The middle of the show turns to technology, including surveillance tools, license plate readers and the broader feeling of living inside a modern panopticon. They debate AI from two angles, one seeing a disorienting shift in online life, the other arguing hype and limits, then connect it to the flood of low-quality content and what it is doing to creativity and culture.

In the final stretch, they walk through Iran and the nuclear deal basics, the long-running push for regime change, and how alliances and credibility shape U.S. influence abroad. They close with a sharp argument about war powers, constitutional limits and whether courts and Congress can still function as guardrails, followed by a practical reminder to build real community close to home.

0:00 Cold open and what the episode is about

1:15 Milestones, behind-the-scenes talk, and why they record the way they do

5:05 The day’s big breaking-news pivot

10:20 Information overload, attention whiplash, and tuning out

12:40 Trust, verification, and why people don’t believe what they see

17:35 The future of life online and why it feels disorienting

22:05 Privacy, surveillance, and how tracking is changing everyday life

26:15 AI anxiety vs AI reality and what people get wrong

29:20 The internet’s content quality problem and “AI slop”

31:30 Creativity, culture, and why modern media feels derivative

38:25 Where AI actually helps and the copyright debate

39:50 Middle East context and how big-power politics shapes events

46:50 Diplomacy vs hard power and the nuclear-enrichment conversation

56:20 Trade, alliances, and U.S. credibility abroad

1:01:05 Executive power, constitutional limits, and accountability

1:02:30 Courts, enforcement, and institutional stress tests

1:08:20 What happens next: economy, community, and staying grounded

1:26:10 Closing thoughts and sign-off

00:00 Intro & Holiday Banter

03:00 Year-End Reflections & Schedules

08:00 Jokes, Grievances & Festivus Vibes

13:00 Life Updates & Podcasting Behind the Scenes

20:00 Indianapolis Neighborhoods & Housing Market

28:00 City Development, Gentrification, and Sports Strategy

34:00 Public Projects, Taxpayer Money & Convention Economy

43:00 Transit, Traffic, and Urban Design Debates

52:00 Public Transportation & Challenges for the Poor

01:02:00 Funding Cuts, Private Solutions & PBS/NPR

01:10:00 Speculation, Tech Giants & Too Big to Fail

01:18:00 Renewable Energy, Land Use, & NIMBYism

01:24:00 American Preferences, Libertarian Values & Wealth Gaps

01:33:00 Final Thoughts, Historical Parallels & Farewell

“Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
James Madison, Federalist No. 10

Thanks to Rob Kendall (and Casey) of WIBC for having me on this morning to talk about redistricting.

In August, Texas redrew its congressional maps to maximize the number of Republican House seats at the behest of President Trump. This set off a chain of events that led to California, North Carolina, and four other states to redraw maps in the middle of the decade instead of the traditional decennial redistricting, thanks to reapportionment.

Now Indiana has had an intense debate over new maps. The new maps have been released, and they make Indiana look like Illinois. I have a keen interest in this due to my background as Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Indiana from 2008-2012. Much of my job was helping candidates and county parties deal with election law. Indiana is one of the rare states that is favorable to third-party candidates, for which I am grateful. There’s no greater expression of free speech than running for office, forming a party, or voting. Any attempt to limit ballot choices is an attack on the First Amendment.

Indiana cares about free speech, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t without problems. Straight ticket voting and maps drawn by politicians to maintain their power is the fruit of the poisonous tree when it comes to elections. Limited choices mean more people stay home because they don’t see their views represented on the ballot. The LPIN has consistently shown this in exit polling over the years. For instance, when Lucy Brenton ran for Senate in 2018, she split evenly between Democrats and Republicans at 2% each, but still won 9% of the vote. The idea of a Libertarian stealing votes has never held up under research.

That’s why voter participation is so low in Indiana. Voters don’t see their ideas on the ballot. Look at involvement in 2024.

Out of 4.9 million Hoosiers eligible to vote in 2024:

• 1.7 million voted Republican (35%)

• 1.16 million voted Democrat (24%)

• 90,000 voted for others (2%)

• 1.9 million didn’t vote (39%)

That means about one-third of the state now controls nearly all congressional power. Republicans hold seven of Indiana’s nine U.S. House seats and are considering new maps that could erase the last two Democratic districts.

Take a look at this chart from Planscore.

It shows the current maps are set for Republicans to win 60% of the vote share in the Congressional delegation and Democrats take 40%. That makes sense. Trump won 58% of the vote and Harris won 39% of the vote.

But the new plan shifts it from reasonable representation to 99% to 1%, giving them all nine seats because they’re rigging the vote. This is what the founders of the country worried about.

The whole American experiment rests on the idea that the people are the ones with the divine right now, not a king, not a party, not a handful of consultants in a room with a map. When a small group uses its temporary majority to cement permanent control, they are not acting like citizen servants, they are acting like the very monarchs we supposedly left behind.

It seems to me that the current plan for some in the GOP is to cheat instead of serve, as the Founders feared. So what is the alternative?

Todd Rokita showed it to us in 2009 with Rethinking Redistricting. He partnered with Common Cause to build this plan (I recall the Brennan Center was also involved). He took a big risk politically and drew maps in the style of an independent commission, and it made a lot of legislators mad.

This is a comparison of his maps with those recently released by the Republicans.

I was a vocal advocate for it. It would mean a fuller expression of free speech and representation, and more people would participate in the vote, which is not something the two parties actually want. They’ve spent a lot of money narrowing the information down to knowing exactly who votes, how, and how they can drive out their voters. If 39% of eligible voters show up, parties would not have had predictable results. The open secret is that maps are redrawn every decade in Indiana to limit competitiveness in the statehouse and Congressional districts, preserving resources. So only 2-5 districts across the House, Senate, and Congress are actually competitive, despite a total of 159 districts. God forbid they have to interview for their jobs! (Citizens United and the changing of politics from precinct-based to fundraising-based also plays a role here, but that’s a different topic for a different time.)

As I said on Election Eve in 2024, the choice for voters was for more of the same with Kamala Harris or something fundamentally new with Donald Trump. Still, neither represents the liberal, democratic, capitalistic vision of America that made our country so prosperous. The choice before Indiana Senators is between embracing the consent of the governed, the Declaration, and the Constitution, or something fundamentally un-American.

In summation, Todd Rokita was right in 2009, even if he disagrees with himself now.

Full PDF is here. This plan disappeared from the SOS website shortly after Rokita left and Charlie White took over. I saved it. White would eventually be charged and convicted of six felonies for voting in an incorrect district and had to resign, something the current SOS, Diego Morales, has been accused of. As of now, he’s faced no consequences for it.

So how do we solve this? What should people who care about the consent of the governed and freedom of speech advocate for?

The Problem:

1. The Current System Lets Politicians Pick Their Voters

Indiana legislators draw their own districts. This creates an obvious conflict of interest and allows districts to be engineered for political protection rather than public accountability.

2. Gerrymandering Splits Communities and Weakens Representation

Indiana maps routinely divide counties, cities, and neighborhoods, scattering people who share common interests.

3. Indiana Suffers From Low Competition and Uncontested Elections

Gerrymandering leads to safe seats and uncompetitive races. The original presentation noted that “40 percent of all legislative races lack major party opposition” and that half of Indiana House districts favor one party by more than 30 percent . When outcomes are predetermined, lawmakers have little incentive to listen to their constituents.

4. Oddly Shaped Districts Cause Confusion and Reduce Voter Trust

The current maps are so contorted that even state materials mock them as resembling objects rather than communities. This confusion undermines voter confidence and makes it harder for people to know who represents them. His document highlights this problem visually with districts described as “a spaceship” and “a staircase” .

The Solutions From Rethinking Redistricting:

The Rethinking Redistricting proposal emphasized four core principles:

• Do not use political data in drawing maps

• Keep communities of interest together

• Prioritize compact and uniform districts

• Respect county, city, and township boundaries whenever possible

These principles come directly from then Secretary of State Todd Rokitas’s criteria list, which states that “maps created without considering how particular voters voted… will be inherently more fair” and should follow organic community boundaries.

1. Nesting Simplifies Government and Reduces Costs

Nesting means pairing two House districts inside every Senate district. This change would reduce voter confusion, streamline ballot design, and make representation more straightforward to understand. The document showed that counties like Hamilton contained nine House districts and five Senate districts, a model that creates administrative chaos. The proposal cuts ballot styles in counties like Johnson by one third and in Elkhart by half .

2. Independent, Community-Driven Redistricting Is Possible

Other states already use criteria such as compactness, community boundaries, and nonpartisanship. The Indiana proposal relied on similar standards. The “What Could Have Been” maps demonstrate that fair districts are entirely legal and comply with the Voting Rights Act while keeping far fewer counties split apart. For example, the prototype reduces county splits in Indiana Senate districts from forty-eight to only twenty-one. Sadly, California is trying to kill its commission due to Trump and Texas’s attempt at mid-cycle redistricting.

3. Fair Maps Improve Accountability and Access

The presentation showed that redistricting reform would:

• Increase competition

• Improve accountability

• Make it easier for citizens to reach their lawmakers

• Reduce election costs and administrative burdens

4. Demographic Change Requires Better Tools

The Rethinking the Redistricting Toolbox article adds a national legal perspective. The authors note the growing complexity of multiracial communities and the decline of old racial voting patterns, which makes traditional tools harder to apply. Demographic diversity is increasing and requires new approaches to ensure fair representation for all racial and language groups .

5. Communities of Interest Are a Valid and Powerful Standard

Coalition districts and community-of-interest protections are increasingly used nationwide. There is a need to give communities of interest real definitional strength so they can be applied consistently in states like Indiana. As the plan says, “consideration of communities of interest is essential” and should be second only to constitutional requirements.

6. Without Reform, Race and Partisan Manipulation Will Get Worse

The overlap between race and party incentives means that both major parties can weaponize districts.

7. Fair Maps Protect Civil Liberties and Limit Government Abuse

For libertarians, redistricting reform is a structural check on government power. Fair maps reduce political entrenchment, protect minority viewpoints, and allow voters to influence their representation without state-engineered outcomes meaningfully.

Quite simply, we have to stop letting politicians cheat. Hoosier legislators are more afraid of Donald Trump than they are their own constituents. Why? Generations of politicians picking their voters instead of letting voters decide.

• Subscribe to the History of Modern Politics feed - ⁠https://link.chtbl.com/history-of-modern-politics⁠

• Join the Substack - ⁠https://www.historyofmodernpolitics.com/⁠

• Subscribe on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@historyofmodernpolitics5701⁠https://www.youtube.com/@historyofmodernpolitics5701⁠

YAR did the right thing by distancing itself from ugly comments, but don’t be surprised if they reverse course. A protection racket only works if everyone agrees not to hold each other accountable. That’s why the vice president is trying so hard to get them to do the wrong thing.

Republicans are all in on this strategy, and Democrats are heading that way too. Here in Indy, city-council Democrats are deeply concerned about corruption in the mayor’s office, but will they actually act on it? Or will they also choose the politics of party protection at all costs?

If politics is truly a form of public service, then parties must self-police to maintain their mission and preserve public trust. But for that to work, everyone has to agree that’s the goal.

My story is like a lot of yours. I fell for the war propaganda in 2003. I was angry that I was duped, and that anger is what led me to libertarianism after hearing Ron Paul speak in 2008. The militarization of American society since 2001 has never abated. The signs have always been there, and libertarians have always warned against them:

- Local police departments armed under the 1033 program

- The growing surveillance state revealed by Edward Snowden

- A continual war posture from the Department of Defense and politicians

- The repeated renewal of the Patriot Act and the AUMF

- The creation of Homeland Security, fusion centers, and the TSA

- The erosion of civil liberties, the rule of law, due process, indefinite detention, and free speech in the name of the War on Terror through places like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib

- The constant states of emergency declared for financial crises and COVID

- Unlimited spending to fund it all, which has debased our currency and led to massive inflation, forcing individuals and institutions into survival mode. Liberty is a luxury belief and only thrives in times of economic growth

- The idea that a government should never let a good crisis go to waste

- Wars with no real exit plan, creating a “Forever War” mentality

- Allowing our government to destabilize other countries without Congressional approval, which has fueled border crises here and abroad, and expanded border control agencies

Now the war is coming home. If you were a libertarian during that era, do you remember saying something like, “Our interventions create terrorists. When our military invades a country and kills innocents, it is only logical that the rational people living there will fight back.”? That same feedback loop is forming here, and it will reach our cities if we let it.

So while I applaud Trump’s efforts to bring peace to the Middle East, we have to be honest that he is not a peace president. We cannot ignore that he gave ICE a budget larger than the Marines, that his administration used Palantir to build an AI-powered surveillance state, and that our government is conditioning us to accept tanks in the streets as if we are under siege when one block in one city has only fifty protestors acting like fools.

I became a libertarian because I wanted America to be more peaceful, not just abroad but in America too. Every generation faces the temptation to trade liberty for security, and for its leaders to turn fear into justification for power.

To achieve peace, we need a good dose of R. Lee Wrights and 2012 libertarianism: declaring “I Am Not at War.”

Ron Paul stood up to militarism when it wasn’t popular, and that’s what we admired about him. It’s remarkable how many people later admitted he was right and wished they had listened. We are in that moment again. It’s not popular to speak out against a militarized society or a government on war-footing, but it’s the right thing to do. Hopefully, this time ends better than the half a million dead in Iraq. It’s our choice to make.

P.S. for the non-libertarians: The issue is power, not which party is in control. Whenever government force (monopolized violence) becomes the primary tool for achieving political or social goals, it leads to less personal freedom and more death. Until we repent of this vice and move toward a better way of organizing society (voluntaryism), we will continue to arrive at the same conclusion with any side in control.

On this episode of The Chris Spangle Show, we explore the history of individualism versus collectivism — from Socrates to the Stoics, from Christianity and the Reformation to Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill, and into the American founding. We also explore libertarian principles of ethical individualism, free speech, and personal responsibility, contrasting them with the dangers of conformity, censorship, and control inherent in collectivism.

What you’ll learn in this episode:

• Galileo’s trial and its impact on science and freedom

• How Christianity and the Reformation shaped individualism

• The Enlightenment’s role in liberty and natural rights

• Ethical individualism vs. collectivist control

• Why libertarians defend conscience, speech, and voluntary cooperation

⁠

• 00:00 Galileo vs. the Inquisition

• 01:49 The Rise of Heliocentrism

• 02:42 Courage, Individualism, & Libertarianism

• 03:33 What Is Individualism? Key Concepts

• 06:07 From Tribes to Individuals: History

• 07:36 Greek, Christian, and Enlightenment Roots

• 09:39 Individualism in America

• 10:39 Ethical Individualism Explained

• 13:39 Modern Challenges: Speech & Responsibility

• 15:31 Voluntary Association and Libertarianism

• 17:59 Political Individualism and Freedom

• 21:12 Collectivism vs. Individualism

• 24:03 Government Power and Group Identity

• 27:01 Case Study: Hong Kong’s Freedom Lost

• 28:59 Pros and Cons of Each Approach

• 30:06 Christian Critiques of Individualism

• 33:55 Expressive Individualism vs. Community

• 37:00 Individualism in Faith and Society

• 40:46 Voluntary Cooperation vs. Forced Conformity

• 41:45 The American Founding: A Radical Shift

• 45:42 Why Conscience and Principles Matter

• 47:00 Cancellations, Tribalism, and Consistency

• 51:00 Embracing Courage and Individual Thought

• 53:11 Be an Individual, Not Just a Follower

• 54:10 Outro & Final Thoughts

Been thinking a lot about religion as of late.

I believe in God, but am pretty damn secular. It’s been a long time since I considered myself an atheist and even longer since I was an anti-theist, but I don’t consider myself a Christian or anything. I get nervous when anyone tries to inject religion into public policy and roll my eyes at how a lot of evangelicals speak and act.

But despite not being religious? Seems society has benefitted from it in a way I didn’t quite appreciate in my cringe rebellious years.

Last week, I argued with a friend in my courtyard against biblical literalism, but he seems pretty happy and content in his beliefs and I should have had less sharp a tongue. This week, another close friend went to confession before going into surgery, because it gave him solace and strength.

Sounds like Kirk’s memorial was a revival of sorts. There were two memorable bits that were going around from it that shows a complete contrast between factions of the right. One, was Kirk’s widow fighting through tears as she exclaimed

“That man, that young man, I forgive him. I forgive him because it’s what Christ did—and it’s what Charlie would do.

The answer to hate is not hate. The answer—we know from the Gospel—is love. Always love. Love for our enemies. Love for those who persecute us.”

The other was the President of the United States, who immediately followed her, and showed his heart:

“He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them.

That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry. I am sorry, Erika. But now Erika can talk to me and the whole group, and maybe they can convince me that that’s not right, but I can’t stand my opponents.”

I used to think the effect of religion on the right was mostly negative. I used to associate it with the promotion of state prohibition against sinful acts that ain’t the government’s business, and that they should just leave to God what is God and Caesar what is Caesar’s.

But in the age of Trump, it seems more of a division of actual character. The MAGA wing drips with malice, stoking divisions and plotting it’s revenge on political opponents. It celebrates power and pushes it’s expansion. The social cons are a lot of things, but they ain’t that... and many of the never-Trumper Republicans have focused on his essential incompatibility with their faith.

On the left side of the aisle, in the wake of Kirk’s death? The worst I saw from my Christian leftist friends was after they said his death was a tragedy and murder was wrong, some of them followed it up with a “but”. That’s not even in the same ballpark as what we all saw from plenty in the non-religious left, essentially saying they hoped he was burning in a hell they didn’t even believe in while his body was still cold.

On my side of the aisle, separate from what I see as silly distinctions between “left” and “right” that make less sense by the day?

Seems most of the libertarians I know that are just edge lords and fanatics are downright opposed to religion as just another oppressive form of authority to rebel against. They promote liberty in a libertine-ish way, focusing on freedom but ignoring the personal responsibility and individual duty bits necessary in societies absent government action. These types reflect poorly on other libertarians and the ideals we wanna promote.

By contrast, most of the libertarians I know who are the most fair and respectful towards competing ideas and people who think differently than us, who actually make inroads with what the edge lords dismissively call “normies”? Who show decency rather than dismissiveness, and patience rather than pretense? Many if not most are unapologetically religious.

Chris Spangle has been working hard to improve his life through application of his faith, and has been open about that journey and touting the benefits to others. Hodey Johns is one of the most decent people on the internet, and has far more patience and grace than I ever do. I’ve had long talks with Spike Cohen about his newfound religion, as he’s been pushing more charity than an-cap-iness and focusing on what’s more important.

I don’t think religion is required to be a good person or to act right and proper, to let go of hate and love even one’s enemies. But it certainly seems to help plenty of people in that journey, and it doesn’t get nearly the credit it deserves.

Thanks for Gary for the kind words, and for noticing. I agree with his assessment, and he’s seeing the effect of being salt and light in the world. Faith has to come first as a libertarian, because it is the moral scaffolding needed to make it all work, but it is not necessarily part of the philosophy.

Libertarianism is not cultural. It is purely political, and it asks, “How much power should the government have, and how should it be used?” It usually answers, “None.” That is why many conservative libertarians reject it. They want to impose their culture on others.

Libertarianism is different from the other two teams that want to impose their worldview on others by force. Libertarianism is not for the insecure. It assumes that people are grown-ups and will voluntarily cooperate to solve problems once the agitator (government) has been removed from the equation. It empowers the third branch of society, civil society, to address most social ills. Business does that through profit, and it helps fund civil society. The state does it through force. (Some government is necessary for justice.)

This produces a pluralism in society where different belief systems are tolerated, which is objectionable to some. But as we have seen, it is either pluralism or war.

Christianity is true, and its adherents become better people through the act of self-sacrifice and service, thanks to God’s grace and power. In turn, this makes society better.

Christ does not need politics to make change. To think otherwise is to put humans in charge instead of God, which is pride.

Christianity is not the domination of man over man but the submission of man to God. The real battle is not against “them” but against the pride, anger, and selfishness that live within each of us, and only by grace through Christ’s finished work on the cross can that battle be won. When Christ rules the heart, it produces freedom, the freedom to serve, to forgive, and to bring peace where conflict once reigned. Christians stand as a bulwark against evil by embodying the self-giving love of Christ in a broken world.

Jesus disappointed many Jews in the first century because He didn’t come to overthrow the Roman government. Instead, He exercised His authority through teaching (storytelling), miracles, and persuasion, not force. He called people to love God, love their neighbors, serve the poor, and make disciples of all nations. Everybody’s got a choice, and I’m going with Jesus.

• Lockdowns arbitrarily shut down businesses, destroying livelihoods while favoring large corporations.

• Trillions in new spending fueled inflation and left the next generation burdened with debt.

• Schools were closed by decree, forcing ineffective remote learning and harming children’s development.

• Teens boys critical years of in-person education, leaving many behind socially and academically. (Girls too, but data shows a steeper impact in boys)

• The constantly shifting rules revealed a political expediency rather than scientific consistency.

• Stay-at-home orders stripped individuals of the right to assess and manage their own risk.

• Watched friends and families celebrate the death of vaccine deniers.

• “Essential” vs. “non-essential” designations devalued entire industries and workers overnight.

• Mask mandates enforced uniform compliance regardless of personal choice or health context.

• Vaccine mandates tied employment, travel, and daily life to private medical decisions.

• Riots were often excused or downplayed by leaders, while ordinary people were fined or arrested for minor infractions, such as attending church or opening a barbershop.

• Watching cities burn while being told their own gatherings were “unsafe” taught young people that rules were applied selectively and politics mattered more than fairness.

• Emergency powers allowed executives to rule unchecked with little legislative oversight.

• Governments pressured social media platforms to censor dissent and police debate.

• Labeling alternate viewpoints as “misinformation” stifled open inquiry and scientific humility.

• Fear was weaponized culturally, sewing distrust at best, and at worst, turning neighbors into informants and scolds.

• People were shamed and ostracized for not complying perfectly with mandates.

• Sports and extracurricular activities were canceled, depriving boys of structure, discipline, and male mentorship.

• Gyms and recreational outlets were closed, fueling sedentary habits and mental health struggles.

• Dating and social life shut down, leaving young men isolated during formative years.

• Video games and pornography filled the gap, deepening loneliness and addictive behaviors.

• Milestones like graduations, first jobs, and rites of passage were erased or delayed, stunting maturity.

• Many boys watched their parents lose businesses or jobs, teaching them that their future was precarious.

• The message drilled into young men was that their ambitions, energy, and risk-taking were “non-essential.”

• Social media platforms cracked down on memes and jokes, stripping away the humor that boys used to cope.

• Their favorite YouTubers and podcasters were demonetized, deplatformed, or banned for questioning the narrative.

• Online spaces that once felt free have become policed speech zones, teaching young men that even laughter can get punished.

• Blind deference to “experts” replaced individual judgment and common sense.

• Citizens were divided into moral tribes of “compliant” vs. “selfish” based on vaccination status.

• Families and friendships were fractured over differing COVID-19 responses and beliefs.

• Surveillance tools, such as QR codes and tracking apps, have become normalized in everyday life.

• Panic justified coercion, leaving behind division, distrust, and dependency.

So yeah. Not a total mystery. There’s a tradeoff for every public policy choice, and nothing exists in a vacuum.

At speeches on college campuses in 2016/2017, I started seeing the shift towards Christianity in students compared to my generation, especially towards Catholicism which has a lot of structure and order.

• Christianity offered stability when government rules kept shifting week to week.

• Christianity gave purpose when sports, school, and work were stripped away.

• Christianity provided a sense of community when friendships and social life collapsed into isolation.

• Christianity exemplified courage and responsibility when society at the time encouraged them to remain passive and compliant.

• Christianity preached hope when the only message on the news was fear and death counts.

The free speech wars on campuses drove many people to online media, and every time a host was kicked off a platform, it increased their popularity.

So, when COVID hit the country, the choices made confirmed what conflict entrepreneurs had told them.

But now the optimism of a new world has worn off, and a lot of those guys are realizing that there isn’t a political solution. They’re looking for something else.

📖 Books

• The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

📚 Bible Reading

• Start with the Gospel of John

• Then read Romans

• Afterward, read Genesis or continue through the New Testament

📖 Study Bibles

• ESV Study Bible

• Life Application Study Bible

• Zondervan Study Bible

• Tony Evans Bible Commentary

🎥 / 📺 Media & Learning Tools

• The Bible Project (website and YouTube channel)

🎙️ Podcasts & Teachers

• Renewing Your Mind with R.C. Sproul

• Tim Keller (Gospel in Life)

• Matt Chandler – The Village Church Podcast

• Insight for Living with Chuck Swindoll

• Unashamed with Phil Robertson

At our peak, we reached 10,000 listeners per episode and brought in $2,500 a month. Then a couple of memes wiped out the group that had been our main pipeline for new listeners and donors. I can show the direct correlation between losing that group and the decline of Patreon, which made it clear the model was not sustainable long term. It did not matter how careful or respectful I tried to be. The Biden administration had “jawboned” social media companies, leaning on them in a Tony Soprano kind of way, and those companies rolled out ham-fisted AI solutions with no recourse.

So forgive me if I do not believe Democrats are suddenly champions of free speech, when the next administration will almost certainly repeat what Biden and Trump have already done. I would love to hear someone say, “We got that wrong, and we are recommitting to these principles,” but I will not hold my breath.

And yes, I see the hypocrisy of Republicans becoming “the libs” just to own the libs, and I find it disturbing.

Still, I will keep playing the fool who points back to the best foundations for a free society, knowing most people will not listen.

To learn more or attend the upcoming Project Civility Summit, visit ⁠projectcivility.com⁠.

Christ calls us to a radical position: reject the hierarchies of this world and embrace love instead, practiced by looking inward and rooting out the evil in our own hearts instead of finding comfort in contempt.

Pride builds hierarchies of who’s above and who’s below. Love dismantles them by placing everyone at the foot of the cross, equally in need of grace.

This is for you and me, not just them.