SPEAKER_00 0:02

That's so dangerous politically. They give us a simple inspirational message and then we just believe what we hope it is.

SPEAKER_01 0:11

Feels like our candidates are constantly running for re-election. China like has, is it true that they have like a 50-year plan?

SPEAKER_00 0:19

Back in 1913, they changed how senators are chosen, and I think that makes a huge difference for what you're seeing today. Or I'll lead. But what I don't want is to live a life limited by poor leadership.

SPEAKER_01 0:39

I hear you, Dan. I remember this old proverb when the godly are in authority, the people rejoice, but when the wicked are in power, they groan.

SPEAKER_00 0:48

Yeah, well, I feel it. So welcome everybody to Abundant conversations about the life everyone's looking for and what's getting in the way. I'm Dan Jarvis, joined by my good friend Del Fasenfeld, and today in our season about America's future, we're talking about who will lead that future. What kind of politician should we be electing? And why does it seem so often like none of the above is the best choice on our ballots? Poor leadership is one of the greatest limitations that people face. So who do we want to elevate to help us lead into the future?

SPEAKER_01 1:18

Yeah, here we go into the abyss to hand. I have a friend who actually voted in the last election for his dog. That's how that's how hopeless he felt about our current leaders. So there's no landmines in this topic, right?

SPEAKER_00 1:32

I don't think so. Well, let's uh get into it. So, Dell, when you think back to your first presidential election that you were old enough to vote in, what happened? Do you remember anything about it? Do you want to tell us who you voted for?

SPEAKER_01 1:45

I w graduated from high school in eighty-nine. So I think I was turning eighteen. So my I think my first election would have been that next cycle. Was that was that the Clinton era?

SPEAKER_00 1:55

Elder, Elder Bush, H. W. Bush, or Bill Clinton would have been the one after that. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 2:00

And I remember I remember being super excited because finally I felt like a grown-up. I got to vote.

SPEAKER_00 2:07

Oh, yeah. So for me, it was after the late 90s, because I would have been 18 in 97. So I suppose it would have been Bush Gore would have been my first election. Remember that one? It was the cliffhanger election. The hanging chads in Florida. Yeah, right. My kids, it's interesting. I have kids that are still not old enough to vote, but one of the things that they were uh they were fascinated by Donald Trump, and I kept asking them why. Like, why are you guys so excited about him? I said, because he's gonna build a wall. Like, well, what does that mean to you guys? Like these are little kids. And I thought, well, that's what I mean, a win for the simplistic messaging, I guess. They didn't know why we needed a wall or what it would block or protect, but they were excited about it.

SPEAKER_01 2:51

It's crazy how media has changed even how messaging gets down to our six-year-olds. Yeah. Uh it's really a soundbite culture.

SPEAKER_00 2:59

Well, and that's one of the things I think we should bring up. When we think about who's going to lead us in the future, we look back in time and we say, well, that there are many respectable presidents and senators and other leaders that have defined America's history that I think we could look back on. And, you know, they weren't perfect either, but we celebrate some of the things they did. But there were different qualifications back in the day. Now you have to be popular, not just competent. So maybe a long time ago, before the age of media, you you could have just been a really solid intellectual and rose through the ranks of government power. Now you you need to be an intellectual, but you also need to be great on camera, right?

SPEAKER_01 3:36

I think you can even tell the shift by looking at the pictures of our presidents. I remember in grade school when we had to memorize the names of our past presidents and they would give us a little blurb and a picture. You can kind of see the shift happening over the decades because when you go back in reverse, like a lot of these folks were clearly not what we would call today uh public figures.

SPEAKER_00 3:59

Yeah, they weren't movie star ready. Well, now we literally, like Reagan was a movie star, right? I mean, it it swung. Some of that really happened. It was the 1960 election, people realized that you had to be good on TV or you couldn't win. And there was a debate between Nixon and Kennedy, and the people who listened on the radio thought Nixon had won, and the people who watched on TV thought that Kennedy had won.

SPEAKER_01 4:23

Yeah, one of the greatest cultural shifts probably in our country was the fact that TVs became common in every household. I mean, it's hard to believe that that there was a point when people didn't have a TV or a screen, but there really was. I mean, people got the majority of their information first from newspapers and then radio, and then all of a sudden, boom, around that time period, there was critical mass, and everybody was now watching presidential dialogue.

SPEAKER_00 4:48

Yeah, well, and that's where you think it really did swing almost toward the movies. Now you have to be a Hollywood performer in order to win in politics. In that Nixon debate, I'm thinking back to that one. I wasn't alive at that time, but I'm just remembering the story that he hadn't shaved for a while and he had like a five o'clock shadow, they called it. And so on TV, he just looked slightly criminal compared to Kennedy, who was all fresh-faced. And and that was like that made a difference. You think, well, whether you shaved or not has nothing to do with how you're going to lead the country. But now somehow people are maybe making their decision based on if you're photogenic or good on camera or if you smiled or frowned.

SPEAKER_01 5:27

I mean, it's crazy. I mean, it's almost laughable, but in a way, this was the first election where they suddenly realized that presidents need spin doctors and they need they need people that who how who are their handlers. And I think every president now probably has a a stylist and a beauty, a fashion consultant that travels right along with them to make sure that the impressions they're leaving on television or on screens.

SPEAKER_00 5:50

Although nonpartisan opinion here, those people need to be fired and they need to do a better job. Because I look at the current crop of who's leading us and think, I don't think that's like where did they get that hair? Yeah. They need to work on that. So the other thing that's different now is that you almost score points politically now if you can maintain your name in the headlines, whether it's positive or negative. Because the 24-7 news cycle, everybody's after attention. And so that's one of the things I think Trump has done. It's one of the reasons people feel so tired of politics right now, and maybe even tired of sort of his antics, is because he's always in the news. He's always the headline because he's always doing the one thing that's edgier or crazier or pushing some limit. And I think that's intentional. I think it's kind of like if you can make yourself the news, you just take the oxygen out of the room and nobody thinks about the other players.

SPEAKER_01 6:41

Imagine political leaders who the only way that they can get their message through to anybody is to capture it in a 10-second sound bite. So they know that the entire news cycle is going to have to trigger off of 10 seconds or less. Sometimes it's two or three. We really have to stop and ask ourselves are we ever going to get what we really most need through that kind of dialogue?

SPEAKER_00 7:06

Yeah. Well, it definitely I think you go back to 2008 and the first Obama election and see you remember his uh mantra, his slogan? You rem you recall that?

SPEAKER_01 7:16

I actually I actually don't. I mean it all starts to blur together.

SPEAKER_00 7:20

Hope and change, which is brilliant 10-second messaging. But what is hope and change? It's kind of in a weird way, it's whatever you want it to be. It's almost like my little kid saying we're gonna build the wall. You know, it's sort of just whatever you hope that means, it means to you. That's so dangerous politically because they give us a simple inspirational message and then we just believe what we hope it is, we could be voting for things that are not true at all. But we totally think that every time we see the slogan, we're like, Yeah, I'm I'm all for that. And it doesn't actually have any deeper meaning, or that deeper meaning could even be intentionally obscured so that you're not really sure what you're getting in this whole deal.

SPEAKER_01 8:03

Yeah, and you know, when you combine that with the fact that we have elections every four years, it feels like our candidates are constantly running for re-election. So it feels like it feels like we can never have any issue where substance or you know, real change or real momentum, plans doing the hard thing, anything that would really connect one idea to the next really gets any play because we're always measuring how that's going to impact the next impression.

SPEAKER_00 8:31

I mean, we're we're seeing that right now, right? We're but we're right up on the midterms, and you figure you elect people and they have less than two years to do an amazing amount of something, whatever it is. And if they fail, then you go, well, forget those people. Let's go all the way to the other side and try the exact opposite. And so you get this pendulum swing or this whiplash going back and forth. And that I don't think that's good for the Republic at all. It certainly is confusing for the average person, it's confusing for our allies around the world because you really never know what America believes, where does it stand? It could be wildly different two years from now than it is right now.

SPEAKER_01 9:12

Yeah, I think people have this generalized sense that it's sort of pointless to even vote. I think that's why you have people riding in their dog. And I think you contrast that with some of what gets alarming to me is you contrast that with some of our enemies in the world or people that really have firm agendas that they're planning out for decades. I mean, I think it I think China like has, is it true that they have like a 50-year plan?

SPEAKER_00 9:35

Yeah, uh it was uh you can read about it online. It's a 50-year plan to be the the leader in multiple sectors of you know, technology, military, and so when we're thinking, you know, to to our leadership, we're saying, what are you gonna do for me in the next five months? What are you gonna do in the next two years? They're taking their time and thinking, what who do we want to become as a country by 2050 or 2060? How are we gonna overtake the Americans in over the decades? And so, yeah, that's very difficult to compete with unless we can rise above. I think there's a feature in our turnover. It's intentional. The Constitution calls for it. Every four years, every six years, every two years, people are switching out. Some of that is so that we don't end up with dictators, so that there's always accountability to the people.

SPEAKER_01 10:18

Yeah, I don't want to live in China, and I definitely don't want a dictator. I wish we could have a a conversation, though, in our politics that was not schizophrenic.

SPEAKER_00 10:28

Yeah, well, that would require a character. Yeah, and I can't imagine a little bit of thinking beyond yourself, beyond your own time frame.

SPEAKER_01 10:33

Yeah, I can't imagine that this is what our founders had in mind. So I know you know a lot about American government, you've studied it quite a bit. Is this what they had in mind? You know, they obviously were thinking ahead to this four, two, four, six year cycles. Right. But I think they were trying to balance some stuff out. Is that happening or what happened?

SPEAKER_00 10:52

Well, they were they they really didn't want a monarchy and they didn't want anything that smelled like one. So of course that was issue number one. There were a couple features built into our constitutional form of government that I think we have neglected that were to protect us from this popularity contest, who's the shiniest object in the room type of a problem that we've got right now. One was when they made the two chambers of Congress, you have the House, the lower chamber, as it were, and then you've got the Senate, the upper chamber. The House can change more quickly every two years, all 435 representatives, they're closer to the people, and they all get re-elected. And so if the people change suddenly, you could change the House pretty quick, theoretically. The Senate is supposed to be harder to change because those people are on six-year cycles, they cover bigger swaths of territory. And so if there is a popular uprising somewhere, yeah, you could change some of the House members, but you'd have to keep that momentum for multiple years in order to change the Senate, which actually is why people are so frustrated right now. I have friends who are like, we sent people to Washington to change things and you know, cut the waste, and here we are 18 months later, nothing's happened. Well, part of the issue is the House actually has done quite a bit in terms of following through on that program they were elected to, the Republican, the current House. But the Senate has stopped most of that.

SPEAKER_01 12:15

Well, why I I re I heard recently that the breakdown right now might be most in our Senate. I heard this from I heard this from a senator, Ben Sass from Nebraska, who is quite the history, you know, he's quite the intellectual himself. He's a historian, got a PhD. But he quit the Senate because he said it was supposed to be in his mind, his study of the American history, it was supposed to be the great deliberative body. The Senate was the place that was supposed to be protected from the winds of all this change so that they could work together on the really big problems for American society. And he feels like that's definitely not what happens today because of the dynamics in the Senate. And so he actually resigned. He got sick, got cancer as well, but he resigned in part because he thought he thought it couldn't happen. And uh, you know, I think you discovered a little something that may be a clue for what happened to the Senate.

SPEAKER_00 13:06

Yeah, well, okay, so the Senate is supposed to move slower, but also back in 1913, they changed how senators are chosen, and I think that makes a huge difference for what you're seeing today. So the Senate now is also a popularity contest. So you have to you have to rally people all across your state to vote for you. In the original version of the Constitution, before it was amended, senators were selected by state legislators, which would mean that you wouldn't be finding somebody who's the shiniest, most popular, most good-looking guy in the state to be the senator, almost like a miniature president. You would be looking for someone that the rest of the government of that state highly respected. So probably someone who's a consensus builder, somebody who could get all different kinds of votes from other leaders in the state, and then the state sends their two senators to Washington to represent the interests of the state, and the house represents the interests of the average person. Wow. Well, we changed that. So now senators are elected by popular vote as well, which means that senator, Senate elections and House elections is all just who can look the best on TV. I think that leads to less and less consensus and more and more polarity, if that's the right word.

SPEAKER_01 14:20

It feels to me like that was a huge decision. It seems like a small one. And I think most Americans would say, hey, we want we we're dem democratic, like we want popular votes for everything. But it really did expose an entire branch of our government to the winds of this sort of chaotic popularity, you know, change. And we really are missing that deliberative body that can bring competent people who are working together to really address substantive, difficult, complex problems.

SPEAKER_00 14:51

Right. So you would want the deliberate deliberative body of consensus builders, and we definitely don't have that right now. Now we can still, you know, we have to play with the cards we're dealt, of course. So we still get to choose our senators. We just have to resist the urge to select them based on how much pop culture they can regurgitate to us and actually think. Is this a person who can bridge the gaps? Is this a person who can bring government together? And it's not as fulfilling. Your partisan passions want to elect people that are going to vibrantly do exactly what you want. And I think the founders would have intended that you spend that vote on the House, and then the Senate is supposed to be people who actually can compromise. And right now I think that's why the Senate feels like permanent gridlock, because you've got a whole bunch of people who've been elected to do something strong. Well, they can't get along. And you'd probably have to have 60 plus senators to really get your agenda through.

SPEAKER_01 15:48

So if the legislative branch can't do that at the state level, we're gonna have to take that ownership up ourselves as citizens and really bring a more sophisticated, I guess, grid to knowing what we really want from our leaders. We can't just have the Senate collapse into the same problem that you know is creating the mess of everything else. So when you think about the kind of people, the kind of leaders, maybe, maybe particularly the kind of senators that you would love to fill that deliberative body. Like, what do you what do you think we should be looking for?

SPEAKER_00 16:21

Yeah, I mean, I've got a long list, I guess, and it's sad to say it feels unrealistic these days, but I would say what I really want first and foremost is somebody of high character, where I could trust not just that they'll do what they say, but trust that they'll do the right thing, even if I'm not privy to the knowledge they have to understand it. And I think about that in relationships I have in my life right now where I trust people, like I trust you, Del, like we work together. And it's very possible that you could make a decision and not have to explain it to me, but I would trust that you were doing the right thing based on your conscience because I know you and trust you. I would want to think of my government leaders like that. That I'm not thinking they have some sinister, selfish, fraudulent agenda going on, and we're, you know, I have to watch dog everything they do. I really want to think these are people that have my best interest in their heart, the best interest of America in their heart. And so, yeah, there's going to be things that I don't have all the intel they have, or I don't have time to sit down and read all the documents, but because they're making the decision on my behalf, I trust them. I would love to believe that.

SPEAKER_01 17:23

Yeah. One of the things that pops into my mind, and I don't know, maybe this says more about me than anything else, but I really want some smart people up there. I would love people in that Senate body who actually went to Washington with some developed expertise. I mean, I don't want, I don't want to elect a Hollywood movie star. I mean, I want somebody who has a track record of actually having developed competence, having demonstrated competence, having like studied a subject matter and to know something about it. I mean, we need people in there into these comp complex solutions that, you know, they may not play well on a television commercial, but they actually really know their stuff.

SPEAKER_00 17:59

Although a Hollywood movie star does happen to be one of my favorite presidents. I did like Ronald Reagan a lot. But you know, all good points, right? Because the skill sets are different. Whether somebody looks the part or can speak well, of course we kind of want that. You want somebody to act presidential, but I would much rather that their character be rock solid than their delivery of a speech or something.

SPEAKER_01 18:20

Yeah, and that their competency can back that up, you know. So it's a little bit of both there. I mean, what else, what else do you what else comes to mind?

SPEAKER_00 18:27

Well, I mean, this hits close to home right now because I think we we all are aware that things feel corrupt in some pretty dark ways. And it's hard to know what's real when you talk about corruption because obviously the the other party from whatever party you like, everybody's incentive is to make the other guy look dirty. So I don't even know what's real. It's it's hard to know. I try not to believe the memes, you know. I try to give everybody a little bit of the benefit of the doubt, but I would like to believe that somebody is genuinely resistant to bribery, that their character is strong enough that when offered an opportunity to do something that is somehow self-beneficial instead of the right thing for the country, that they could they would have the strength to resist that.

SPEAKER_01 19:09

Yeah, I think one of the bipartisan bills that's up right now is just some controlling of the incentives and the temptations that all these lawmakers face with insider trading. I mean, it just feels like a really baseline thing that people with inside information shouldn't be able to profit off that by stocks, whether you it doesn't matter what party you're in. It just feels like it feels like a lot of these folks are getting really rich with information that they clearly would not have if they were not in power. And it just feels wrong. I hope these kinds of navigational buoys really do get put in place to get the incentives right so that these folks are not so tempted to be uh on the dull.

SPEAKER_00 19:47

Yeah, I have two stats on that. And this this will hit both parties. So but one, I mean, this is crazy to think about. Okay, in the last two years since Trump was elected for the second time, supposedly he and his financial team have made twenty thousand stock trades. Have you made twenty thousand stock trades in the last two years?

unknown 20:07

Wow.

SPEAKER_00 20:07

That's crazy. All right, some something smells wrong with that. Now, on the flip side, Nancy Pelosi was the Democrat speaker of the House for a few years and has had a lifetime in politics. Her rate of return over the course of her investing career since she joined Congress. Can you guess what it was?

SPEAKER_01 20:24

I don't know, but I'm scared to hear the answer on this. I know she's filtered.

SPEAKER_00 20:27

You're not gonna believe it. You're gonna have to Google it because you're gonna think Dan's exaggerating. Sixteen thousand nine hundred percent return on her investments.

SPEAKER_01 20:35

So it's just absolute proof that something is not right. Absolutely. That's why we've gotta clean up the incentives. I I'm uh I vote with you on that one about the you know, about the bribery, but I think we're gonna have to like actually back that up with some navigational boodies. You know, we've got to get the incentives right. I'll throw out another one. I don't know if the I don't know if this is just like a whipping post. I don't wanna, but I I really would love leaders that act like grown-ups. I don't know how it can be good for our country to disagree in the same way that you would on the on a playground. Yeah. It just feels like that shouldn't be happening.

SPEAKER_00 21:11

I think it cheapens the institutions they're a part of. You know, when they act juvenile, when they hurl insults. I mean, mudslinging is as old as politics, so yeah, we get that. I don't like it, but it's part of the deal, like negative press and all that. But when it when it gets juvenile, uh juvenile.

SPEAKER_01 21:28

I I mean I don't know how to say this. I think we all can s we all know it when we see it. But when you have to almost tell your kids that they shouldn't talk like that, and it actually was a president or a senator or a civic leader. I mean, that's just not the what you want to that's just not what any American wants to be telling their kids.

SPEAKER_00 21:47

That would be a great standard to hold up, you know, that we want leaders that our kids could emulate and we feel good about that. Feels like kind of a low bar, right? But uh that would be a a great improvement to what we have now. One other Thing I would throw in the mix is not just who the person isn't, but who the person is. I really want somebody who is a visionary with values behind that vision. Because it's it's so exciting to think about what the future could be with, you know, if human beings work together with virtue and vision and values, and here we are in America with so many good things going for us, the sky could be the limit. Instead of being limited by, like we said at the beginning, a poor leadership limits people, it limits all of us. I just would love to be able to follow a leader that I could really believe that we're gonna have a genuinely better future because we're following this person, not just they're gonna give me the next few dollars in benefit and not just oh, they they weren't as terrible a choice as the other person I had to choose from. Somebody I actually could like proactively believe in, I would be so excited to vote for that person.

SPEAKER_01 22:47

All right, I'm gonna ask you like a a question here. I'm gonna push you a little bit to see whether you actually really mean what you say. Is that right? All right. So would you vote for somebody who had a lot of those characteristics that you just described that you just completely disagreed with their politics? You didn't like their policy positions, but you really believed that they were competent, they were smart, they were civil, they had character, they had vision, over against someone that you didn't think had that, but you liked their policies more. So I I I want to know whether you're more partisan or where you whether you really believe in your values.

SPEAKER_00 23:21

Well, okay, so it would depend on what the policy disagreement was, uh would be a major factor. So I would never vote for someone that I thought was going to take away religious freedom, economic freedom, no matter how great of a personality that person is. Even if they're a really nice guy, I just I would not vote for them. And would I vote for someone that I thought might be less than desirable in order to protect what I do believe about America? Yes, I would. Because I think that voting for the lesser evil is strangely the same thing as voting for the greater good. I just hate that that's true. But sometimes you have to make a call of, you know, so I would actually say the vision I want to believe in is part of do they share a vision for America's future that I could get behind and be excited about. If you're a well-intentioned person, it's kind of be like here at the church, you know, I want the church leaders we have to be people of high character and that have a great vision. But if I actually disagree with the faith that they hold, then no, I'm not going to vote for them, even though they're they might be like a really nice person. So somehow I think those things go together. The policy and the personality and the character. What I don't think you can do is say, well, character doesn't matter anymore, or well, the other the other side has no character, so I guess we won't either. And I feel like we've fallen into some sort of sinkhole where that's the case, where you're you're literally looking at multiple corrupt options trying to decide what's the least worst option in front of you. And I I really think we can do better than that.

SPEAKER_01 24:53

I do too. And I I do think that sometimes you have to hold your nose and do the thing that you think is best.

SPEAKER_00 24:59

Well, think about the biblical leaders, right? Would you have voted for King David if you could vote for people? I mean, post uh Bathsheba affair and Uriah murder, would you oh yeah, I'm so well, it depends. You'd have to weigh a lot of tension. I mean, if you're is it if it's David versus Jezebel, then yeah, I guess I'm gonna vote for David. Yeah, if it's David versus Jesus, then yeah, I'll vote for Jesus.

SPEAKER_01 25:21

I think it's a tension that we all have to hold a little bit harder. I mean, I don't I'm not disagreeing with you totally, but maybe a little because I just really I've gone down several election cycles where you know I've held my nose and picked the policy thing that I thought was better, and then the fallout from the character deficits has been so catastrophic that it makes me really sleep it makes me really scratch my head and wonder in another iteration would I actually pick the person that I actually think is the is the more virtuous, regardless of what they think, you know, given lots of you know contextualizing. I realize that there are some things that are too important to ever cave on, but it's just the character thing in my mind is becoming really the real deal deal breaker.

SPEAKER_00 26:13

Something I don't I mean, I I don't want to reflect negatively on individual people. I just would say I don't feel like I've recently been presented with an opportunity to vote for someone who is genuinely capable, competent, and virtuous, but I disagreed with them, versus the opposite. I feel like it's been more of like multiple options that are not seemingly as competent as I want them to be, not seemingly virtuous, and then the only thing I have to choose from is well, which one do I agree with more? I'd love the opportunity to face the moral quandary you're positing there. I just don't feel like I've ever faced that.

SPEAKER_01 26:50

All right, that's fair. I mean, I uh I think the moment may come when we all have to discern something that puts us into a lot of conflict. So, you know, it's uh interesting. I hope, I hope we all make the right choice.

SPEAKER_00 27:02

Yeah, I would I would vote for someone who's a different religion than me. I would vote for someone I would be willing to cross party lines and vote for other parties. I mean, I d I'm I would consider myself to be pretty open-minded, but the the target of like virtues and American values to me is very defined. And I'm looking for what is the closest option I have among realistic choices that hits that target. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 27:25

Well, you mentioned that the Bi in the Bible there was a lot of imperfect leaders that God used and you know were a mixture of a lot of things. So I'm I wonder like what do you think the Bible actually does say about the kind of leaders we should.

SPEAKER_00 27:37

I made a list. There's probably more. I mean, because a lot of the Bible is actually strangely about political leadership. If you go back and think about what was the conversation of the prophets and the kings, it was all the leaders of the day. So a few things I think I would call up. One would be in Exodus 18, Moses was trying to lead the people of Israel, and he was exasperated, he was doing way too much. And his father-in-law, interestingly, his name was Jethro, came to him and encouraged him to make some sort of division of power so that Moses himself, as one individual, was not trying to determine all of the happenings of the nation of Israel. And so he had this scheme. He said, you know, you divide the people by tens and fifties and such. And he said, you need to find capable men who fear God, are trustworthy, and hate a bribe. If you can find enough guys who just hit that target, you're going to be doing okay.

SPEAKER_01 28:25

Yeah. And, you know, fortunately now we also have women in politics. So we might say the same thing about you know, finding a woman like that. So that'd be amazing.

SPEAKER_00 28:33

I found a verse in Isaiah where he was looking at leaders who were corrupt, and he was saying that's really evidence of your cultural decay was evidence that there were problems that needed to be addressed. He wrote, once this is very poetic, once so pure you're now like a watered down wine. Your leaders are rebels and the companions of thieves. All of them love bribes and demand payoffs. Yikes, man, I think that could be us.

SPEAKER_01 29:02

Yeah, and there's a lot of warnings, I think, that are in the Bible directed at the perils of choosing the right leaders and warnings to the leaders about the kind of behavior that was going to undermine their ability to have any kind of positive impact on the people that they led. A lot of warnings to kings, for example.

SPEAKER_00 29:22

Right. Well, remember in the law in Deuteronomy, the people of Israel actually weren't supposed to have a monarchy. They were supposed to have something that is a little bit more, I don't know, you could kind of call it a republic with God in charge or something, but it wasn't supposed to be a king. But God said, if you want one, like if you're gonna do it, here's the kind of person you have to pick. One of the instructions was they can't be multiplying wives, like that, their moral life has to be in control. They can't be multiplying silver and gold. They can't, in other words, they're not motivated by greed, they're not, they're not power hungry. So you're looking for people of character that are really willing to serve. And then it says in Deuteronomy, when he sits, that's this future king, when he sits on the throne as king, he must copy for himself the body of this instruction on a scroll in the presence of the priests, and he must keep that copy with him and read it daily as long as he lives. A copy of literally the law of the city. He had to make a handwritten copy.

SPEAKER_01 30:15

I had a friend that actually found this verse and said, Well, I've never written the hand copy, so he actually decided to try with the king's tried. He said it took him forever. Yeah, it's a hand was cramping up, and he uh and he said, like by the time you get to the end of it, it slowed you down and sobered you up like unbelievable. So it's interesting that they had to personally make their own little version of this.

SPEAKER_00 30:32

Yeah, well, and that that warning, here was the benefit. It actually says in the Bible, this regular reading will prevent that king from becoming proud and acting as if he is above his fellow citizens.

SPEAKER_01 30:43

That's what this guy said, and he also has hand cramps. Yeah. They were doing with us with a with a quill.

SPEAKER_00 30:49

Yeah, right. I'm glad we're past that. The uh there are many characters, you know, when it comes to leadership in general, the Bible has quite a bit to say about the kind of people who can lead, that they need to be morally faithful, they need to not be drunks, they need to not be given to anger and fits of rage. Like there's uh some of that feels so obvious, but then you look at Washington, D.C. and you're like, okay, well, I guess it's not obvious enough. I was thinking of Jesus, he didn't speak much politically. Like when you read through the gospels, there's very little that's directed at government officials other than our responsibility toward them. Like he says you should pay your taxes and you know not complain, things like that. But he did say to his disciples that the kind of leadership we're going to maintain is different than the world. Here's the quote He says, You know that the rulers of this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them, but among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be the first among you must be a slave of everyone. For even the Son of Man, as Jesus saying, even I came not to be served, but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many. What a vision for leadership that is. The the reason you're getting into all this is not self-aggrandizement, it's not self-promotion, it's actually I I want to serve, and so I would be willing to set aside my agenda and serve you. Wow, that is that's the high calling of leadership that so many people today are missing.

SPEAKER_01 32:17

It's interesting that Jesus sort of laid out that basic paradigm, and it feels like maybe our founding fathers picked up on some of that ethos because they were actually trying, like you say, to get out of a monarchy, a dictatorship, and really create a kind of government where there could be freedom and self-government. And they actually said some really strong things about the kind of leaders we should pick. It was almost like a warning to future generations and to posterity. I know you have a few of these that you've kind of picked out. I'd but you know, they're they're pretty strong.

SPEAKER_00 32:46

Yeah, you know, before we get into that list, because it's it is, yeah, it's a good, it's a good list. I was thinking about how when you read a history book, you tend to read about the different eras of history, and the first thing that comes up is the name of the key leaders, the name of the king or the pharaoh or whoever it was at that time, because pretty much the life of the common person was defined by their key leader. In America, it's supposed to be different. It's not about the fact that, oh, I grew up in the Trump era or in the Reagan era or the Obama era. It's it's actually supposed to be that you are living your own life. Our life narrative isn't defined by the government. The government is there serving us and creating the context for us to live our own lives and to write our own story. And the more power we let politicians have, the less true I think that becomes. So here's some of the dangers that happen when people take leadership, that power corrupting them, absolute power corrupting them absolutely, as they say. One is that pride makes them smaller. And I feel that so much when I see political advertising these days, and I see people beating their chests or calling out their opponent almost like they're on, you know, taunting across the football stadium or something, rather than having a substantive conversation. I just think, you know, that just makes you look small. Even when our president posts things that are degrading other people or saying he's the best thing that ever happened in some category. Personally, I just kind of roll my eyes and think that you would look like a stronger, more important person if you didn't say anything versus saying that.

SPEAKER_01 34:20

Yeah, especially when they get in the mud, you know, and just start this literally sling insults and it really does just lessen the credibility of your authority.

SPEAKER_00 34:30

And what's sad is it doesn't just lessen their credibility, it it lessens the value of the institution that they represent. So we all trust the presidency or the senate or the house or the supreme court a little bit less if the people who occupy those positions act that way.

SPEAKER_01 34:47

I think also just when people when they when our leaders just lie, they just create a false reality. Wait, people lie? You know, you find out later. I mean, that was the only part of the truth, or or maybe it wasn't the truth at all. Right. And it's like, well, now how do I trust your mouth is moving and I don't believe any words you're saying, even when you might be saying something true now, but it it's hard to like know how to do something with someone that you know lies.

SPEAKER_00 35:12

Yeah. I think a good check swing for any of us is to make sure we're not so loyal to a politician we like that we would just ignore when they lie or when they're obviously creating a false reality. I think there might be a difference between lying and having a false reality, like where you if you actually believe crazy stuff, you might not think of yourself as a liar, but somebody does need to grab you by the shoulders and say, dude, that is crazy stuff. I hope you listen in that moment and you have humility.

SPEAKER_01 35:39

Another way people create that false reality is when they just overpromise. Yeah, right. I mean, which is really hard as a politician. You're you're wanting to be aspirational, you're wanting to have vision, you're wanting to you're wanting to tell people where we could go and what's possible. And sometimes sometimes that's beyond our current ability to imagine.

SPEAKER_00 35:57

But when you just know you remember Pedro, Pedro, who ran for school office in that one movie, vote for me and all your wildest dreams will come true. Yeah, I think we're pretty close to that actually these days in the political commercials I see. So another problem is getting in the mud, you know, and that it's like when you get in the mud, you lower yourself. And I would love to see a generation of politicians that actually would decide not to do that. I don't even know if it's possible, but I think it would be notable. It's not new that that happens. I, you know, you can go all the way back in American history and realize there there have been some there's been some mud slinging, even back in the founding generation. You know, Adams and Jefferson, you read about some of the barbs that they traded. But somehow, even in the midst of all that, they maintained their honor, and then later on in life they became good friends, and they all they both were fully pro-America, really trying to do the right thing. But they were willing to pull out some gloves and punch at each other a little bit as well. Serving self instead of others, I think, is a major pitfall of leadership where you just are tempted to do that because you can. If you get high enough in the power structure, suddenly you're not really being held accountable and you can kind of do whatever you want. And as a result, you well, then your character's tested in that moment. So when whenever somebody is building monuments unto themselves, I think that's a good signal that it's time for them to be done.

SPEAKER_01 37:21

I guess on the flip side, you know, like you can have all this self-aggrandizement, but the flip side of it would be if you're in leadership and you really don't have a vision that goes beyond the right now or beyond yourself, it's just really not a vision worth living for. And so lack of vision can really also just be something that sinks.

SPEAKER_00 37:39

Yeah. What about playing to people's fears and envy? If you're calling up out of people, the reason to support me, the reason to vote for me is because you deserve more, or because of all these evil things, the awful things are gonna happen to you if you don't vote for me. Just feels like people will take little nuggets of truth because of course, in the midst of that, you know, you are making some promises about what you'll do, or you you might be protecting people from a real challenge. But when things get so negative and so angry, I just feel like you're missing the mark at that point. Making yourself the hero is on my list of another good signal that it's time to be done. If your narrative is that you're the only person who can fix this problem, you're the knight in shining armor that's riding in to save the day. I just think I I don't think that I don't think public service is quite suited for you. The goal would be that you're you want to make people the heroes. You want to let let the average citizen live their life and not have to think about you very often. To me, that would be a a win as a leader. Maybe that just gets to the whole vision itself. Like a lack of vision is I think sinks leaders where if you're just maintaining, if you're just trying to survive to the next you without a vision, the people perish, and without a vision, there's no real reason to follow you. And so cast a vision that's worth jumping into and being excited about and lead the way there, and I think people will be glad to follow. So one of the things the Founding Fathers did in their writings is they warned people strenuously against the pitfalls of bad leadership. And we pulled a couple quotes to share because I think they're notable, and you know, like often is the case, these are a little bit old English, but I I think they're really worth zooming in on and thinking about because this is not a new issue. You know, you think, oh wow, times are worse than they ever have been. They're really not, they're just amplified by media more than they ever have been. But the core human condition is pretty much the same as it always has been, and there have always been selfish, egotistical leaders, there's always been fraud, there's always been corruption, and then there's always been a few people out there who call for something better and who believe for better days.

SPEAKER_01 39:50

I'm scanning over these quotes, and a lot of them just have to do they talk a lot about virtue and this the relationship between private virtue and public life. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, there's some really strong stuff here.

SPEAKER_00 40:01

Well, Thomas Jefferson he wrote, I love to see honest and honorable men at the helm who do not bend their politics to their purses, nor pursue measures by which they may profit and then profit by their measures. In other words, I I love seeing people that are in it to serve, not to try to gain. It's so simple. It's so clear, right?

SPEAKER_01 40:21

That's pretty poetic. Pursue measures by which they profit and then profit by their measures. Yeah. So I mean, I guess this stuff is as old as uh the very beginning of our country.

SPEAKER_00 40:30

It is. James Madison, in one of the Federalist papers, he wrote the aim of every political constitution is or ought to be, first, to obtain for rulers those who possess wisdom to discern and virtue to pursue the common good of all society. And in the next place, governments must take precautions for keeping them virtuous. Hey, there it is again.

SPEAKER_01 40:53

These are some big names, you know, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. You know, I've got John Adams here saying that public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private virtue. And public virtue is the only foundation of a republic. So again, they really clearly knew that if they were gonna make a democracy and a republic that actually worked for people, the character of the leaders was gonna have to be part and parcel of what stayed congruent, right? If there was not this public and private virtue.

SPEAKER_00 41:25

Well, maybe to get back to your earlier challenge, Dell. I mean, they were certainly sounds like they would err on the side of voting for the person virtuous. Like they're really not addressing policy here. They're not they're not saying anything about party.

SPEAKER_01 41:38

I like this, Dan. You're coming around to a different point of view.

SPEAKER_00 41:40

Uh maybe a little bit. I just really want to have good people in charge. Uh tell me how to get there, and I'll do, I'll do what it takes.

SPEAKER_01 41:47

It feels like we are in trouble, and I guess maybe that would be the last part of this conversation is you know, what is the leadership equation for America going forward and what can we do?

SPEAKER_00 41:55

Yeah, well, here would be if you could make a list and say stuff I wish was the case. How about no more corruption, obviously, no more crime families where you think there's like dynasties of crime, and somehow these people all end up in charge. Uh no more immorality, no more arrogance. I think about the last 20 years or so of American politics feels like it really has been a lot of whiplash, a lot of personality-driven pride, egotistical behavior, mudslinging, and not nearly enough long-term vision and calling us all to be better citizens of a great and virtuous republic. Um, I'd love to hear some more speeches on that.

SPEAKER_01 42:38

Yeah, and just uh, you know, maybe maybe bringing into the public debate and evaluation that we're actually looking for people with a different resume. I mean, that in addition to, you know, all the things that we currently look for, maybe we should add some character stuff back in. And I'm wondering if there's a like a little bullet list of just things that we would actually want to put on our uh public dialogue, like we say, hey, we really, really want you to be this kind of person.

SPEAKER_00 43:07

Yeah. Okay. Well, so you know, somebody that serves rather than takes. Somebody that stays under authority, so they're not going to usurp the authority they're given and try to take more. Uh somebody that has strong self-control. There's a proverb that says it's like more notable to have self-control than it is to take over a city. It's like you can do great political things or even military things, but the hardest thing to do in life is to control yourself. So it'd be nice to find people that have already proven they can do that. And then it seems like the politics would be easy. Um maybe somebody that would tell the truth. Just was it Washington or Lincoln? Said, I cannot tell a lie. It was Washington, right?

SPEAKER_01 43:45

I think I think that was uh Washington. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 43:49

Well, we need more people that say that. And I'd love to have somebody that, you know, genuinely does honor God and would cast a vision bigger than themselves. And bigger than the the four years that or the Two years or the six years, a comprehensive vision. Like, what do we want to become? Who do we want to become as a nation? We need to hear some things.

SPEAKER_01 44:07

Yeah, I mean, and I I don't know that I don't know that we're ever going to find perfect people to be perfect leaders. But it sure would be nice to see a little bit more accountability, like a willingness to say, here's where I made a mistake, here's what I did to correct it, here's how I'm going to be accountable for it. I remember like you asked me about some early political memories. I remember watching a presidential debate. I don't remember what election this was. I just remember John McCain was the candidate. I think he lost that year and all kinds of all kinds of reasons. But I remember I remember one of the like the one of the news shows, like on 2020 or whatever, you know, asked him, What was your biggest moral mistake? Oh, that was an interesting question. You never hear that kind of question. That was not that long ago, but it was like they wanted him to like actually speak to the American people about character. And he actually like, I the reason I remember it is he said the biggest the biggest moral mistake in my life was my first marriage, the way I treated my first wife. Wow. This was on 2020, and I about fell off my chair. I'm thinking, and it actually made me interested in him. You know, I know he had a lot of flaws as a person and a can't a candidate, but it made me interested in him to see a leader that was actually taking some accountability for something. And I feel like now the dialogue is almost like the morale, my private morality has no really bearing in this conversation about my public leadership. Uh it, you know, that's my private affair. And it I don't know that anything could be more disconnected from all the stuff that we've been talking about. That when we just have the attitude that my private choices have no relevance in the public uh public leadership.

SPEAKER_00 45:42

Right. Like why not just say sorry? I've I've read an article about why politicians don't apologize, but I I really don't agree. I think you actually gain respect if you're willing to be transparent.

SPEAKER_01 45:51

I think I think one of the one of the most the one of the most disappointing things about President Trump to me is that his his political philosophy, I read about I read about it also in an interview from his mentor was never say you're sorry. Wow. Never, never I guess he doesn't. I mean rule I mean I've never heard him. Rule number one is never ever say you're sorry.

SPEAKER_00 46:11

Yeah. Well, it's not really a biblical rule. When I think about what an average person can do, how would we make all this personal? You know, it's one thing to look far away at Washington, D.C. Um, and those guys ought to be better, those people ought to do different things.

SPEAKER_01 46:26

You know, I felt kind of self-righteous through this whole thing. I'm feeling better and better kind of about myself criticizing all these other folks. But I mean when I think about it, I've I'm faced with all the same internal dilemma, right? Like what kind of person do I want?

SPEAKER_00 46:38

Having a lot of power is the same thing as having a lot of wealth. It just magnifies what's already in you. And so what's scary is that all the fraud and corruption that you might see in powerful people very well could be lurking inside of you as well. You just don't have the scale or the news, the news reporters following you to talk about it. But you know, we all need to do some soul searching here. So here's here's a couple things to wrap up that I think would be a path forward for the average person for me and for you. So one would be be faithful with your influence. Like everybody gets to lead someone. So in your own sphere, you have some influence. So take that seriously and be the leader that's needed in that circle, even if it's a small circle, even if it's just your family or your friends, start there and say, whatever God gives me the opportunity to influence, I will be a faithful, honest, character-driven leader in that sphere. Another one would be I think, yes, to practice more discernment in politics, to be a little bit more informed, to not fall to the popularity contest, to not I I make it, I pride myself on this. I don't know if I if I don't know how I would know, but I I really try not to be influenced at all by paid political advertising. I just think, my goodness, none of this is real. It's all manipulated information. So I try not to I I really want to actually hear from the people to think about my philosophy of politics and not just what feels popular.

SPEAKER_01 48:04

I feel like I feel like one thing, and I just want to add to this, I don't know how to do that without getting involved earlier in the process. And maybe getting involved earlier in the primary, actually being involved in the process that picks the candidates. Because I think one of the things that keeps happening is uh I feel like I the only choice I have is to vote for two choices that I don't want to vote for, either one. But then you have to ask the question, how did we end up with these candidates? Right. And the better choices were probably back in the I mean it's so much earlier, it's so much earlier than most of us even get aware or tuned in. So I think if we're actually going to practice discernment in politics, we're gonna have to get involved earlier at the at the local level, the primary level, the the candidate selection level. If we want to have a lot of people.

SPEAKER_00 48:46

I don't know if it'll offend anybody out there, but I just my own personal philosophy, I I would not judge you if you think differently, but I vote principle in the primaries and I vote pragmatism in the general. Like if we're gonna have the ideal leader, we're gonna find him in the primaries. But when it comes to the general election and it's A or B, I'm I'm not going to sit it out. I'm gonna pick A or B, whichever one is less worse.

SPEAKER_01 49:11

Yeah, we've also we already kind of uh pushed back on each other a little bit about the equation, but I do think I feel a lot more, I would feel a lot better about the pragmatic if I had actually gotten involved early enough to put in some of the principle.

SPEAKER_00 49:25

Sure. So that would be my next challenge to uh all of us would be to be a little more brave in your involvement. Pray about maybe, maybe this isn't just about voting for you, maybe you should be running for something or jumping into some sort of you know, a a school board, uh, a local party meeting, a something where the the actual decisions get made, the seeds are planted that are tomorrow's big ticket items are all being created in the at the grassroots.

SPEAKER_01 49:56

Man, if you show up for one of these things too, I've gone to a few recent kind of local things. These are some high drama things. Oh, yeah. It's fun. You're talking about the room is full and people have a chance to walk up to the mic and say their piece, and emotions are high, and the people are all your leaders are all sort of up at a table where you can like look them in the eye and you think, wow, this American politics thing is pretty gritty when you get it down to that level. So it actually might put some uh it would put some skin in the game, and actually it might be sort of invigorating to like realize that, man, the American political process was designed for you.

SPEAKER_00 50:31

Yeah. Although there is a different thing that can happen, and it happened to me once. I showed up at something and I was by far the youngest person in the room. Because I was the youngest person and I had a smile, they were so interested in me and in like what I want to do. I thought, wow, I have like an outsized influence here literally just because I showed up and nobody else did. Maybe that's how you end up getting elected. So I think it's something to do with it. Last point I'll make today is as a challenge to every one of us, lead yourself first. I really think the American Republic depends on that. So there's 300 million Americans doing what they're gonna do. I can control all those people. I do have choice myself, and so I want to be faithful, leading myself, and then maybe leading some others as well, and say, Lord, whatever you want to do with that little bit of leadership, I'm gonna try to be faithful with what I have.

SPEAKER_01 51:22

Yeah. This has been a kind of a conversation that's created a lot of tension in me, Dan, honestly. But I mean, I think the future of our country really depends on us doing something differently, and I think it's got to start with us.

SPEAKER_00 51:33

Well, Abundant is sponsored by Barion.life and originates from Barion Center Bible Church in Southwest Michigan. Special production thanks to Ben Sanders, Trevor Jones, and the whole BCBC team. Scripture quotations are from the New Living Translation. Help share abundance. Subscribe wherever you listen, and pass this episode on to a leader somewhere. Encourage them, challenge them, and let us know how it goes at share atabundant.show. Until next time, live abundantly.