” (Deuteronomy 31:2). Moses’ public appointment solidified Joshua’s authority and prepared the nation for the next phase of their journey. Moses not only knew how to train his successor but was crucially willing to recognize when his time as leader was over.

Peaceful political transitions are crucial to the flourishing of a nation. When they are poorly executed, even strong nations can stumble. Before 1963, presidential transitions in the United States were largely informal and inconsistent, leaving incoming administrations with limited time and resources to prepare. Recognizing the risks, Congress passed the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, explaining that “any disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people.” The Act established a formal framework to ensure continuity, stability, and preparedness during the transfer of power from one president to the next. Like Moses’ deliberate handoff of leadership to Joshua, the Presidential Transition Act recognized that a nation’s strength depends on great leaders who facilitated well-prepared transfers when their time in power has come to an end.

Samuel the Prophet: The Dangers of Concentrated Power

While Deuteronomy illustrates the power of Moses’ leadership and his effective transfer power to Joshua, Samuel offers a different lesson in leadership: the dangers of unchecked power. When the People of Israel, now settled in the land, demanded a king “ככל־הגוים”— “like the other nations” (I Samuel 8:11–17), Samuel responds cautiously. He explains that the people must proceed carefully; a king will draft their sons into his army, claim their daughters for his service, seize their fields and vineyards, and impose taxes on their labor. He warns them that centralized authority will come at the expense of freedom and shared governance. At the core of Samuel’s message is the idea that centralized power must be approached with restraint, and that good leadership is not about satisfying popular demand but safeguarding the people’s freedom and well-being.

This biblical conception of power influenced later political thinkers. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine famously describes government as a “necessary evil” and sharply criticizes hereditary monarchy. To strengthen his argument, he cites the above exchange between Samuel and the Israelites, reminding his readers that God punishes the People of Israel for their unrelenting desire for a king. “These portions of scripture [in I Samuel] are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is false,” Paine wrote.

Together, Samuel and Paine remind us that power, once centralized, is hard to control and easy to abuse. This biblical lesson was deeply relevant in Paine’s lifetime and continues to be today.

King David: Acknowledging Mistakes

Following the death of Samuel and the first Israelite king Saul, David enters the biblical narrative. He began as a shepherd and rose to prominence after defeating Goliath, eventually becoming one of Israel’s greatest kings. His reign was marked by military success and national expansion, but also by deep personal turmoil and family conflict.

One of the most powerful lessons from David’s life is the importance of acknowledging one’s mistakes. When confronted by the prophet Nathan about his sin with Bathsheba, David did not deny the accusation. Instead, he admitted that “‘חטאתי לה ”–“I have sinned to God” (II Samuel 12:13). David’s heartfelt repentance in Psalm 51 remains a model of humility and accountability as he says:

למנצח מזמור לדוד: בבוא־אליו נתן הנביא כאשר־בא
אל־בת־שבע חנני אלקים כחסדך כרב רחמיך מחה פשעי.

“For the leader. A psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him after he had come to Bathsheba. Have mercy upon me, O God, as befits Your faithfulness in keeping with Your abundant compassion, blot out my transgressions.”

To have such an extraordinary king commit such a serious sin, going so far as to arrange a man’s death, is shocking. Yet David’s willingness to acknowledge his wrongdoing publicly is even more remarkable.

A parallel to this model of accountability is George Washington’s Newburgh Address of 1783. At the end of the Revolutionary War, Washington faced a leadership crisis when officers of the Continental Army, frustrated by unpaid wages and broken promises, considered mutiny against Congress. He did not dismiss their suffering; instead, he humbly acknowledged their pain, declaring:

“For myself… a grateful sense of the confidence you have ever placed in me… will oblige me to declare, in this public and solemn manner, that, in the attainment of complete justice for all your toils and dangers… you may freely command my services to the utmost of my abilities.”

Washington modeled humility and restraint, publicly committing himself to the welfare of his soldiers while placing the needs of the nation above personal credit or power. Although not an explicit apology, it was a moment of recognition of his tremendous responsibility and a willingness to admit shortcomings. More of our modern leaders could certainly learn from Washington’s, and King David’s examples of contrition.

Throughout history, societies have benefited from leaders who learned these lessons, so powerfully modeled by our biblical heroes. When these lessons were taken seriously, societies benefited. Leaders who embraced humility, accountability, restraint, and thoughtful succession strengthened their nations. Studying Tanakh can help us learn from the virtuous example of our ancestors, and the lessons they impart can continue to shape the politics of our world today.