Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “When you hear the word “leadership” or “leader,” what do you think? What does one thing when he hears the word “leader” or the term “leadership”? What do you think? You probably think politician. I think at some level you’re partially correct. I think most people tend to think of leaders and leadership as politics. Why is that? Well, Mike, that’s because we have so much government. Of course our leaders are in politics. Of course they’re politicians. Bingo!” Check out today’s Clip of The Day and transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: When you hear the word “leadership” or “leader,” what do you think? What does one thing when he hears the word “leader” or the term “leadership”? What do you think? You probably think politician. I think at some level you’re partially correct. I think most people tend to think of leaders and leadership as politics. Why is that? Well, Mike, that’s because we have so much government. Of course our leaders are in politics. Of course they’re politicians. Bingo!
Put your finger on the problem. More government — folks, we are creating government at a rate unseen in the annals of man. I don’t think the Soviets created government as fast and with such fury and blinding speed as we created. In any event, when you create all this government, you’re narrowing the field of choices that you have to choose leaders from. If we can all agree that the figures that are used to describe how much government we have are wildly inaccurate, [mocking] “Well, the federal government only spends 23 percent of GDP.” Bull dinky crap. Anyone that believes that statistic is a joker. You cannot possibly be paying attention, nor can you possibly be reading what it is that’s actually going on. The Feds control everything. They tell your local government what to do. They tell your county government what to do. They tell your state government what to do. They also order it to spend money that it doesn’t have, but don’t worry, we’ll subsidize it for you.
If you add it all up, what do you get? I estimate that right now it is between 55 and 60 percent of GDP. Everything that is produced in this country is consumed by government or someone working for government or someone using government subsidy, which I think means they’re working for government. I’d say 55 to 60 percent. I might be on the short end. That means that 55 to 60 percent of the people, therefore, are influenced by government. There’s probably more but I’ll be conservative with my estimate.
Why do I bring that up? That would mean to me that over half the available fields of choice for leaders are in government. It’s only natural then, or it would be a natural consequence of this that you would then see and your leaders would be chosen principally from government. Who works in government? Politicians. Everybody says we don’t want to be led by politicians, yet who’s leading? Who’s attempting to lead? Politicians. This is a problem. This is a problem of mammoth proportions. The politician and the person that is in the employ of government is not going to lead you to a place where there is no government, because then he or she would then be working or conspiring to eliminate their own position, or eliminate their own raison d‘être. That defies human nature. It doesn’t happen that way and it’s not going to happen that way.
Unless you admire and think that political leadership is right around the corner and is going to deliver us from where we are, I think — you may believe that, and probably there are many of you that do — then I think that you’re smoking muggles. That hookah pipe that you’re horking on, why don’t you pass it over? We might all need a hit off of that. If we can all share the same delusion, at least we won’t worry about leadership. Make no mistake about it, the numbers dictate that our leaders are going to be political, are going to be from government, and that means they’re all going to be politicians, for the most part.
Of course, you may have the crooked, the Warren Buffetts of the world that use government to pretend that they’re good in business. They may actually be good in business. We’ll never know whether or not Buffett could actually business or entrepreneur his way out of a wet paper bag without the help of government, without the assistance of lobbyists and what have you. We’ll never know. I doubt we’ll ever sample that. Even when you’re talking about, [mocking] “Well, there are business leaders,” no, no, they’re not. If they’re in big business, they’re in the employ of government. That is a mammoth problem that must be dealt with. You’re not going to be able to deal with that as well as the size of the beast is as big as it is. That’s number one.
One of the ways you could deal with this, or one of the avenues we have to deal with this — Thomas Jefferson believed that the most powerful instrument ever created by man was the printing press, Gutenberg. Gutenberg had created something that made political equanimity, or made it possible for men who otherwise would not have been able to be leaders because they were stronger or had a bigger army and what have you, to actually come to the fore, just through the power of the pen. We can’t even rely on that any longer, and I’m going to tell you why.
We can’t rely on that any longer because the pool has been saturated. It has been saturated to the point where the distinction that could be made between someone who is a leader in their field of composition or journalism or writing cannot possibly be a leader because, in his or her own sphere, they are diluted by and are competing with thousands upon thousands if not millions of others who claim or are presented as journalists or as composers or as writers. We can’t all be H.L. Mencken. We can’t all be Edgar R. Murrow. We can’t all be Shakespeare or Frank Sinatra. But since we have Apple computer ads telling us we’re all the next Chopin — actually, they don’t tell us that. We’re the next Dre. The ability of someone to emerge as a leader is thereby diluted. I propose that — if you’re a mathematician out there you could probably run these numbers for me. I propose that it is quite possibly mathematically impossible for anyone to lead anyone anywhere, of any substantial portion outside of being misled by lying, conniving politicians. The reason is, again, saturation, dilution. It’s impossible.
So how are you going to fix that? How are you going to address that? One of the things that you can do to address that would be to encourage intellectual discourse and intellectual conversation. One of the things that we could intelligently converse about is conservatism, or you progressives could converse about progressivism. It would be a welcome change to actually have a pair of schools of thought. You could sum up the principal school of thought, which is corruption and theft, and we have secondary schools of thought, which is vulgarity and lewdness. We have another school of thought, which is death, whether it’s death through abortion or death through any of the other things that are administered or encouraged. We seem not to be able to have a conservatism or intellectual conservatism that is cohesive and is based upon agreed-upon principles.
The reason why it cannot be based upon or it doesn’t seem like it could be based upon agreed-upon principles is because as soon as someone tries to assert a principle, even if you go back in time, even if you try to assert God’s law, you will be reprimanded. You will have someone say: You didn’t read that sentence of God’s law right. It doesn’t say that. What used to be agreeable and you could rely on to build a civilization or a society around, you can’t even rely on that because you’re going to have people argue that God’s law isn’t even God’s law. If Jesus Christ came back today, we wouldn’t even be able to muster enough anger towards him, if it were needed, to believe enough of what he says and be angry enough at him to do what was done to him by Pontius Pilate and the Romans, so atomized and spread out are we.
We could start by doing a couple simple things, I think. I had the guy on yesterday, John Bridges, about manners. I think manners is a good place to start. Of course, even in trying to do manners, you get people that go, [mocking] ‘I’ve got an internet account and I don’t like the fact that he wrote that. I’m gonna write everyone and I’m gonna tell ‘em that that’s not the kind of manners we used to have or the kind of manners that we oughta have.” We’re so devoted to this destructive commitment to individualism. We used to call it radical autonomy and that’s what it is. We are possessed of radical autonomy, thus all you journalists out there on Facebook.
End Mike Church Show Transcript