The Way Forward | Representative Mike Johnson | EP 309

[Music] I was very much struck by how the translation of the biblical writings jump started the development of literacy across the entire world. Illiteracy was the norm. The pastor's home was the first school, and every morning it would begin with singing. The Christian faith is a singing religion; probably 80 percent of scriptural memorization today exists only because of what is sung. This is amazing. Here we have a Gutenberg Bible printed on the press of Johann Gutenberg. Science and religion are opposing forces in the world, but historically, that has not been the case. Now, the book is available to everyone, from Shakespeare to modern education and medicine and science to civilization itself. It is the most influential book in all history, and hopefully, people can walk away with at least a sense of that.

And you know, there's a big anthropological mystery, which is that from the period of time about 350,000 years ago to about 50,000 years ago, there doesn't seem to have been much of an increment in human well-being on the material front. No one can really figure that out because genetically speaking, we're not that much different from our ancestors that long ago. So what changed? And who knows the answer to that? But one possible answer is that, well, we were caught in something like a self-defeating spiral of envy, such that—and there's good anthropological evidence for this—so that in most societies, anyone who had any more than anyone else immediately became a target for thugs and predators who just killed them and took what they had. That just stops all economic growth whatsoever.

And so if there's no tolerance for inequality, it's possible that there's no way of generating wealth, because wealth has to start somewhere and then be distributed. It can't be everywhere at once instantly. The belief that you've just described is what has driven, in our times, the radical left to grow this massive controlling government—the state—that is going to be the great leveler, that is going to, you know, equalize everything and redistribute the wealth. All these other policies they produce are because what they're doing, really, is institutionalizing envy and division, and hatred for that matter. It's, you know, class envy and it’s how they divide us—the Marxist principle, really—to turn the population against one another. But they've had some success with that, and so again back to what conservatives should be doing right now.

We have to push back against that. We have to explain to people what the origin of these crazy policies is and what the antidote is. And I think, again, that the solutions are the guiding principles. I think what guided our country from its origin is what needs to guide us again. And it's not a difficult argument to make if you have enough time to lay these principles out.

[Music] Hello everyone! I have the great honor and privilege and opportunity to speak today with Mike Johnson, who is one of America's leading figures on the federal conservative front. Representative Mike Johnson is in his third term representing the fourth congressional district of Louisiana. He represents nearly three-quarters of a million residents of 15 parishes in the Northwest and Western regions of the state. Mike was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives on December 10, 2016, by the largest margin of victory in his region in more than 50 years and is currently serving his third term. He earned his undergraduate degree in Business Administration from Louisiana State University in 1995 and then his Juris Doctorate from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at Louisiana State University in 1998.

Before joining Congress, Johnson was a partner in the Kitchens Law Firm and a senior attorney and national media spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, now known as Alliance Defending Freedom. He serves in a very important position in Washington as the Vice Chairman of the House Republican Conference, the number four ranked Republican in Congress. He is a leader on the Judiciary and Armed Services Committees and serves as an assistant whip for House Republicans. Last Congress, he served as chairman of the Republican Study Committee, known as the Intellectual Arsenal, and the largest caucus of conservatives in Congress. Prior to becoming elected to the U.S. Congress, Johnson served as a constitutional law litigator for nearly 20 years.

We're going to talk today about his political career, about his philosophical views. He's also writing a book that's going to be coming out in the next while, titled "Seven Core Principles of American Conservatism," and we're going to discuss his vision for a renewal of the conservative viewpoint in the United States and perhaps more broadly. So welcome to all of you who are watching and listening.

Well, hello Congressman Johnson. Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me today.

Hey Jordan, that's my great honor. I'm a big fan, as you know.

Well, thank you! Thank you very much. So tell me, let's start by talking about what the Republicans are going to do with their newfound position.

Well, you and I are recording this just on the eve of the election, so we're not sure exactly how large our majority will be, but I'll tell you and tell those that are listening and watching that we do anticipate here on Tuesday that we'll have a sizable majority in the House, and that we will have a majority of some sort in the Senate. Now, we're projecting at least a one- to two-seat majority for the Republican Party and a large majority in the House, which means that the entire direction of the country is going to change pretty dramatically.

What we've had, as you know, for the last two years is what we refer to in our old civics classes here in this country as unified government, which means you've got the same party—the Democrats—in this case, in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress. That is why, in our view, chaos has ensued. You have had a really radical, progressive, radical leftist agenda that's been hoisted upon the country, and we've had no way to stop it because we didn't have the votes. But that's all about to change.

So even though the Democrats obviously will still have the White House for another two years, the hands of power in Congress are going to change. It's long overdue, and you're going to see a new day in this country.

So what do you think has been, from the Republican perspective, what do you think has been the most chaotic element, or divisive element, or counterproductive element, let's say, of the Biden administration? And what does your party presume to do about it? What do you think is actually practically possible?

Those are all excellent questions. You know, I've been on the campaign trail now practically for the last year. I ran unopposed—amazingly enough—for re-election for my what will be my fourth term in Congress. But most of our seats were hotly contested, as you know, around the country. We have felt this what we refer to as the red wave. We felt it building now for some time because there's so much unrest and concern around the country.

There was a poll that just came out really over, I think it was the last two days or so, where it is estimated the American Psychological Association—which is of interest to you—estimates that three-fourths of Americans are so deeply concerned about the future of their country that it is causing them daily stress. Now that's a real statistic according to them. So there is a lot of concern, and the reason is because these are the results—the completely foreseeable results—of the policy choices that have been made by those who control all these levels of power.

And so the results have been disastrous. There is quite literally a crisis on every front—every front! Every issue of policy is a disaster. President Biden has presided over that. The Democrats in Congress have engineered it, and we are living through the results.

To summarize it easily on the campaign trail, to me, I've been saying for the last year that it will come down to—and I think it has to—what I call the "three Is": inflation, illegal immigration, and general incompetence. The polling bears that out. Those two top issues, of course— the economy is in a disastrous state right now, the cost of living is unmanageable for most Americans, and the illegal immigration problem is just an unspeakable disaster.

And the incompetence is something that has spread throughout everything they've touched. The crime is soaring in the country and in all of our major cities and around the nation—every single area! Energy policy, you know, we have a fentanyl crisis; we have, for crying out loud, a baby formula shortage crisis; we have military recruitment crises. I mean, it's just every area. And, so, the American people are looking for a change. They're going to give us that opportunity, and I believe we're going to deliver on it.

And so, what do you think the true rate of inflation is at the moment in the U.S., and what do you think that inflation is doing to ordinary people?

Well, we know by any objective measure that inflation in the U.S. is at least a 40-year high. When it actually boils down to real people, real families, they're feeling real pain. You know, the cost of groceries, the cost of gasoline, and, again, all of this is the result of these policy decisions.

You know, take energy policy for example: In the U.S., at least 30 percent of our nation's economy is tied in some way to our energy policy. And you and I have talked about this all offline, with amongst our friends and groups that we're involved in. It is just really an insane series of decisions that Biden and the far left in this country have made.

We were energy—not just energy independent but energy dominant—when President Trump left the White House, because we pushed those policies. Instinctively, almost reflexively, Joe Biden took office, and within the first few days, quite literally through executive orders, he reversed the policies that had given us those great gains and achievements.

And so because of that, we’ve seen—we've reaped what that has sown. And so now, not only did they, as you know, of course, infamously cancel the Keystone Pipeline, they green-lighted Nord Stream 2 for Russia and Putin—which of course fueled his war machine to go after Ukraine. They put a moratorium on federal production and exploration on federal lands here in the U.S., offshore as well, which has been a disaster for my state of Louisiana—a big energy state.

It effectively turned off the spigots, and in order to meet our demand, we then had to go hat-in-hand to OPEC. We had to go beg Saudi Arabia; we had to go beg these other nations to help us supply our need. It's just unconscionable, unconscionable. And of course, the energy that's produced in those other countries is not anywhere near as clean and efficient as that which is produced here because of the way they do it.

So ironically, what do you think the justification is for that? I mean to cut off production, but not cut off demand seems like a pretty counterproductive way both to deal with the economy and with the environment, assuming that you buy the story that fossil fuel use per se is driving the crisis—something that I'm really on board with in any way at all.

Well, I mean, it seems pretty obvious, especially given what's been happening in Europe lately with regard to their energy crunch, that the policies that were pursued by the United States, especially with regards to fracking, turned out to be, well, fortuitously far-sighted. It made the United States energy independent as you said, while actually being able to export, well simultaneously cutting carbon output, which is important to those people to whom it's important.

But it's at least notable that on every front, America was looking pretty good on the energy front—especially in contrast to Europe. And so what do you think the rationale is for simultaneously cutting production and making it extraordinarily difficult to provide abundant energy while also pursuing a policy of going around the globe and asking for excess energy resources from obviously unreliable producers, let’s say, like Venezuela, or undesirable, and also who don't abide by the same standards of environmental purity that govern the situation in the United States?

I don't understand how that policy can be constructed and pursued. What's the rationale for it? Is it that—I mean we had a deputy prime minister in Canada who said famously something like, “Well, it's good that energy prices are much higher, because when Canadians pay more at the pump, they're all reminded constantly of just how severe the environmental crisis is,” which I think is an absolutely appalling way to behave.

And I also think it's counterproductive on the environmental front, because making people poor does not make the planet healthier. There's no evidence for that. So what do you think? Why do you think the Democrats pursued this policy?

We’ll be right back with Congressman Mike Johnson, but first we wanted to give you a sneak peek at Jordan's new series, Exodus.

So the Hebrews created history as we know it. Don’t get away with anything. And so you might think, "Bend the fabric of reality and that you can treat people instrumentally and that you can bow to the tyrant and violate your conscience without cost. You will pay the piper. It's going to call you out of that slavery into freedom, even if that pulls you into the desert."

And we're going to see that there's something else going on here that is far more cosmic and deeper than what you can imagine. The highest [Music] spirit to which we're beholden is presented precisely as that spirit that allies itself with the cause of freedom against tyranny. I want villains to get punished, but do you want the villains to learn before they have to pay the ultimate price? That's such a Christian question.

This is an excellent question, Jordan, and I agree with you 100 percent on your position on this. And as we've discussed in the past, it's difficult to provide a rational explanation for it, because there really is none. I don't think they apply rational thought to these decisions at all.

To me, the best way I can explain it—and I get asked the same question all the time, certainly when I'm around in my district—the fourth congressional district in Louisiana, go to town halls, we have lots of big open public events where everyone is welcomed and take questions from the audience. This is always one of the most common questions.

And my explanation—the answer that I've come up with is the best way I know to explain it—and that is that these, this is not a rational decision on the part of these folks. They regard the climate agenda as part of their religion. I don't know any other way to explain it. They pursue it with religious zeal, and they care not apparently what type of pain these policies inflict upon the people that they are supposed to be serving, because they're not serving the people; they're serving the planet. And they use this terminology now openly, as you know, to our great amazement and frustration.

And it's as if, put it in very parochial terms when I'm in Louisiana, I try to explain to our folks that, listen, they have effectively replaced Father God with Mother Earth. I mean not to oversimplify it—it's not just the best way to get it—that’s how I see it. And so they believe we owe fealty to Mother Earth, that we're created by the Earth, and so we must owe everything to the Earth itself and we have to serve that cause above all else.

The problem I have with that is that the policies themselves don't seem to result in the consequences that are hypothetically desired. Like I've spent a lot of time looking over the environmental crisis literature, and one of the things that seemed to me—well, two things appeared to me to be quite obvious as a consequence of pouring over it. And the first is, we don't have one environmental/economic crisis confronting us; we have many.

For example, Bjorn Lomborg and I wrote an article for the Telegraph last week, and I believe one of the things he pointed out in there was that 23 million people a year around the world die from indoor air pollution, mostly from burning dung and wood—23 million people, a huge number of people. And obviously, that's polluting and it's not good for the environment.

To replace that inexpensively would be fossil fuel replacement if it was done most efficiently, which would save tens of millions of people and also be good for the planet. And that's completely off the agenda. No one pays any attention to that whatsoever, even though, like I said, 20 million lives—of 20 million people, a lot of them children—depend on it.

There are these multiple issues as well on the environmental front, and Lomborg has done a better job than anyone else in rank ordering these things. So the thing that I find so perplexing is that even if your goal was in some sense to serve the planet, it’s by no means obvious in any sense whatsoever that raising energy prices and impoverishing poor people will do anything but hurt the planet.

So I don't even buy the internal rationale. It's like, "Well, we're supposed to be serving the planet." It's like, "Well, none of our policies seem to be doing that." Lomborg, I think, estimated in the same article that the net consequence of all the global climate spending since 2005 will be a one ten-thousandth of a degree reduction in temperature by the year 2100, insofar as it can be calculated by the UN's own climate models.

And so I don't get it; it's been—we've had 30 years of this nonsense. All we seem to do is make the energy grid much more ineffective, and the only place that's really made an advance in terms of reducing carbon output is the United States, and they did that through fracking. And every environmentalist on the planet hates fracking because, you know, they claim erroneously that it does things like cause earthquakes.

And so we're in a situation where the planet is clearly no better off and in fact, by many measures worse off than it would have been if we would have just left it to hell alone. And energy costs are spiraling out of control, and people are being plunged into poverty as winter approaches, and like there's no positive outcome of that whatsoever. And yet the leaders are all gathered at COP27, again, I believe this weekend, to do exactly the same thing. And so even by their own standards—the standards of the environmentalists themselves—why wouldn't they support natural gas if they're actually concerned about improving the planet or nuclear power for that matter?

It just seems that there's something more nefarious going on at the narrative level, even then we owe fealty to the planet. It’s something like we have to destroy capitalism at all costs, even if that means compromising the planet.

It's worse than the nature-worship hypothesis.

I think that's right. They're consistently irrational at a sort of a local or regional level here in the U.S. For example, I think that a religious zeal argument or explanation makes some sense. But I do think that on the international level, the persons who are ultimately responsible for this—those who are pushing the agenda, the elites at the top of the food chain, so to speak—there is a more sinister agenda.

Ultimately, you and I I think agree this is about government control, and they will pursue that with religious fervor, of course, as well. They seem to have gotten the entire civilized world bought in on—at least the leaders of many of these nations—this idea that we have to pursue this agenda at any cost. And so we're going to continue to see the results of that, you know.

I think it seems a bit too convenient that the solution always is, "Well, there's a terrible crisis besetting us, and what that means is you have to deliver all the power to a handful of centralizers who are then allowed to use compulsion to implement their desired policies." It's like, if your solution means handing all the centralized power and I have to abide by your dictates, then I think it's legitimate for me to question your motives.

That's exactly right, and the solution to that, the antidote, is to educate and inform more people to remind them that going along with this agenda requires them to sacrifice their freedom and their safety, their comfort. We've seen, the projections this may be a very harsh Europe, you know, a winter in Europe. That's because they don't have enough energy units to even heat the homes of the persons who need this the most.

I fear that there's going to be real and continuing pain until sort of the world wakes up. So hopefully, we can continue to be the voices crying in the wilderness to remind everyone of the true facts here.

And so what do you think the Republicans will do about the energy situation? What if, obviously, you don't have the presidency, and so there's going to be limitations on what's possible, but what do you think the right way forward is in relationship to the provision of or the development of an energy policy that would ensure to those who are going to be doing the exploration that they're not going to be cut off at the knees again?

That's key, and I do have some hope that after this election, I do believe there will be the feeling of a mandate. I think it's going to be an overwhelming vote, and I believe that we will have some people who are rightly thinking—even among the Democrats—who will wake up and recognize that we've got to turn this around.

We saw some hopeful signs of that just a few days out from our election. You saw Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia come out with just some really strong language, calling out President Biden for his really insane policies. I mean, he effectively called, three days out from the election, he was at a rally, I think in Pennsylvania, and called President Biden, called for the end of the coal industry, and effectively just took a real swipe at the oil and gas industry, fossil fuels in general. Not a good look. I mean, Pennsylvania is an energy state.

And so Joe Manchin responded immediately with very strong language. Look, I think that we may have a new day and a new opportunity to turn some of this around. I think the American people are going to demand it. They cannot afford just simple fuel, simple energy now. We've got to get back to some of the policies that allowed us to be in the great position we were in before Joe Biden took office.

If you rewind in your mind to February of 2020, right before COVID hit our shores here, we had achieved the greatest economy in the history of the planet—not just the greatest economy in the U.S., but the greatest economy ever. We had, by every measurable metric and category, everyone was doing better in the U.S. Our economy was thriving, jobs were being created. More opportunity was available for more people in every demographic. We were widening the pathway out of poverty for more people, and the reason we were in that position is because we advanced limited government principles, we reduced taxes, we reduced regulations, and we allowed American entrepreneurship to thrive.

We allowed the free market to thrive. We’ve got to get back to that because that's the solution, and it begins with energy policy, and it should translate to every area of what we do with our economic agenda.

Well, you know one of the things that conservatives are often rightly or effectively criticized for by those on the left is over-reliance on the kind of policies that you just described—the cutting policies, right? The restriction of government overreach. And I believe that restricting government overreach is important, but it's not a very compelling narrative in some sense right now.

You've been working on a book associated with core principles of conservatism, and so you've been thinking this through philosophically as well. And it seems to me that for the conservative types to mount an effective counter-strategy to the false messianic narrative of the radical left, that something like a coherent philosophy that's compelling on the narrative front has to be put forward.

You've been working on this book, and the book is called "Seven Core Principles of American Conservatism."

That's right. Let me give you a little background of how that came about. It was birthed out of necessity, Jordan. In the last Congress, in the 116th Congress, I served as chairman of the Republican Study Committee. You've come and visited our group on Capitol Hill. That's the largest RSC— it is the largest caucus in Congress, certainly the largest caucus of conservatives, and it's known as the intellectual arsenal of conservatism on the Hill.

Over a 50-year history now, we have the largest group. So when I was chairman, it was 148 members of that group. Anyone who self-identifies, self-describes as a conservative in the House is a part of this organization. It is intended and was in its origin to be the policy shop where our conservative philosophy makes its way onto paper. It informs our debates and our arguments on the Hill, and that's how we create our policy, legislative text, etc.

So when I took the helm of that organization, it was an interesting time in American politics because we were two years into the Trump Administration, about halfway through. We were in uncharted water, so to speak, as a nation. Lots of things were very dynamic and changing and different than they had been before. What I sensed was that a lot of my colleagues—and certainly a lot of friends and associates and constituents back at home who identified, and probably many of them always had, as conservatives and Republicans—were having a difficult time articulating, summarizing exactly what that was, what it meant.

So I determined that as chair of this group, we wanted to make very good use of the two years ahead of us. We had just been put into the minority in the House, and so I thought instead of wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, we should roll our sleeves up and make it a very productive time. So in order to do that, it's always a good idea if you’re going to craft policy—if you're going to advance an agenda—to know exactly what you believe and what the objectives are.

So I put pen to paper. I did a lot of thought, study, and prayer, and my background's in constitutional law, and so these are things that I've studied my whole life. I thought if you had just a couple of moments with a millennial who self-identified as a progressive, how would you present what it is that we believe?

I posed this question rhetorically to all my colleagues in a big meeting of the RSC, and I said, "How are we going to explain and advance our position? What would you say it means to be an American conservative?"

So I posited this, and I suggested to my colleagues at that time, "Listen to me! If you had to boil down volumes of conservative writing, if you had to boil down the Republican Party platform, everything that we say that we're for—from Edmund Burke to today— what would that be summarized for in our time, in our place?

I said to me, it boils down to what I'm going to call the seven core principles of American conservatism, and it's quite simply: individual freedom, limited government, the rule of law, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free market—that's in no necessary order. But those are the things that all conservatives should profess to believe, and I said there's nothing magic about that list. Anyone could create their own or add to it or delete, but to me, that's what I'm going to posit for us to be our guardrails for the next two years as we go forward to make our arguments on the House floor to create the policy, to put our plans together.

And it is the foundation upon which we will build. Everybody agreed with that; we amended the bylaws of the Republican Study Committee for the first time in 15 years to add those in, and we began to work with those parameters. It was a very successful effort. At the end of that two years, we published over 400 pages of policy prescriptions. We called it the "Conservative Playbook for a Republican-led Majority," and in those publications were answers to all the greatest challenges facing the country.

Because we got momentum doing that, I began to hear from conservative legislators at the local and state level around the country and Republican groups in this state and that state, people calling to say, "Hey, could we adopt something similar? Could we use the seven core principles?" And I said, "Absolutely! I have no pride of authorship about it." So all of that has been building, and that's why it's making its way into the pages of a book now, so we can spread it out even further. It's not rocket science, but it's a good way to summarize what it is we believe, and I think that's important.

Yeah, well, I've been thinking through the idea of identity from the political perspective, and there is part of me that's attracted to classic liberal ideas because I believe the right unit of analysis in them, in the most fundamental sense, is the individual. I think the classic liberals did a good job of putting that point forward, but I think that an overemphasis on the individual atomizes people.

And the consequence of atomized individuals is tyrannical government, as far as I can tell. If everybody becomes an island unto themselves, all of the necessary relationships that bind people together are vacuumed up, in some sense, are subsumed under a centralized authority. And I've also been thinking through the idea of identity from the perspective of mental health.

So what does it mean to have a healthy identity? So you might ask, what does it mean to have an identity, period? And it certainly isn't something that you only define subjectively. And so my clinical experience, and I think the most sophisticated psychological theories bear this out, is that you can't have properly functioning individuals who are atomized.

And the reason for that is that, in the most fundamental sense, emotional and motivational regulation—which is what mental health depends on or even consists of in some sense—has to be experienced in relationship to other people. One of the things I've noticed when I've been lecturing to young people, and this is relevant to the issue of what conservatives have to offer to young people, is that the meaning that people need to rely on that sustains them through tragic times isn't to be found in pursuit of self-interest—even if it's in light and self-interest—not in the narrow hedonic sense, right?

Not in the sense that I get exactly what I want right now all the time. What seems to provide people with stabilization in their life and hope is the fostering of a hierarchical network of social interactions, so that it's pretty hard to be seen and to have a functional identity without being married or the equivalent if you’re an adult. You need someone who's a long-term partner because otherwise your life is a mess of loneliness or short-term chaotic relationships, and it's very difficult to be sane and happy when that's happening.

It's very hard to maintain your equilibrium unless you have at least some family—right?—some siblings, parents that you have a bonded relationship with, that you're in interaction with, that you have joint projects with. You have to have friends; you should be involved in a network of economic exchange; you should be pursuing some civic responsibility; maybe you have a religious obligation. That’s a different way of thinking about it than a religious faith, right?

Is that you have an obligation to pursue and participate in some spiritual tradition, and it has to be a tradition too, because otherwise it just spirals off into a kind of new age insanity. And it isn't obvious to me that people can live happy lives, because people say they want to be happy—which I don't really think is also true. I think people want to have an adventure, and they don't want to be miserable, and that's not exactly the same as being happy.

But I don't think that you can pursue any of that stably without being embedded in that multitude of hierarchical social relationships. And that's all dependent on responsibility, not on short-term self-gratification and a kind of atomistic hedonism. If you explain that to young people, they figure it out right away, especially if you ally that with the idea of developing the kind of embeddedness in the social community that helps sustain you in the face of tragedy, because what do you have when things go wrong? You've got the people you love and who love you; you've got your friends; you've got, hopefully, your career and maybe your creative endeavors.

You have the service you can provide to others at the level of civic responsibility, and all of that—none of that's been discussed in some real sense for about 60 years. And all of that’s core to the kind of identity that stops people from being absolutely anxiety-ridden and hopeless, and conservatives really have all that within their grasp if they wanted to take it. And it sounds like that's the sort of thing that you're working on pursuing.

That's exactly right, and I think we do need to take it, and I think that there's a vacuum created, and it should be filled with what I regard to be very simple truths. I mean, I think this—the simple truths are the most profound. What you just articulated there is exactly right.

I believe it's impossible, by the way, to divorce it from a religious worldview, let's say the Judeo-Christian worldview, for example, because that is where we find meaning. I think what you just described is God's created order for things—for the individual, for the family, for society. I think he—we are made in the image of God. The founders of this country believed that. In fact, indeed, in our Declaration, they proclaimed it to be a self-evident truth—something that you cannot not know—that God is the one that created us, and he gives us all the same rights.

And God created us to serve. We find our greatest meaning. I mean, the Bible is filled with this admonition that if you are to be great, you are to serve, and the greatest is the greatest servant. And so that's where you find your value; he intended the family to be, for obvious reasons, the first unit of community, and upon that, we build a healthy and vibrant society.

You know, I listed human dignity as the seventh of the core principles, but I say in the book that I'm finishing up that that really could be the first. It is the foundation of it all because it goes back to the beginning, that we really are of individual value and worth. And that is because God gave us that worth.

And by the way, your values are completely unrelated in any way to the color of your skin or what ZIP code you live in, or where you went to school, or where your talents are. Your value is inherent because it's given to you by your creator.

You know, sorry, go ahead.

Well, I was just going to say Chesterton, you know, famously said that America is the only nation in the world that was founded upon a creed. And it's listed with almost theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence. And that is our creed, in short summary. It's the second paragraph of the Declaration. And that our nation was built upon that idea.

As you note rightly, we began to deviate from that idea about 50 or 60 years ago, or a little bit longer. And that is why we're at the hopeless result that we are. So I believe we have to get back to those founding principles, because I think that conservatives have done a pretty poor job of defending that.

So you see this vitriolic accusation arising from the radical left that the West, the West in general, and the United States perhaps in particular, was founded fundamentally on a doctrine that was akin to the promotion of something like oppression and slavery. Now, that's a typical leftist trope because the leftists think every form of social organization is founded on nothing but exploitation, right?

But what disturbs me about that is that it's also counterproductive in relationship even to the stated goals of the leftists, because the way I look at things—and I can't see how this is wrong—is that the careless self-axiom, the careless self-evident axiom of human social interaction is something like, if I can force you to do something, I have the right to do it. Which is, well, if I'm more powerful than you and I can compel you to do my bidding, why the hell shouldn't I?

And that means that, as Hobbes pointed out—the philosopher Thomas Hobbes—rather than Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that that vision is predicated on the idea that, in the state of nature, human beings aren’t noble savages. It's more like life is nasty, brutish, and short.

And you know, I don't believe that Hobbes was one hundred percent right, nor do I believe that Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one hundred percent right. I think we have an implicit capacity for evil and an implicit capacity for good, and that we're battling between that all the time.

But I cannot read the history of the West—Great Britain in particular, and then the U.S. emerging out of that context—as anything but the struggle of the idea that all men have intrinsic— all human beings, as you said, regardless of creed or color or ethnicity or intelligence or any local attribute whatsoever—because of that intrinsic dignity, anything that smacks of slavery and compulsion is, in fact, fundamentally ethically wrong.

And you know, atheistic types who go after the idea that the dignity of human beings is predicated on something like their formation in the image of God still have the problem of trying to sort out, then, what is it that gives people that intrinsic dignity and worth? Because if you abandon that as a self-evident principle—so that's a fundamental religious or sacred principle that's in some sense independent even of your religious belief—it’s still a deep and foundational principle that presumption of intrinsic value that fights against the very institution of slavery.

And as far as I can tell, that's exactly the reason why slavery was eradicated, despite essentially its unbelievable prevalence throughout the entire course of human history. So the leftists, in some sense, decry the use of power and corruption and claim that the West and the United States are fundamentally slave-predicated, oppressive states.

But what they fail to contend with—and what conservatives haven't done a good job of defending—is that that's not only a lie; it's the opposite of the truth. These Western democracies that privilege human dignity are the only societies in the entire history of humanity that have ever managed to make a moral case against the principle that might makes right.

That is precisely right, and it is that belief, and then the inestimable dignity and value of every person—because of the belief, the underlying belief that they are made in the image and as of Creator creation of God himself—that has been the guiding principle.

That is why that belief is why slavery has been eradicated, and child labor laws have been revised, and all of the ills in society have been attacked. It's been persons motivated by that belief that you have to do that for the individual because of their value and their dignity.

And you know, our country, the United States, was founded upon that premise. It was not perfect at its origin, of course; we still had slavery to contend with. And we all know that it's the great stain on our history, but it was acknowledged by leaders at the time—the principled men who were called to put all this together.

It was acknowledged by later generations as well. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said in his "I Have a Dream" speech that the Declaration of Independence was a promissory note to future generations that we're in the process of making a more perfect union.

And that we've not achieved everything that we should yet, but it's built upon this foundational premise. And so our first presidents—you know, George Washington famously, in his farewell address, he said—he gave us his prescription on how we could keep this republic: it's a grand experiment in self-governance.

And he said, "Watch your federal debt; watch your foreign alliances." He gave some very practical advice, but he also said, "Watch out for the evil and poison of political parties," etc. But he also said of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity: religion and morality are indispensable supports.

And then John Adams comes next and he says, look, "Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." They did not want to legislate that every person had to adopt a certain religion, but the point was that you had to have this fundamental premise—you had to have virtue—to have a government by and for the people.

There had to be a foundational virtue, and they saw that the seed of virtue was in religion and morality, and that's why it should be well supported.

It seems to me that even the principles that the classic liberal individualists rely on presume the self-evidence of those moral virtues—they're a given, right? And the problem is that they're only a given when they're active, and when they become inactive or when they become actively subverted, then the self-evidence starts to decay, and then the whole enterprise has the possibility of falling apart.

You know, I was just in Jerusalem in May, and I walked down the Via Dolorosa with a friend of mine, Jonathan Pajot. We're doing a documentary about that. And I was thinking about the idea of the passion. We ended up in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which at least in principle is founded on the site where Christ was crucified.

And I was thinking about this psychologically. And I think this is something that is worth delving into, although it's way down at the bottom of things. You know, I've wondered for a long time exactly what the Western world has been doing psychologically, let's say, gazing at the crucifix for the last two thousand years, and why that's associated with the image of God.

And I'm again thinking about this psychologically, not theologically. One of the things that psychotherapists have realized in the last 60 years or so is that if you can get people to voluntarily confront the things that disturb them and compel them into paralysis and avoidance—and possibly even tyranny, right?—those are the things people would like to avoid if they could, but often can't, because they're the harsh realities of life, let's say.

The more you can get people to expose themselves to the things they're afraid of and disturbed by voluntarily, the braver and more healthy they become.

Then I was just in this monastery in Northern California, and an artist there is putting literally a hundred and a half million dollars into this artwork and the cathedral that's associated with this monastery, and there was an image of Christ crucified underneath Mary, and then behind the crucifixion was an image of a cross that represented the resurrection.

When I look at that, I think, well, it's the benevolence of the mother that gives rise to the heroic individual, let's say. And what's in the central nature of the heroic individual? And the answer to that is something like the courage to confront the catastrophe of mortality itself voluntarily, and also the willingness to confront the reality of hell.

Both of those are embedded in the passion narrative because Christ, of course, goes to an ignominious and undeserved death, which is the most tragic thing that can happen to anyone in some sense. But that's not enough, because he has to hero hell itself.

And you might say, well, what does that mean psychologically? And I would say, well, we don't only have to contend, as human beings, with the reality of suffering and death. We have to contend with the reality of suffering, death, and malevolence of a deep kind.

And if we turn away from that, then we cannot rise to the occasion. And the image that's embedded in the Judeo-Christian tradition, especially in relationship to the crucifixion and resurrection, is something like the notion that if you gaze upon that which terrifies you long enough and hard enough, and with enough diligence, you don't see death and destruction; you see the possibility of renewal and rebirth.

Because that's the spirit that is called out of you if you're courageous enough to confront the terrible realities of life. And as far as I can tell, that's psychologically true.

And so, and then you might say—because you could take that further—and you could say, well, what does that have to do with with God? And the answer is, well, that's a very difficult question to sort out, that's for sure. But you could say more prosaically that if the spirit that guides us most compellingly and profoundly through life is the spirit that calls us to confront the catastrophic, our catastrophic fragility and our subjugation to malevolence, if we have to confront that voluntarily and that is the spirit that strengthens us and revives us, how could we possibly regard that as anything other than technically profound and divine?

Because it's fundamental. And I think you can have a fair bit of that discussion outside the theological domain, which I'd rather do most of the time, right? Because I think you should speak of theological matters at your peril.

But at the very least—so then you think, well, what gives people intrinsic worth and dignity? And the fact is that they're capable of bearing up voluntarily under the brute force load of existence and malevolence and deserve respect, and due credit as a consequence of that strength.

And if your society isn't predicated on that, then it will fall apart. And as far as I can tell, that's all just true.

I think those are simple truths. I think that's exactly right. I think that's what animated previous generations of Americans. We did have a very strong Christian culture in the early origins of the country, and the Judeo-Christian worldview was prevalent until recent generations—almost everyone agreed. That's what the studies would show and what our common experience bears out.

And so they believed in those simple truths that are articulated in the Bible. You could talk about it from a psychological perspective, but it's difficult to divorce the faith aspect from it, as having guided and encouraged the people.

The Bible speaks clearly to suffering and trials and how that going through that produces perseverance. Perseverance then produces character, character then produces hope, and hope is essential.

I think of the passages in First Peter 5. Peter is writing to the early church in those days, and he says how, you know, evil itself, evil incarnate, the devil, roams around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Talk about malevolence! But the passage of scripture right before that says, do not worry; cast your worries on God because he cares for you.

So in the context of all that, we understand that, sure, human nature is evil and capable of all sorts of malevolence and evil, but God is greater than that. And that belief in that animated principle is what truly guided our nation through some very dark days.

And I think—well we could talk about the necessity of faith in that regard too because the more scientific-oriented rationalists that are opposed to such views presume that faith is something like the willingness to believe things that are so preposterous that no one would believe them.

But that, as far as I can tell, isn’t what religious faith means. Religious faith, which would be deep faith—because the religious is the domain of the profound and the deep—religious faith is something like the precondition for action in the face of the unknown.

So, a couple of examples of that. I mean, one would be, well, why would you tell the truth? Because you don't have any evidence beforehand that if you tell the truth, things will work out in the best possible way for you. You have to tell the truth and then see what happens. And that means that in order to do that, you have to have faith in the truth.

And then you might say, well, why would you get married? And the answer can't be, "Because you know you'll live happily ever after." The answer has to be that you'll take the hand of your wife and jump into the unknown together on the basis of faith that if you keep faith with each other and you engage in the redemptive dialogue that's part of the process of the exchange of the logos, that you'll be able to maneuver through the catastrophes of life more effectively.

And all— all—and then if you confront a challenge, by definition in some sense, a challenge is a situation that you don't know if you can master. And your willingness to confront that can't be based on the evidence that you'll win and overcome the challenge, because you don't know. It has to be a leap of faith.

And so then the question arises—well, do you need faith, or should we abandon faith? Because I don't think that's possible in the absence of omniscience and omnipresence and omnipotence.

What you have to contend with that which is beyond you is faith. I can't see how it can be any other way. And then the question—this is something conservatives should be addressing—well, faith in what?

And the inviolable dignity of the human individual—that might be a good place to start. And then conservatives can talk about responsibility too, because you know, I think part of the attraction that the leftists have for young people is the left to say, "Well, we'll take care of everyone."

And the conservatives can say, "You don't exactly want to take care of everyone because that infantilizes them. You want to give them a domain where they have the option, the opportunity to take care of themselves and the people around them."

And you want to distribute that as widely as possible, and that's a much more noble vision, I think. And it gives people something to—it isn't that it gives people something to do; it restores to them the true responsibility of their life.

And if the meaning of their life is dependent on the adoption of that responsibility, then it restores the meaning to their life. And I do think young people understand that; if you explain it to them—and that they're dying to hear that, you've been doing fantastic work at that.

And your writing has inspired a lot of young men I know. And I've walked with you in the halls of the U.S. Capitol and seen young men come up and tell you what a profound effect that has had.

Because I think you're drawing them to this, again, what I regard to be a simple truth—we find responsibility in our contribution; we find responsibility in our selflessness. We find dignity in our work, again, because that's how the Creator made us.

And when you explore that, when you pursue it, that is the pursuit, ultimately, I think, of happiness and fulfillment. And you're right: happiness in that more profound sense that the founders meant, because that's not short-term hedonism.

And I think the way it lays itself out practically, and people can think this through for themselves, is that the more you're of service—and I don't mean the self—I don't mean resentful martyrdom in relationship to other people. I mean balanced service. But the more you offer others, the more is returned to you—that's obvious.

And you know, you want to be around people who are productive and generous, and maybe they err on the side of productivity and generosity to some degree, right, to just leave that little margin of error. But it's given that there are so many other people, and just one of you, obviously, the more you deliver to other people—there’s going to be people who take advantage of that, but that's not the point.

But on the whole, the more you deliver to other people in faith, the more is going to come back to you—especially over the medium and long run. I mean, how could it be anywhere else? Anyway, the obvious answer is: if all you do is take, people figure that out very rapidly, and then they stop wanting to have anything to do with you.

And so I think there's, again, it's a simple truth because it's a practice; it's a metaphysical reality that meaning is to be found in the service of others. And that sovereignty might in the highest sense be defined as the broadest possible service, which is an evolution in thinking that was engendered in large part by the biblical writings.

But I think that it's just a practical truth. You can try this as a clinical exercise. People who are narcissistic and disagreeable can be led to do something as simple as, well, try doing one thing every day just for someone else and see what happens.

What generally happens is their temperaments improve and their lives improve, and I don't think that's a mystery once it's laid out. Well, of course, that's what's going to happen. If you work 10 percent longer hours, you make 40 percent more money, and you can see why that would be right.

Because if you have 10 employees and one of them is there 20 minutes early and stays 20 minutes late every day, you notice that, and then an opportunity emerges. Well, who's going to get the opportunity? Self-evident in that fundamental sense.

And I love when human experience bears out principles from the Bible. You know, and it is a biblical principle, by the way, that the greater the degree of your self-sacrifice, the greater the reward in terms of service to others and to the Kingdom of God, as it were, in that context.

You know, the widow's mite, when she gives what little she has—it’s a tremendous reward—whereas if the millionaire donates ten dollars, maybe he did it out of a cheerful heart, but there’s not a great reward that comes with that.

And so, you know, that idea, that belief, I think, again—to tie it back to the greatness of America, the country that I revere so much—is that that belief is what guided us, is what developed the extraordinary economy and culture and society that we had here because persons were guided by that principle.

And it drove them to work hard; it drove them to be entrepreneurs; it drove them to be job creators, to create more opportunities. Some people—it also helped them fight against the terrible attraction of envy.

You know one of the things that I've seen that characterizes the excesses of the radicals on the left is the proposition that anybody who has any more than I have acquired that as a consequence of oppression and theft. And I think the fundamental problem with that is that if no one is allowed to have any more than anyone else ever, then no one ever gets to have anything at all.

And so I think part of the biblical insistence that envy and covetousness is a fundamental sin—which means to miss the mark—is that if some people can't be richer than others some of the time, no one can have any wealth at all.

And you know, there’s a big anthropological mystery, which is that from the period of time about 350,000 years ago to about 50,000 years ago, there doesn't seem to have been much of an increment in human well-being on the material front. And no one can really figure that out, because genetically speaking, we're not that much different from our ancestors that long ago.

And so what changed? And who knows the answer to that? But one possible answer is that, well, we were caught in something like a self-defeating spiral of envy, such that—and there's good anthropological evidence for this—so that in most societies, anyone who had any more than anyone else immediately became a target for thugs and predators who just killed them and took what they had.

And that just stops all economic growth whatsoever. And so if there's no tolerance for inequality, it's possible that there's no way of generating wealth because wealth has to start somewhere and then be distributed; it can't be everywhere at once instantly.

And so that's right. And the belief that you've just described is what has driven in our times the radical left to grow this massive controlling government—that the state is going to be the great leveler that is going to, you know, equalize everything and redistribute the wealth. All these other policies they produce are because what they're doing really is institutionalizing envy and division and hatred for that matter.

It's, you know, class envy, and it's how they divide us—the Marxist principle, really—to turn the population against one another. But they've had some success with that. And so again back to what conservatives should be doing right now: we have to push back against that. We have to explain to people what the origin of these crazy policies is and what the antidote is.

And I think, again, that the solutions are the guiding principles. I think what guided our country from its origin is what needs to guide us again, and it's not a difficult argument to make if you have enough time to lay these principles out.

How do you see that being translated into the principles that you're—you see those principles making themselves manifest in the short- to medium-term on the policy front in the United States and the foreseeable future? What's your hope for transformation in a more detailed manner?

Because we've been speaking at a high and broad level, let’s say. One of the advantages to being in the political arena like you are is that, well at least in principle, these principles can be transformed into policy. And that's a tricky thing to manage.

So what are you excited about in the visionary front, let's say, on the conservative side?

Well, a lot! I think we have a tremendous—and I believe historic—opportunity in the days ahead. We have a lot to repair and restore in this country. And I'm excited because I genuinely believe that, as conservatives, we have the answers to all the great challenges facing the country.

Part of the reason I'm excited—and I know that this can and will work—is that we sort of have had a trial run at this already. You know, the first two years of the Trump administration, we achieved some amazing things for the economy, for national security, for the stability of all persons—the opportunity that they had.

And that is because we implemented some of these policies, some of this philosophy that we've been talking about for generations. We actually did it—Trump being that the bull in the arena, so to speak—was bold enough to advance them, and that's why we had the great results that we did.

And then when we shifted, and I mentioned in the following Congress—in the 116th Congress, the one before this one—when we had the Republican Study Committee working in the minority, we knew we could not advance legislation to the floor, because Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker, would not allow it.

But what we generated was—we got all the conservatives to work together. We divided everyone into task forces and working groups in their areas of expertise and interest—the things that animated them—and we created policies in all these various arenas, model legislation—things that we have prepared and ready.

And when we were doing that, Jordan, we worked with and consulted with groups along the conservative spectrum—these interest groups and think tanks and public interest groups—they came together with us in work sessions, and there was a lot of brainstorming and collaboration that went into this.

And there was a real esprit de corps and a real encouragement that developed amongst the members and these other persons on the outside because they saw that this could come together and we could formulate a real plan.

So, you know, we published that document I told you about—the Conservative Playbook for a Republican-led Majority—and that playbook is an example of the things that we will advance. You know, we've run in this election cycle on what we call the "Commitment to America," and that is sort of our current take on what Newt Gingrich and the Republicans did back in the mid-90s when they took control for the Republicans for the House for the first time in 40 years, the Contract with America.

But that commitment says to the people, "These are the things we believe in. This is what we're going towards and going to work for," and we're going to be presenting that to the American people over the next two years.

They're going to see a stark contrast between our philosophy and what that produces and the opposing philosophy of the radical left.

Now, is President Biden going to sign all this into law? That's a big question that no one can answer except him. But remember—and this is important to point out historically—when the Conservatives retook the majority under Newt Gingrich and the team back in the '90s, Bill Clinton was the president. He never saw the light, but he felt the heat, and he decided to work with them.

So they were able to do some meaningful things on welfare reform, and they checked off the boxes on the Contract with America. The question is: would Joe Biden—does he have it within him to do that? To revert to his previous form, to be more moderate, to work with this Congress and get some things done for the people? He's the only person who can answer that question, and it's a real challenge; it's a rhetorical question, but it's a big one right now.

Well, the United States—you know, looking at it from the perspective of an outsider to some degree—I mean, your country is remarkably functional, and generally, you guys muddle through. So, maybe there's a reason for—

Well, and that’s how it looks. I mean, maybe there’s a reason for optimism on that front, if there were intelligent policies that were productive that would be put forth by the conservatives. And there were compelling practical reasons to abide by that. It's possible that Biden would be someone that could be worked with.

And part of that's obviously depending on who has the power granted to them as a consequence of the elections. And that does look like that's going to switch.

What do you see—like if you could see what you wanted to have happen, let's say on the energy front over the next five to ten years, what would you envision? Because energy has become a real issue, not only in the United States, but obviously globally.

So what do you see? What would you like to see happen? What do you think is possible on the energy front?

Well, energy is actually pretty simple. We need to do exactly the opposite of what the Biden administration has advanced. And we have the test case because we can revert to two years earlier and see what the Trump administration did.

The reason that we were leading the world in energy became energy dominant at that time—and we're a net exporter—is because we unleashed American energy. We allowed for the vigorous exploration. We allowed for a production. We were working to complete the Keystone Pipeline and make the channels of distribution easier.

You know, there's a great demand, for example, for liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is a big export product of my state, around the world. I was just over on a congressional trip not long ago in southern Europe. We went to Portugal, Spain, and Greece and Croatia. There is a huge desire—a need—for that to be transported there.

But you know, this president turned off our spigots inexplicably. I mean, it’s just a terribly destructive set of policies.

So we will go in and reverse it.

Yeah, well, we should point out too for those of you who are listening who are of a more liberal or progressive bent is that if you really want to serve the poor, there isn't anything you can do that's better for the poor than to make energy plentiful and cheap.

Because energy is equivalent to work, and so what you're doing by making energy cheap is expanding the degree to which poor people can work productively. There's no difference between cheap energy and work. We want energy because it does work, essentially.

And so this is another thing that disturbs me and puzzles me so much about what's happened on the left.

You know, I used to—when I was a kid, a teenager, I worked with the socialists in Canada, and most of them at that point, especially in the leadership, were old labor leaders. And a lot of these people really were on the side of the working class. And so when push came to shove, they were trying to serve the working class.

Now you could debate the utility of the policies they used—that's not the point. But when I see the radical progressive types who claim to stand for the oppressed simultaneously insist that the only way toward planetary salvation is to crank energy prices up, I think, well, you just have to do a rudimentary economic analysis to understand that if you make energy more expensive, you put those who are marginal into absolute poverty.

That's what happens. And there's a lot of people like that. So it's not that you just affect a tiny proportion of people, and hypothetically, you're dooming and devastating the very people that your compassion is leading you to serve.

And so that's a great mystery to me. It's very stunning to me that when push comes to shove, the left will sacrifice the poor to appease the hypothetical good interests of the planet.

And then of course that doesn't even work, because the other thing I learned when I was pursuing the environmental studies that I pursued was that if you get people past a certain threshold of wealth—which looks like about five thousand dollars a year on the GDP front—they immediately start taking a longer-term view because they're not scrabbling in the dirt literally to conjure up their next meal.

And so they can start being concerned with, well, really issues of medium- to long-term sustainability, which in principle is exactly what the environmentalists want.

So I read all that and I thought, wow, you know, we could have our cake and eat it too. It looks like the best way forward to a sustainable natural world is by eradicating absolute poverty.

Well, what a good deal that is! There’s no people who are absolutely poor anymore, and the natural world is going to thrive in a more sustainable manner. Who could possibly be opposed to that?

And the answer seems to be people who are so antithetically opposed to capitalism that they would destroy abundance and the planet itself just to do in those they deem as evil on the capitalistic front.

It's just breathtaking. And that does open up an opportunity for conservatives. And so hopefully they'll be there to take the opportunity.

So well, that's right. And I think we have to—part of the way we take that opportunity is we articulate clearly what it is we're about and what it is we're trying to achieve.

And I think that, you know, we have to ask the question: What is the goal of our economic policy? What is the goal of tax policy? Why are we doing this? Well, we want all boats to rise. We want more people to do better; we want to broaden the path, we got to poverty for more people.

And the way you do that is to allow that economy to thrive. You get the all-controlling centralized governmental power out of the way, and you allow entrepreneurship to thrive again. That's what built the U.S. economy, and that's what we've deviated from at our peril.

And I think the people that are hurt the worst, as you say, are lower-income persons who are on that lower level of the economy because they have less opportunity, and that breeds hopelessness and all these other things we're talking about.

You find dignity in work, and you find greater dignity in harder work. That's been our common experience; that's what life tells you. And so we need to get out of the way a lot of people to do that.

And adventure, yeah, well that’s the thing is that eradicating obstacles on the entrepreneurial and business front let’s say—that isn’t merely a matter of economic utility. It's that that means that you clear out the obstacles to people adopting responsibility and being productive and generous in their own personal domains.

And that is where the meaning in life is situated most fundamentally. And so it's not merely an economic issue; it's an existential issue and a psychological issue and possibly a theological issue as well.

And that definitely needs to be communicated to young people, and I think it can be effectively. I want to—I know we're pressed for time today, and I wanted to close maybe with something also practical.

One of the things I've been doing as I've been going around lecturing is suggesting to my audiences that they try to find something that is civically responsible to do and that would be joining a club of some sort or a church, or some organization beyond the family let's say that's not immediately self-serving.

That's oriented to a common goal. And so one thing that might be useful for people who are listening to hear is what do you think young people can do if they want to get involved on the political front? Because people often just don't know what to do.

So practically speaking, what steps could they take if they wanted to do—if they wanted to start working on the political front?

Yeah, there's a lot of opportunities for that, and I'm glad you asked it. I'm often asked by young people how to get involved. How do I get from where I am now to where you are?

And I, you know, it's hard work. You have to feel called to it to a certain degree; we could talk about that, unpack that as well. But the way to find out if you have an aptitude for it is to go and volunteer.

And there are lots of opportunities in every community across our country to do that. You have local, you know—for example—Republican clubs in almost every county in America, and they're always looking for volunteers, and certainly young people who are anxious to get involved, and they'll put you right to work.

Working on a camera, let’s talk about that really practically. So you go, sure, or you go, you take your phone and you look up "Republican"—what would you Google, and are you looking for a phone number, an email address? How do you offer your services?

You could begin at the state party level. Every state in the United States has its own Republican Party. Look them up online and call them up and say, "Hey, I'm a young person in this particular community and I want to get involved. Who should I talk with?"

And they'll connect you with the local leaders. If you don't know who those local leaders are of the local republican club, often they'll be weekly luncheons in these communities where you can go and listen and and learn and and become a part of it.

Look, there's a great need, a great desire for young people to be involved, and when they do show that interest, that excites the older folks who are involved, and they'll certainly find a place. I know a lot—I could give you a lot of examples of young people who started exactly that way and now they're Chiefs of Staff on Capitol Hill, and they're running, you know, large organizations.

It does not take long to move up in these arenas if you really show an interest and an aptitude, and again, you're willing to work hard. So we certainly encourage it.

Okay, so that's worth laying out. So to all of those— to all of you who are listening—who are wondering what to do, so make that phone call or go onto Google and do the search and make some contact and maybe be persistent enough to do it two or three times.

Don't just quit if it doesn't happen immediately. It's going to take a while perhaps to be connected to the right people. And then the next thing to realize is that if you show up and you're reliable and you do the work that's assigned to you, you'll be amazed at how rapidly doors will open to you.

Because all of these organizations are perennially desperate for help. There’s always more work than they can do, and so if you go there and you do the work and you're reasonable and reliable and you're able to learn and willing to learn, then what will happen is there will be more opportunities than you know what to do with.

And so I see so many young people I think they're cynical often because they're ignorant in some real sense. They don't understand that if they knocked on the door, let’s say in this particular situation, it would open. And how quickly that would happen.

And so if you, you would rather do something other than be bitter and cynical about the current political situation and you're young, well, you could try getting involved because you'll find out that actually works way, way faster than you think.

And so that's worth knowing, and it's worth trying. And it would be lovely to see a revival of civic responsibility on the local front.

And the other thing I might say about that too for everybody who's listening—it’s something to think about—is that there are always people who are looking for power; and you know, that’s one of the things the leftists point out, although they attribute everything to the power motive, and that's not reasonable.

But here’s a rule: all the responsibility you don’t take for your own governance will be vacuumed up by tyrants. That's the rule. And so if you don't shoulder your civic duty, then someone tyrannical will take that responsibility and turn it into their power, and then they will compel you.

That’s what will absolutely happen. And so not only should you do this because it might be a great adventure and because you could get involved deeply in the political world and much faster than you think—and that’s the carrot, let’s say—but the stick is: if you don’t do it, someone else will do it for you, and it won't be someone you want.

So that's how tyranny arises out of individual atomization and the abdication of responsibility.

It's so well said. One of the presuppositions of our grand experiment in self-governance here in the U.S. is that we’ll have an informed and engaged electorate. And you have a duty, as a citizen, to get involved; you have a duty.

And to tie it back to the biblical admonition, you also have a responsibility if you're a Christian, let's say, to be engaged, to be salt and light in your community. And by the way, what you said just a moment ago is also a biblical principle: if you're faithful in little, you’ll soon be trusted with more.

I mean, these are just principles that bear out with common experience, and you ought to give it a try if you haven’t. That's the encouragement.

Yeah, well one of the things that happens in universities that I think is so pathological is that young people who are actually looking to shoulder some proper civic responsibility, let's say, because they feel called to bear some collective responsibility, are immediately enticed into political activism.

And that stands for political action. And the truth of the matter is it's not very effective. It's also morally self-righteous often in a appalling way, and it leads to demonization and polarization and an easy sense of moral superiority.

Instead, what could happen instead is that young people could be invited to join the political party of their choice in exactly the manner that you just described and actually partake in the process itself. And that's actually more sustaining and more effective than pretending everything’s so corrupt that nothing can possibly be changed and waving placards at those you think are agents of Satan.

So, exactly. And if you go ahead, Jordan, sorry.

Well, so we're coming to the end of this session. I'm going to talk to Congressman Johnson for another half an hour on the Daily Wire Plus platform about the development of his particular political career, and that will enable us to delve more deeply into how these things might unfold.

And so if you want to hear that part of the conversation, then I would invite you to go over to the Daily Wire Plus platform. The Daily Wire Plus people are making these podcasts, professionally produced podcasts, available to everyone free of charge as they always have been.

And so thank you to them for that. But we have this additional opportunity to delve into the biographical details of Congressman Johnson's stellar career, and that should be extraordinarily interesting.

So to all of you who have been watching and listening, thank you for your time and attention. And I would say think through the things we talked about today carefully. You know, you are a sovereign citizen in some real sense, right, with all the rights and the responsibilities that go along with that.

And it's definitely the case that you could find the meaningful adventure of your life in the bearing of that citizenship responsibility. And I don't think there's any reason to be so cynical about the current state of affairs in the West, and particularly in the U.S., just to throw up your hands and say, "Well, what can I do about us?"

Like, join a political party and volunteer your services and find out how radically your life will be transformed over a three-year period, because it will definitely happen if you're in there and you're committed and you show up and you pay attention and you're reliable.

Doors will open like you can't imagine, and then you can go change the world in the way that it might need to be changed. And you won't be wondering what you should do with your life. And so that's a call to civic responsibility.

Thank you very much, Congressman Johnson. It was very good talking with you, and I'm looking forward to continuing our conversation on The Daily Wire Plus platform.

I've enjoyed it. Thanks so much!

Hello everyone! I would encourage you to continue listening to my conversation with my guest on dailywireplus.com.