Sorry, Art. It looks like this thread has been hijacked for purposes of literary discussion, but be of good cheer. If we stir this caldron enough, something of contemporary relevance may come gurgling to the surface (eye of Newt Gingrich?).
Like the Bible, a lot of Shakespeare becomes clearer if you have some grasp of the customs and beliefs that were extant at the time the plays were written. For example, MacBeth's extreme reluctance to take what appeared to be a golden opportunity to remove King Duncan from the path of his (or was it Lady MacB's?) ambition. First, kings were thought to be anointed by God. To kill a king was a mortal sin—in spades. If one slew a king, one could be certain of one's Eternal Destination, and it was not regarded as a nice neighborhood. Also, princes killed other princes with great reluctance. It set a bad precedent. This was one of the reasons that Elizabeth I kept Mary Stuart on ice for so long (what was it; twenty years?) before she sent her to the block. Second, you personally were considered morally responsible for the welfare and protection of any guest under your roof. If anything untoward happened to that guest, it was a powerful reflection on your honor. They went to great pains to blame it on the two lackeys; in hopes of taking at least some of the stain off the honor of the house of MacBeth.
It's noteworthy that when MacDuff came to avenge the murder of his family, it was MacBeth himself who took up sword and buckler. No one else would do his fighting for him.
These were the days when national leaders (e.g., Richard III, Henry V, etc.) were expected to put on their armor, take up their swords, and lead their troops into battle. Is there any way we can revive that system?