Ep. 425 – How to Disagree Without Losing Your Humanity, with Wilk Wilkinson

[00:00:03] Voiceover: Welcome to the show that gets Christians thinking about faith and politics. Get ready to challenge the status quo. Expand your imagination and tackle controversy head on. Let’s stand together at the intersection of faith and freedom. It’s time for the Libertarian Christian podcast.

[00:00:22] Cody Cook: Greetings. You’re listening to the Libertarian Christian Podcast, a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute and a member of the Christians for Liberty network. We have with us today Will Wilkinson, creator and host of the Derate the Hate podcast and director of Media Systems and operations at Braver Angels. How are you doing? Welcome.

[00:00:40] Will Wilkinson: I am very good. Cody. I appreciate the opportunity to join you today.

[00:00:45] Cody Cook: Yeah, well, I appreciate you being here. So maybe before we talk about Braver angels, which maybe some folks are familiar with, but maybe not, maybe I’ll just ask you a quick, quick question about your podcast. Do you rate the hate and is it connected in any way with the work at Braver Angels?

[00:00:58] Will Wilkinson: It is now. So it now it is, is, uh, you know, produced in collaboration with. Because now I am an actual employee of the Braver Angels organization. So, uh, I brought that with me when I came on, uh, staff at Braver Angels. It it still belongs to me, but it’s produced in collaboration with Braver Angels now.

[00:01:21] Cody Cook: So cool. Well, and what is Braver Angels, exactly? And how did you get involved with it?

[00:01:26] Will Wilkinson: So Braver Angels is America’s largest cross-partisan grassroots organization working towards a movement to bridge partizan divides and, uh, seek civic renewal. So, uh, and some people might ask, you know, what’s a partizan divide or civic renewal? What does that even mean? Uh, but the reality is, is we live in some very polarized times. Uh, I think last year, Merriam-Webster said polarization was their top word, or depolarization was one of their top words. What it is, is, is, you know, Partizan politics has gotten to be so toxic. We’ve seen these these, you know, these fissures, these divides grow, uh, whether it be in our communities, sometimes in our families, uh, certainly in our politics. And, uh, and, you know, it’s starting to affect more than just our politics. Right? So, uh, civic renewal is, is the idea that we can come together with people that we disagree with and find a way to disagree? Better not always to come to some squishy common ground or or, you know, milquetoast middle, but come together, have conversations about what we do disagree upon, where we cannot find common ground. We can actually have that conversation in a non contentious way.

[00:02:49] Cody Cook: So folks that I know, uh, Braver Angels have talked about, you know, sort of a maybe an aha moment or story, something that they sort of saw at a Braver Angels event that made them sort of go, okay, this makes sense. This is good. We need to be doing more of this. Was there something like that for you that you saw?

[00:03:05] Will Wilkinson: So for me, in my personal story, my my experience, Cody, it was it was more just actually seeing what they were, were trying to do and knowing that I wanted to be part of that. Uh, there wasn’t really an aha moment for me because I could see the ugliness. I mean, I had already started, uh, the Derate the Hate podcast. Uh, well, before I knew, uh, you know, what Braver Angels was or what they were doing. Uh, I had already seen all of the ugliness, uh, in our media, in our politics, uh, social media. Uh, I was experiencing that kind of thing. And I was already in, in many ways, working myself out of that, you know, kind of toxic keyboard warrior mentality. Um, my my my podcast was focusing a lot on mindset, a little on politics, a little on that toxic media environment. But, uh, uh, you know, it was it was always there. And, and when this thing, you know, when the, when the ambassadors for Braver Angels, uh, came to me and said, hey, we’d like to talk on your podcast about this organization. Uh, the day that I heard about it, I signed up for it because I knew how important it was, uh, for everybody individually, uh, you know, which is a lot of what I was talking about is bettering the world one attitude at a time. So everybody has an individual, but more so for the future of our country and the legacy that we’re leaving for our children.

[00:04:45] Cody Cook: Gotcha. Well, so I’ve participated in some brave, braver angels events myself. I think when I was first aware of it and connected a little bit with it, was when they were called Better Angels. And I think there was some which comes from from the Abraham Lincoln quote, the better angels of our nature. Yes. And I think there was some, some question about the, the, the copyright on the term. And so I think Braver Angels is part of the it was sort of part of a compromise, but it also sort of fits with the idea of, I think, being willing to sort of have these difficult conversations and to do it in a way where you actually have to be a little bit vulnerable and consider the other side, which can be kind of, you know, painful and difficult when you’re so attached to your ideology. Right. Um, and so, you know, I’m really sympathetic to what you guys are doing and helping people who disagree to, you know, see the humanity in each other and argue in good faith. Um, and as a libertarian, I consider myself maybe an ideologically radical but temperamentally moderate.

[00:05:46] Cody Cook: You know, I enjoy talking to to my Democrat and Republican friends, and I don’t think they’re inherently bad people. Um, but I do think that what what they’re both advocating that violence is acceptable to use against peaceful people through the state, through things like the drug war and taxation and draconian immigration policy, tariffs, the like. Those aren’t necessarily those really shouldn’t be seen as agree to disagree issues. You know, when we’re talking about, um, using violence, whether whether you use it through the democratic process or whether you just sort of show up with a molotov cocktail, um, you’re still the same. We’re still talking about violence, right? So because of that, I can I can sort of talk to them about their points of view. I can be friendly. I can respect their sincerity, their good intentions, their humanity. Um, but at some level, I guess I really do think that sometimes what they’re advocating is evil. And so how does how does Braver Angels address the concerns you froze up there? What’s that?

[00:06:41] Will Wilkinson: Hang on one second, Cody. You froze up there on me, so I missed. Missed some of what you were saying. So? So you. The last thing you said that I heard was, um. Uh, in some ways, I see what they’re doing is advocating for evil. So go ahead and take it from there.

[00:06:55] Cody Cook: Okay, great. I’ll start that. Uh, so my question is, how does Braver Angels address the concerns of someone like me, someone who wants friendly dialog, who doesn’t like the temper, and the kind of just the, you know, the mistrust, the dehumanization. Um, but I but I also don’t want to be seen as giving legitimacy to views that I actually do think are violent and immoral. And I don’t want to feign a belief in moral neutrality. You kind of talked earlier about how we’re not really trying to find the squishy middle, which is what I would sort of see as that kind of belief in moral neutrality, that we’re just going to kind of. So, so anyway, that’s a long question, but they basically I guess the base of it is when you when you do sort of worry about compromising on what you think is important. Um, can we can we still just braver? Angels still have tools for us to to set that aside, but figure out ways to communicate better anyway and to see the humanity in each other?

[00:07:54] Will Wilkinson: Yeah. So absolutely. I mean, first of all, that a phenomenal question. A very well thought through question. I think there’s a lot to unpack there, Cody. And and if you may or if I may, um, I want to kind of try to answer it in a couple of different ways. So so first of all, you know, one of the things that I want to say personally is, you know, having the conversation, engaging in that dialog, in my personal opinion, does not mean I’m actually legitimizing somebody else’s point of view or or somehow allowing myself to compromise my own convictions in, you know, in engaging in that dialog. I mean, I want to say that first of all, because, uh, it’s it’s important for the concept of of of bridge building and being able to work through certain things that that we we understand that the dialog itself does not mean legitimizing, uh, other people’s, you know, points of view on certain things. Like, like I understand you discussed, you know, the the drug war or taxation, some of those things as being evil and, and, you know, whether I agree or disagree with that concept, I can understand how one might get there, you know, and and so but one of the big things, you know, one of the, one of the, the things that is is often said at Braver Angels.

[00:09:28] Will Wilkinson: And one of the core tenets of the Braver Way is that, uh, you know, we, we engage in dialog and find common ground where we can we, we want everybody to speak freely, fully, without fear. You know, you talked about the idea of Braver Angels. The importance of that word braver is very important in the sense that speaking freely, fully, without fear, being able to express what your viewpoint on a particular thing is, is hugely important and hugely important to that dialog. But then the other thing is the idea that we come together, we engage in a way that we understand that we all have our blind spots, but not one of us is not worth talking to. So. So when we think about all of those things, Cody, I mean, I, I’m, I’m just I’m just saying that that we can look at somebody or come together with somebody and believe that they are completely and totally morally wrong on a particular opinion. But I think it’s more important. And the structure of Braver Angels is built in such a way that we are able to come together, have that common ground in the sense that we’re going to come together with kind of a pro-humanity stance, understanding that we may see things completely different.

[00:10:50] Will Wilkinson: We are not trying to find that squishy common ground. So I’m not going to try to compromise with somebody on something that my morality, my moral convictions, are completely in contrast to. I don’t see that as being the thing. What’s more important is using that dialog, using that structure to have that conversation in a way with them, to find out how they came to believe, what they believe, how they came to get to where they are in their moral convictions, that they are okay with something like that. So it’s not a matter of, you know, trying to find forced compromise. That’s just not that’s just not the way it is. That’s not what the structure is built for. You know, if we find common ground, Great. If we find out why they came to believe what they believe, that’s even better. Because if we are not having the dialog and everything remains in a way where we are stuck in our own silos, and then we don’t even get to know who those people are or why they believe what they believe that us versus them thing continues to grow. And as that continues to grow as one of the one of the greatest people in Braver Angels history, Monica Guzman. Like she says, those who are underrepresented in our life will be overrepresented in our minds and our imaginations if we are not having those conversations, if we are not engaging in that dialog, they are becoming more, uh, overrepresented in our minds, in our imaginations.

[00:12:28] Will Wilkinson: And it’s often not in a good way, I would say most often not in a good way. What happens then, Cody, is what we do is the fear of those people grow our anger towards those people grow. Anger leads to hate, and then hate turns to violence. So while you may think or while your your position on it is, the drug war is evil. So I’m not going to speak with people who are in support of the drug war or taxation is evil. So I’m not going to speak with people who are in favor of taxation. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If we don’t engage in that dialog, the end result will often become real violence real, and violence between people who are probably not even involved in it in the first place. So this is not to discount any of those moral convictions or or to legitimize that point of view of those people who have other moral convictions. What it is, is it’s a matter of having that dialog. So at least we aren’t stuck in our own silos and we can understand the other side.

[00:13:39] Cody Cook: Yeah. And I think, you know, generally speaking, people you disagree with, even if their views are bad, um, they’re not necessarily bad people. And so. Yeah. And there’s I think there’s also value if you want to change people’s minds in being able to understand what they’re saying and accurately represent that represent what they’re saying, instead of just sort of, you know, trotting out a parody of their viewpoint. So there’s a lot of value there, too. Um, do you feel like there are limits, though, to what this kind of dialog can accomplish? Could could you do a brave or angel session, uh, where someone is actually like a neo-Nazi? You know, I mean, Daryl Davis is a good example of somebody who’s done this. This a black man who befriended Klansmen and pulled a lot of people out of the Klan. Um, I mean, do you do you think, though, that there are there can be some limits to those kind of things? Or do you think we can sort of talk to and listen to to anybody?

[00:14:28] Will Wilkinson: So I happen to be very good friends with Daryl Davis and with Jeff Schoep. Jeff Schoep is the the former head of the neo-Nazi party in the United States, the former head of the NSM. Uh, his his journey towards redemption and and becoming a deradicalisation expert expert uh, was the in large part to meeting Daryl Davis. Uh, I’m friends with both of them. They’ve both been on my podcast multiple times. That story is one of the most inspirational stories that anybody could ever hear. It’s it’s a fantastic example of the importance of dialog with those who are diametrically opposed to, uh, diametrically opposed to to who we are. Do I think that there are limits as to I mean, I think it is it is very difficult to, uh, look at anybody in a particular light and say, there is no way that we could actually have a conversation with this person because they they are some demonic being, right? I mean, I believe, uh, wholeheartedly, Cody, that there are people on this planet who are basically demonic and, and they they have no place in a civilized society. I do believe that that’s true. But I also believe that there is is a lesson that can be learned from all people in all things. So while I don’t believe all people should just be walking around free, I do believe that there is a time to be able to have that conversation.

[00:16:08] Will Wilkinson: Not that I’m going to find common ground with that particular person who may actually be evil incarnate, but there may be a time where we could have that conversation. Try to learn from that person. And as long as we engage in that dialog, we may be able to learn enough that we can help somebody else before they get to that point. So I don’t know if that answers your question exactly, because not everybody can be caught and not everybody can be reformed the way that, uh, that Jeff Schoep was able to be reformed in part by Daryl Davis. But had that conversation never happened. What would have been the residual effects of that, the downstream effects of that had just continued on the path that he was on? Uh, you know, he, he there were multiple attempts made on his life. He was recruiting people into the movement. You know, things like that. What are the downstream effects of that? And what would the, uh what would the cost be had that not happened? I mean, it’s hard to say what the butterfly effect on anything is, but the reality is, if we don’t have the conversation, we know that the good that could come downstream from it won’t happen.

[00:17:24] Cody Cook: So there may be some people who are too far gone. But Daryl Davis and, you know, the apostle Paul prefer that you actually don’t know where that line is. Somebody may seem too far gone, but might not actually be.

[00:17:35] Will Wilkinson: That is right. That is right. That’s for God to decide.

[00:17:38] Cody Cook: Right. Well, so, you know, there’s a lot of social psychology that seems to be concluding that people don’t usually change their minds because they hear a good argument or get new information. As somebody who’s very rationalistic, like myself, was really distressing to find out, um, that people generally change their minds for emotional reasons. And often those reasons are rooted in what some people call the lizard brain. That kind of primitive part of your brain that that’s afraid of them, the idea of them in response to threats, real and imagined and, you know, Braver Angels appeals to other emotions. It brings people together so that they get to the humanity in each other and stop stereotyping. Um, and so I guess my question is, is that kind of emotional appeal more difficult to scale than that kind of lizard brain, primitive kind of fear of danger. In other words, isn’t fear more effective than love? And if so, is that an argument against using the bravery angels approach? If you want to get things done? Like if you actually are out there trying to create policy or get attract people to your YouTube page or your podcast, um, shouldn’t you be using, uh, you know, uh uh, like the, the old, uh, Lyndon B. Johnson ad where there’s a little girl playing outside with a flower and then a nuclear bomb drops and they’re like, don’t vote for, um, uh oh, gosh. What was his name there? Barry Goldwater? Don’t vote Goldwater, right? Yeah.

[00:18:57] Will Wilkinson: Right.

[00:18:57] Cody Cook: Right. Approach. More effective. Shouldn’t we be using that if we want to get attention and be do something?

[00:19:02] Will Wilkinson: Well, I, I have to answer that in this way because it’s I think it’s a phenomenal question. And, and, and people have often asked me, uh, you know, similar things in the sense that and that’s, it’s that’s actually in part why I came up with the concept of the FOG model. Cody. Uh, many times. People in our politics, people in our media. Grievance grifters and outrage. Entrepreneurs online and social media will use fear, outrage and grievance to uh, in invoke an emotional response from people. And that emotional response generates more clicks and and and things than, uh. Well, I’ll use your word, the love model. Right? Um, it it it fear will keep people coming back a lot quicker, for whatever reason than love. And I think that’s an unfortunate thing, but it does not change the motivation. And it does not, uh, like for me, if I was going to start using fear, outrage and grievance to try and prove my point, uh, I, I, I’m then compromising my principles on, on on what I’m trying to do, and then doing something that stands in contrast to the ultimate goal I’m trying to achieve. And that is that that we need to bring people back together. So I understand the question and I appreciate the question, but the reality is this, yes, it is more difficult. It is far more difficult for us. And that’s that’s why you see us, you know, not nearly as many people online doing what I do as the outrage entrepreneurs and the grievance grifters that are out there trying to keep us separated. I mean, that’s just a fact. It’s a natural fact. And then the followings between each are much, much different. Right. Uh, the demographics are different, the followings are different. The amount of clicks and and revenue generated is very different.

[00:21:06] Will Wilkinson: Right. But but the reality is this is I am not here to, uh, try and change anybody’s minds On a particular topic. I mean, I certainly have my I certainly have my own stance on many things political and about those, uh, time and time again, uh, as far as you know, if people ask me, I will say or I will tell them, but but with my podcast and my work with Braver Angels, I’m not out here trying to change people’s minds on the issues. I’m trying to open people’s minds to the idea that there’s a better way to engage in these conversations. In a way, now, I would I would say that when it comes to the fear, outrage and grievance model that I referred to a couple minutes ago, uh, that works great for a particular person, uh, for a particular person’s base and somebody who already agrees with you anyway on a particular thing. That is one thing, right? Um, it’s probably not changing anybody’s mind because those particular tactics, those ugly memes, those those outrage based, uh, posts, those things, they are probably just going to make the other or not probably most often just going to make the other person or the other side angry. Their ears are going to slam shut and they’re not listening anyway. So it’s not really accomplishing anything in the sense that it’s moving the needle, uh, on that political spectrum, on a particular topic. What it’s doing is it’s firing up the base. It’s pissing off the other side a lot more than it than it, you know, than than anything else would. And what it’s doing is it’s increasing the amount of disgust at that very exhausted majority in the middle.

[00:23:12] Cody Cook: Yeah, that’s that’s a good thought. Well, so I’ll. I don’t know if this is pushback. Maybe just just sort of give an example. Um, I’ll give a personal example before I ask this next question. Um, so, you know, I, I believe in arguing in good faith and I try to represent the other side, but but I also sometimes will share, you know, sort of sarcastic political memes and pithy posts if I think the critique is a fair one. And, um, I recently got some pushback for a social media post that I made, and one of the critiques had suggested, well, you know, social media political posts are just inherently unproductive. And I’ve been thinking a lot about that pushback because I obviously don’t push people further away from position. I’m hoping they’ll consider. Um, and I also want to model Christian love. I want to, you know, do something that I think is glorifying to God. So, um, but I do think that pithy political posts can be effective or else pundits wouldn’t utilize them. Now, there’s I think you brought up a good point, which is, well, maybe they’re effective for changing other people’s minds, but for just exciting the base.

[00:24:15] Cody Cook: And I think there’s definitely some truth to that. But we also, you know, it seems to me that we’ve also had a lot of shifts because of these kind of pithy memes and stuff like that. I mean, you know, just, you know, 20 years ago, people weren’t going around saying that the earth is flat and the moon is fake and gay, quote unquote. Uh, and, you know, and they certainly aren’t saying it now because they read it and they Yuval Levin book. Um, and so, you know, that suggests to me that this kind of really pithy, um, you know, uh, sort of approach, social media approach has actually been sort of effective. And since I can’t be the only I can’t be the only, uh, politico who’s kind of a smart aleck online. I think I can ask on behalf of a lot of other listeners, is it misguided to comment on political issues on social media, or is there a way to do it effectively and in good faith?

[00:25:05] Will Wilkinson: Yeah, I don’t think it’s ineffective necessarily. I mean, I think, I mean, I think social media can be a great avenue for engaging in, uh, political dialog and even the occasional, you know, pithy or sarcastic, uh, style meme that that is out there. I mean, some of them are very funny. I mean, I’m not going to lie, I don’t, uh, you know, when I see some of these things, you know, I don’t turn up my nose and say, how dare they? You know, it’s it’s I mean, I laugh at some of them as well, but, I mean, as far as the effectiveness of them. Right. I mean, is it really effective or is it the appearance of effectiveness? And that is a question that I would ask because, you know, right now we live in a time where where the rules have really all changed and, and the things that we used to believe, uh, have, have now been disproven in, in a lot of ways. And, and, and I think that, you know, people often, uh, are kind of misled to believe about a certain amount of effectiveness of certain things, just in the sense that that, um, our, our bubbles are I don’t even want to say bubbles, but the amount of things that we see, uh, because of, of of the growth of our, uh, of our, our field of view now, um, with the onset of the internet and social media and things.

[00:26:42] Will Wilkinson: Right. So, uh, it used to be, uh, a person growing up in a town of 2000 people, you know, might know just about everybody in town for the most part, certainly everybody within their age bracket and and maybe their parents age bracket and a few people within their grandparents age bracket and things like that. But but, I mean, it just was not a huge pool, right? But now being online now, there’s the this massive amount of people and they’re, they’re the velocity with which that information is coming at them. And the velocity with which they can put out information is so much larger. So while, you know, while in their their original bubble or the bubble, like back when I was a kid in the late 70s and early 80s, that original bubble may, you know, if, if, if 5% of the people I knew agreed with a particular thing or I could make 5% or 10% or 20% of the people I knew believe a particular thing, it was a pretty small number, you know, so so it seemed pretty ineffective. But now in this, in this toxic internet ecosystem that, that so many of us spend so much time in. Now, you know, that that pool that used to be 2000 now might be 500,000 and that 10% is now 50,000.

[00:28:08] Will Wilkinson: So it’s like, okay, well that was pretty effective. You know, then as a percentage, it probably wasn’t any more effective. But it certainly seems more effective because there’s so many more people in the pool. I don’t know if if, you know, and I’m just throwing out those numbers. So there’s no you know, I’m just pulling those numbers out of the air. But I think about that kind of thing because I think about, is it really effective or is it the appearance of effectiveness? Uh, because the size of the pool has changed and, and the, the, the number of people that can be reached and the velocity of, of information that can be put out there is so much higher. So I think, I think it could be more of an appearance thing than an actual thing. I don’t know if it’s actually effective. Uh, but I will say back to your original question that it is much harder, uh, to, to do this kind of work than to use that fear, outrage grievance model. And, uh, but no, I’m not going to hold it against anybody for once in a while, responding to or liking and following or sharing a pithy or sarcastic political meme. I think it’s important that we still engage in dialog. Just be prepared to have the dialog. That’s the important part.

[00:29:28] Cody Cook: Well that’s good. Yeah. I mean, I mean, I think, um, I don’t know exactly what your affiliations are as a libertarian. What I’d say is, I mean, I’ve noticed and I think this is a story a lot of other people who are who become libertarians, you know, we’re probably not in any danger of becoming the majority view in America anytime soon. Uh, but, um, we’ve we’ve kind of had different. There’s I think everybody sort of has I don’t want to say this. It’s kind of a multi-pronged approach sometimes to changing your mind. You know, you might read a book, you might watch a video, you might read an article and you might see a meme. Right. And and I think the the the what’s, you know, I feel like I’ve been bringing up, um, um, the, uh, Neil Postman a lot lately who wrote the book “Amusing Ourselves to Death” about media criticism. And his critique was that in the TV age that our whole kind of way of of thinking and dialoging and engaging with the world had been, um, you know what I’m looking for? Um, and I I’ll say this becomes stupid because we were sort of really focusing on like kind of TV soundbites as opposed to, like, reading, you know, like sort of a sustained argument that you sort of get in a book.

[00:30:46] Cody Cook: Um, and then I think that there’s a lot of value to that, but I guess there also have a little bit of a concern that, well, if we abandon some of these, um, kind of pithier approaches, um, what we’ve sort of done is we’ve we’ve given them over to people who are going to use them for, for evil. Right. And so like, I don’t I don’t entirely want to do that, but I do want to think a little bit more about ways to use it that’s effective, but also not dehumanizing. And I think part of the trouble with being pithy is you have to, you know, you it does eliminate nuance, right? And so I’ve seen before where someone will come on and say, well, yes, but not all or, you know, and it’s like, well, of course, yes, we’d understand that, but, but, but, but maybe we don’t all understand that, right?

[00:31:34] Will Wilkinson: No, no we don’t. And so we don’t. And and and I I’m sorry if I interrupt here.

[00:31:40] Cody Cook: Yeah.

[00:31:41] Will Wilkinson: Yeah. So I’m sorry if I interrupt but but the but I think, I think a good point is made there in that, you know, being critical of a particular stance or a particular topic or a particular thing. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that being very critical or pithy or sarcastic. You know, on, on, on the, the basis of a particular topic I think is fair game. It’s, it’s when we start to personalize it and attack the person instead of the, uh, the subject or attack the person instead of the policy. That’s when it starts to, you know, to to become a problematic thing for me. Um, I think I think there’s a lot to be said for the idea of, of criticizing a particular topic. And I think it can be done in a way that we are not, you know, criticizing the the person who holds that particular belief or holds that that particular stance on a, on an issue. I mean, I think that’s fine. And I think you can actually make some ground in, uh, changing people’s minds Lines, as long as it’s not coming across as, you know, holier than thou or or some kind of, um, you know, some some kind of, you know, uh, rules for thee, but not for me, uh, kind of way. Right. Uh, I think it’s I think it’s important to understand that I think libertarianism, uh, holds a lot of merit.

[00:33:17] Will Wilkinson: You know, and I think if if you know, me being a conservative guy with libertarian leaning, uh, you know, certainly a Christian conservative with libertarian leaning, I mean, I can certainly sympathize with that stuff in a lot of ways. You know, the idea that that both parties right now seem to be moving closer to in different ways, in many ways, but closer to, uh, you know, big government, uh, you know, I, I don’t even think the big government, big government conservatism, uh, is, is a or should be a thing, but it is, or seems to be, uh, in many people’s eyes. And and, you know, big government progressivism is just kind of what it is. But but, you know, so I think libertarianism has a lot of merit. Um, but I but I also see that there’s huge importance in, uh, in a civil society and having a, a government that can protect the individual from undue force and fraud, and that requires certain things. But, you know, kind of taking that back to the idea that that, you know, how do we, uh, how do we change people’s minds on certain things? If it requires a little sarcasm, that’s fine. If you start to attack the person, their ears are going to slam shut. If you attack the policy, it might make them think so.

[00:34:43] Cody Cook: So then, you know when when I think I picked on Candace Owens earlier. So I’ll pick on her again. Uh, so when Candace Owens sort of comes out and is sort of saying, you know, giving these sort of, uh, you know, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Satanic Jewish pedophiles or whatever, I can’t just say to somebody, well, that’s stupid. Do I have to do. Do I have to do research and provide a sustained argument for for why she’s wrong? Uh.

[00:35:09] Will Wilkinson: Well, uh, you know I can’t. Candace Owens is an interesting test case, right? And and and, uh.

[00:35:19] Cody Cook: Does she break the Braver Angels model?

[00:35:21] Will Wilkinson: I well, well, she she’s I, you know, I don’t know enough about Candace Owens anymore to, um, to to be able to to speak effectively on on many of the things that she’s saying these days. Um, I, uh, unfortunately, there are certain people that and they, they just, for whatever reason, get it in their minds that that, um, they’re going to go down a certain path and, and, and would, would rather kind of attack, uh, people to, to as a means to, uh, gain fame. I don’t like to ascribe motives to people. Um, but but there are there are people out there that, that, that say some, some pretty awful things, uh, people into, um, into, into certain buckets, certain boxes, put labels on them and, and then and then ascribe motives to them. I don’t, I don’t particularly care for that. Not that I wouldn’t have a conversation with that person or, or try to figure out where they’ve come from on a particular thing. I think a lot of that stuff is is fairly easily disprovable, and I think there’s probably a way to do it. Um, sometimes those people, I will tell you, and this is a good point, that you bring up Cody, because there are going to be times, I mean, you know, if, if, uh, and this this comes a lot from, from conversations I’ve had with my, my good friend Daniel Darling.

[00:37:01] Will Wilkinson: And many people in your audience will know who Daniel Darling is, but but, uh, um, you know, there does come a time when you’re having a conversation with somebody and you realize, I mean, you don’t have to be a martyr for your cause, and and nobody at Braver Angels is asking people to be a martyr for their cause and, and say, well, I’m going to sit here and just take a beating from this person because because there has to be a certain amount of, of, you know, of good faith, uh, on either side and, and, you know, but nobody’s going to start fact checking anybody or anything like that. So, so we have to we have to understand that, you know, if at some point in a conversation and these are structured conversations, you know, at some point in the The conversation. If you realize that that that it’s really not going anywhere constructive and, and and it’s just it’s starting to make you feel like you need a shower because it’s so, you know, ugly, you know, it’s sometimes it’s better just to say, look, I, you know, I can appreciate that you believe what you believe. I’m probably not going to get there. And I don’t think this conversation is accomplishing anything constructive. Maybe it’s better we just kind of walk away at this point and then understanding that at that point it’s not time for for a rebuttal or anything else.

[00:38:17] Will Wilkinson: It’s just kind of, you know, part ways. Um, because there are times when we have conversations with people. I mean, I know you use Candace as a as an example. I used to, you know, me personally, and this is just me talking. I used to admire a lot of the work that she was doing, and a lot of the things that she was saying, um, the things that I’ve seen and heard from her lately, probably not so much. And, and, you know, it’d be interesting to find out. You know what got her to where she is now? You know what those those motives are. But I don’t like to ascribe motives to to anybody and what they’re saying or what they’re doing. But I do know what’s effective and what’s not. And and I don’t think that the, the things that she’s doing right now are really increasing good faith arguments on anything or, you know, increasing, uh, or bettering the world, bettering the world in, you know, one attitude at a time is the mission statement for my podcast. I don’t see a lot of those things that are being said, uh, right now as as being anything that’s bettering the world in which we live. So, um, I think it’s unfortunate. And, and, you know, I’ll pray for her, but it’s not, uh, it’s not my style. Okay.

[00:39:34] Cody Cook: Well, and I want to encourage our listeners who are mostly going to be libertarian or libertarian, leaning to check out what Paper Angels is doing and they may be wondering. You know, part of the Brave Rangers model is kind of the red and blue and the Red caucus and the Blue Caucus and coming together and and so, you know, I’m I’d like maybe hear a little more about what bravery angels offers for those who aren’t really red or blue, who are, you know, yellow or gold as, as the libertarian colors are. And and I’ll just kind of say really quickly, for me, when I participated in some of these dialogs, I wasn’t one on housing. And and in that situation, being a libertarian, I was like, well, I guess I’m, I guess I’m red in this conversation. And that’s kind of part of what I think libertarianism is sometimes is sort of saying, well, on this issue, I guess I’m right, or on this issue, I guess, um, but also sort of being a little more, a little more red or a little more blue than the people who were there, you know, because I’m saying, well, I just think we need to get government out of housing policy altogether. Um, and so, I mean, is that kind of where libertarians fit in to Braver Angels, or are there other things that Braver Angels can offer those of us who aren’t really red or blue?

[00:40:43] Will Wilkinson: Yeah. So to that, I mean, another great question. And to that I would say this is, you know, not all issues have a red and a Blue answer, right? And not all groups are a monolith. So, um, we, we, we cannot believe or fool ourselves into believing that everything is going to be clear cut red and blue. Now, there’s oftentimes, you know, especially, you know, at like at like our conventions and bigger events and things like that where, you know, we’ll kind of separate people up between, uh, you know, red lanyards, blue lanyards, uh, you know, white maybe press yellow, maybe completely unaffiliated or whatever. I can’t remember, I may have screwed up the yellow and the white, but but the reality on on it is this, Cody. And for your listeners, more than anything, the reality is is is all perspectives are are, you know, are welcomed and and in you know, for libertarians, I would say that there’s probably going to be more, more in common there with, with the Red caucus and more room to engage in conversations. Uh, and do good work with the Red caucus. Um, it’s it’s important, though, that all voices are heard. You know, I think that, um, as we as we do more of this bridge building work and, and the, the, you know, working towards civic renewal, you know, we can’t ignore, uh, you know, people like libertarians.

[00:42:18] Will Wilkinson: I mean, I think that would be, uh, that would be a huge mistake. And I don’t think anybody at Braver Angels is, is willing to say, well, those libertarians, they just don’t fit in anywhere. So we’re just not going to talk to them, you know. But but the reality is this is, you know, in our debate program, we typically will have a certain resolution. And and that resolution is not always going to be something that can be, uh, thought through specifically in terms of red or blue. So, you know, we’ll ask people in, you know, are you in the affirmative on this resolution? Are you in the, uh, the negative on this resolution? And and do you have a couple sentences as to why you are in the affirmative or you are in the negative on this particular resolution? And, and and there’s a great way there to, um, uh, to, to be in be part of that dialog. The, the, uh, the fishbowl exercises that we do or the, the forums that we do, those kind of things. Yes. We ask if people are red or blue or they lean red or they lean blue or or maybe they’re purple, and maybe a libertarian says, I want, you know, just put me down as purple, because on some things I’m read and on some things I’m blue.

[00:43:35] Will Wilkinson: You know, you started off by by talking about being, uh, um, uh, what was the considered ideological or ideologically radical and temperamentally moderate, right. Uh, which, which I think is, is is great, you know, say, okay, well, this is what I am and, uh, maybe today that means I am, uh, some form of chartreuse, I don’t know. Right. Whatever. And, and but the reality is this. It doesn’t. Your voice is not dictated by some color. You know, I’ve often spoke on my podcast about the idea that we just. We cannot just pretend to to put people in a box, put a label on that box, and then put them away until we’re ready to hear from that particular label. That is not effective and that ideologically. So yes. While the Braver Angels model is loosely based on, or not loosely. It’s largely based on trying to keep the conversation weighted between reds and blues evenly, and I think that is important. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t different nuance to where those people are on at any given time. So and that doesn’t that’s not to say, too, that the Reds are a particular monolith and the blues are a particular monolith, and there’s no gray area there, because we all know that that’s not true.

[00:45:03] Cody Cook: Yeah. And definitely well, especially now, it seems like things are a lot more complicated than they used to be as far as ideology. Um, well, so where can folks find you and your podcasts and also the work of Braver Angels?

[00:45:16] Will Wilkinson: Yeah. So people can find out a lot more about me personally at deratethehate.com or WilkWorld.com. Uh, target.com is going to be your best avenue there. Um, so that’s d rea d e r a t e the hate and then a Braver Angels is is one of the most important organizations that I could, I could ever guide anybody to. Uh, if they’re, they’re concerned about the partizan divides in our country, uh, the idea of civic renewal. So that would be Braver Angels. Braver angels. You’re going to find out a lot about our program. You’re going to find out a lot about the training, how to get involved, how to become a member. Uh, you can start to receive our newsletters as a subscriber, but I really encourage people to to get involved, become a member. We’re the largest grassroots organization out there working towards bridging these partizan divides and and building back that civic, you know, that that civic engagement, civic renewal. And and it’s done mostly through volunteers and become a member. Remember, it’s very inexpensive to become a member. Become a volunteer. Make your voice heard and, uh. And be part of this incredible movement. Uh, it’s it’s a patriotic movement. It’s a love of country movement. It’s a love of our fellow man movement. And, uh, get involved, become part of it. Braver angels.org, for sure.

[00:46:48] Cody Cook: Yeah. And and for libertarians like arguing and debating. Um, there’s, there’s, there’s also like a Braver Angels debates as well which I’d encourage them to check out. And um, so there’s a lot of different things that Braver Angels does in person stuff. And it’s I think there’s a lot of value to it. And, and in keeping with your, um, with your own, uh, disposition toward these kind of conversations, it’s not berate the hate. It’s berate the hate comm.

[00:47:11] Will Wilkinson: Berate the hate kind of the opposite of berate. But, yeah, deratethehate.com (spelled d-e-r-a-t-e).

[00:47:19] Cody Cook: Awesome. Well, thank you for being here. I really appreciate it.

[00:47:22] Will Wilkinson: Cody. It’s been a great pleasure, man. What a wonderful conversation. Take care man.

[00:47:28] Voiceover: Thank you for listening to another episode of the Libertarian Christian Podcast. If you liked today’s episode, we encourage you to rate us on Apple Podcasts to help expand our audience. If you want to reach out to us, email us at podcast@libertarianchristians.com. You can also reach us at @LCIOfficial on Twitter. And of course we are on Facebook and have an active group. You are welcome to join. Thanks for listening and we’ll see you next time.

[00:47:52] Voiceover: The Libertarian Christian Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute, a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit. If you’d like to find out more about LCI, visit us on the web at libertarianchristians.com. The voiceovers are by Matt Bellis and Kathryn Williams. As of episode 115, our audio production is provided by Podsworth Media. Check them out at podsworthmedia.com.

LCI uses automated transcripts from various sources. If you see a significant error, please let us know.