Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 406 | Moral Order AND Social Justice? | Guest: Justin Giboney

Episode Date: April 20, 2021

Where injustice exists, is it possible for Christians on both the Left and Right to agree to find solutions? Justin Giboney, Democrat and founder of the AND Campaign, joins us to offer his view on ways to pursue bipartisan agreement on today’s hot-button political and social issues. --- Today's Sponsor: Annie's Kit Clubs has the perfect subscription box for both boys, & girls! Kids develop actual skills, mastering real-world building or new crafting techniques while expressing their creativity. Go to AnniesKitClubs.com/ALLIE & save 75% off your first shipment! --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Today, I'm really excited for you to listen to this conversation between me and someone who identifies as a Democrat, a fellow Christian, but we've got disagreements politically and ideologically, and that is Justin Gibney of the and campaign. We're going to talk about social justice. We're going to talk about some of the flaws and some of the good parts of both parties and both sides of the aisle. And talk about some solutions. How can we come together on the issues that really matter? as biblical Christians. So without further ado, here is Justin Gibney. Justin, thank you so much for joining me. Could you tell everyone who may not know who you are and

what you do? Yeah, I'm Justin Gibney. I'm an attorney, political strategist, and I'm the president of the Ann Campaign. The Ann Campaign is a Christian civic organization that's trying to raise civic literacy among Christians and also help Christians apply their values to the issues of the day. We want Christians to be less ideological and partisan and more Christian. And so that's what we do. And can you tell us your story a little bit of how you got where you are? I know your story. I read a really good article about you and kind of where you come from in the gospel coalition. But other people might not know. You do have a political background. And that kind of led you to what you're doing now. So can you talk to us about that?

Yeah, sure. So once I graduated from law school, came down to Atlanta. And probably within the maybe first four years that I was in Atlanta, just started getting involved in politics. I joined a mayoral campaign and really went from, and it was great because I started from the bottom, from knocking on doors, you know, going door to door in southwest Atlanta to, you know, doing, you know, debate prep and working with the city council

and things of that nature. And so it was a really great experience. And I always tell people if you really want to get into politics and understand politics and understand the people of grassroots people and others, you really want to do it. You want to be involved in a campaign because you see so many elements of what goes into politics. And you get to know the city that you're in, the area that you're in and all that stuff. And so that's where I started really in a grassroots way going door to door and then just learning and meeting the people and learning how politics went. Because what a lot of people don't realize is, you know, there's intelligence and then there's political smart. and you don't get political smarts just from reading books.

You really have to be out there and doing it. So that's where I started. Started running campaigns. After that, I started running campaigns, was still practicing law, doing political strategy, and really just had some mentors that made me really be a part of the community. That let me know, you know, I could have all the degrees that I wanted. But there were certain things that I'd have to learn about the community

and really cut my teeth to be connected and a true kind of leader. And you were in Democratic politics, correct? That was a Democratic mayoral campaign that you helped out with. At what point did you say, okay, yes, I've worked with all these Democratic campaigns. I guess you identified as a Democrat. At what point did you say it's not all here. I need to try to reach more bipartisan or nonpartisan solutions, especially in accordance with your faith. Yeah, I mean, so I still identify as a Democrat. But it became very clear to me that the pushback that was being received on issues such as, you know, because there are a lot of biblical Christians. I'm in Atlanta, Georgia. There's a lot of biblical Christian churches and biblical Christians in Atlanta, Georgia. But for some reason, even if you're in our neighborhoods, when you run for office, you have to run like you're kind of like a midtown progressive. And you have to kind of put away some of those biblical values, whether it be in regard to the sanctity of life or the Christian sexual ethic.

And I saw that happening over and over. and it just made me really uncomfortable because honestly I thought it was disrespectful. I think people should be able to represent who they are and their constituency and shouldn't have to change that, just the one run for office. And so I started thinking about why that was and just realized that in some of these progressive spaces, there just wasn't a lot of organization when it came to how Christians did politics outside of what was already kind of progressive politics. So we did, we got out the vote. did those things. But I thought we should take the time to really put forward some of our values

that differ with the secular progressive perspective. So it ended up running for the Democratic National Convention in 2012, one that ran with a great group of people. And just a lot of things happened there that I realized that even more so that the secular progressive perspective was not the traditional kind of black church perspective that I came from and where a lot of folks who are in the party come from. Went back home and was like, man, I really need to do something about this. I can't stay in a party that doesn't represent me. And instead of leaving, I decided to kind of organize and get some folks together who I knew

thought like I did. I created an organization called Crucifix and Politics, which was me and some other political strategists, people who ran their county party and other folks who were running campaigns like I was and really got to the bottom of why all this was happening. that would eventually turn into the ANN campaign, which was not just the Democratic thing, but I also had friends who were in Republican politics and thought that they felt like they weren't able to be maybe as compassionate as they wanted to be with some of the Tea Party stuff that was going on. And so that's when the ANN campaign came together. It was a rejection of kind

of the false dichotomy that we see in our politics. Ran again for the Democratic National Convention in 2016, but this time I ran on a biblical platform. I didn't even say the name of the candidate who I was supposedly a delegate for. I talked about the sanctity of life. I talked about jobs. I talked about voter rights and ended up winning in John Lewis's district, I mean, overwhelmingly to be a delegate again. And it just proved that there are people who think that way, but unless it's presented

as an option by leaders, they're not going to know to go move forward with it. And can you talk a little bit more about what that biblical platform was? as and is. I've read a lot of the things that you've written, and you probably know, this is a conservative podcast. I am like you, except on the other side. I've always voted Republican. I consider myself a Republican. There are things that the Republican Party does and does not do that I don't like. And honestly, I find myself increasingly disenchanted with Washington, D.C. in general. But I am a conservative. And that's why I'm so excited to hear your perspective, because I can't think of an issue that I am, that I'm progressive on at all. But you talk a lot about how it's important

to have both, to have both sides complement one another. So I want to hear from your perspective, like what is that biblical platform in your view that has some progressive aspects of it and has some conservative aspects of it? Sure. One of the things the Anne campaign talks about is the false dichotomy in our politics, where people feel like if you're for justice, then you have to go to left. If you're for moral order, then you have to be conservative. You have to go to the right. But when I look in the Bible, when I look in the gospel, I don't see that false dichotomy. I don't see Jesus choosing one or the other. And that's where the end campaign comes from. It's both. It's justice and moral order. And in fact, if you don't have moral, if you don't have

justice, you don't have an orderly society. If your law and order is not just, then it's not serving the purpose that it needs to be serving. And that's really what we say. And so we want Christians, not just to assume based on whether something is a conservative idea or progressive idea that it's right or wrong, but to really be more biblical. I think you can be very intellectually lazy to always be on the side of conservatives or always be on the side of progressives. One thing I think conservatives have to deal with is an abject failure when it came to civil rights, an abject failure when it came to a lot of different issues concerning people of color. And explain that.

It's hard to run away from the issue. go into kind of some detail and examples on that because a lot of people may not know. Yeah, I mean, simply, I think that the white evangelical church during the civil rights movement was not there. They certainly were not helpful in that and in certain instances perpetuated that. And so I think, you know, when someone says, you know, when you realize that that was a huge mistake and there's no group that hasn't made some errors, but that was a huge mistake, how do you correct that? You're, for example, like not standing against segregation and just kind of opposing the civil rights movement in general?

Yeah, opposing the civil rights movement. You know, when Dr. King, you know, people talk about Dr. King, but the fact of the matter is he couldn't get into a conservative seminary. They wouldn't let him in because of his color. These are things where the church should have stood up, but they didn't stand up against Jim Crow. They didn't stand up against redlining. And so many other things that have happened, the, uh, the majority church in America did not stand up against. And so what I'm saying is, not that we all have to go back and just cry forever about that, but how do we correct that? And if we're trying to be

conservative, are there places where we could make similar mistakes like that again? And so what I tell people is not to be so attached to the ideology, but really sound theology. I'm theologically conservative, but I don't believe that's the exact same thing as being ideologically conservative. I think we can flate those things too often. Yeah. I think what scares me as a natural conservative is using the government as, and you probably heard this before, using the government as a vehicle for big change. Not that the government doesn't have a role.

I'm not a libertarian. I'm certainly not an anarchist. I do believe that the government has a role. But typically, I think one reason why conservative, start to kind of wince a little bit when we hear about when when we hear the words social justice and things like that is that we worry that it just means the redistribution of wealth it just means more government power it just means more government programs and we can kind of look at the history of that and see that a lot of those things have been very ineffective and don't

actually achieve the kind of correction of wrongs that we're looking for and so what would you say to someone like me who says, okay, you know, I agree. Those are really bad mistakes and we do need to think of ways and solutions to rectify those errors. But I'm worried about giving the government more power to do that. And I don't know what exactly those solutions should look like. Well, I would say this. I'd give, you know, a little bit of credence to some of the stuff you said, which is I've worked in government. I know it can be cumbersome. I know it can be inefficient. There are certain things that I don't want. want the government to do. But when I look at government historically, especially from an African-American

perspective, I mean, the government has played a huge role. And so, you know, it's hard to bring the federalism conversation to a lot of African-Americans. I'm sure there are some. But when you talk about Jim Crow ending, when you talk about slavery, when you talk about all those things, these are the government coming in to do things that the church wasn't doing and that some of the conservatives who are, who don't like government still aren't doing. And so I, I think a lot of poor people, because they have to deal with the government and they see how inefficient it is, they wish they didn't have to deal with it. But when there's no, when it doesn't seem to be alternatives, ideally, yeah, the government

wouldn't do those things. I would like to have mediating institutions do more of those things. But when they don't do it, that needs to be, that kind of backstop needs to be there. And what are those things? Like, what are some progressive policies that you think would write some of the wrongs of Jim Crow and the other historical discrimination that you've listed. That have already have or that can continue to do that? Or that you advocate for, that you think the Democratic Party or progressives do a better job

of advocating for or doing than the Republican Party and conservatives do? I mean, I think we have to start with the fact I don't see any really any outreach at all from the for conservatives or Republicans at all. I don't even see. You mean like going into those communities? Going into those communities are dealing with those issues because I think that that the Republicans, I think Republicans and conservatives have a wing of their party that would, they would catch backlash for really engaging on race issues at all. I mean, so, you know,

we can start from the point, you know, we can say, and I would agree with you that there are a lot of progressive programs that haven't been great, but what are we comparing it to? We're comparing it to not much at all. And so that's, I think that's where the conversation needs to start from. I disagree with a lot of the ways that progressives are gone about certain things, but the effort has been there and there have been programs that help people. You know, you may not agree with, you know, food stamps, things of that nature. I do. I mean, I've seen people in those positions. My father was raised, you know, in a situation where he had to be on that temporarily and it helped his family out and helped them survive. So it's not all perfect. Sometimes there can be abuses there,

but I think those type of programs where it comes to food, when it comes to education, those can be very helpful and have been helpful in the past. Maybe not perfect. Yeah. But many, of those wouldn't happen if we had to kind of depend on conservatives to do it. And I agree with you. I'm not against welfare in general, not against food stamps in general. I think where conservatives come from, what someone like Paul Ryan, who never accomplished this, and you know, Republicans and Democrats can talk a big talk about a lot of things and then never do them. But Republicans have been talking a lot about welfare reform. And you're probably very familiar, I'm guessing, with Thomas Sol who also talks about this. I don't know if he is against

welfare in general either, but he would say that the welfare system, as it's set up right now, actually incentivizes in some cases unemployment. I've talked to families that it's very hard for them to get off of government assistance because it's going to mean that they're actually poor getting a job than staying on government assistance. So you're in this very tough conundrum where, okay, you and your family are actually making more money if you're on welfare, but you really want to provide for yourself. Like you really want your own job. And I think, I think I'm not saying that conservatives have presented the perfect solution for this. It almost seems like we're just in this gridlock, though, because we don't just want welfare to expand.

We don't want to keep presenting people with that problem who really want to provide for themselves, but the system is set up in a way to where they're really disincentivized to do so. That's a big problem, in my opinion, that progressives are not addressing and maybe conservatives aren't addressing either. Would you agree? Yeah, I mean, I think there are very, you know, there are ways that we can approach it. I think you're right. There have been some incentives that are set up that are not helpful. And so when we talk about welfare reform, I'm always very cautious because, you know, as they say, the devil is in the details. What do we mean by that? Do we just mean cutting? Because I think a lot of people when they hear conservatives, you know, fair or otherwise, talk about

that, they think they're just talking about a cut. And if we're just talking about a cut, then I don't think that's the place to start. I think we should be smart about government. I think government shouldn't just be huge, but it can be used in smart ways that help people. And so, yeah, we just have to dig deeper into what that reform would look like. But I'm open to those conversations because I do think there's some adverse incentives that are in there that aren't helping people. But in general, the program is helping people from what I can see. I think it depends on, well, I think one problem with it is that how some of these programs define success is how many people are on the programs, not how many people get off the assistance. And I think that we probably need to redefine how we look at success. To me, maybe as a conservative, but I don't know if this is an exclusively conservative position. I would define success of a program, of a government program by how many people can get off the program and get a job and provide for their families.

is it pushing people towards what I think most people want is providing for themselves and their families, or is it just helping people subsist? And I don't, yes, that's helpful to a degree, especially if you're someone who is physically or mentally unable to have a job. But to me, that's not the definition of success. And so I just don't see a whole lot of movement in that area. And I feel like when we talk about social justice and racial justice, we're typically focusing on poverty, which is important, but I don't see any advancement in that area. So when I hear, okay, we need more solutions. We need more. And I just hear government program. I'm like, but there's so many problems with the government programs that we have that it seems to not be moving.

We've had these programs for a very long time. And so like, how do we, how do we get out of that gridlock and actually move forward in a way that does help and rectify some of the problems of the past? Yeah, that's right. I'm with you on that. I think one of the things is people, detaching themselves from these narratives. One of the biggest problems I think we have in our sociopolitical landscape is that on the left and the right, we have these narratives and we just stick with them regardless of the facts, right? We have to make sure that we're doing what you're asking, that we're examining these programs to make sure that they're doing what they should be doing. And if we have the wrong objectives, we have the wrong goals, then that needs to be examined too. But we can't do

that in good faith. And part of the problem is there's no trust. And so as a Democrat, I think with some of the Democrats may be thinking is if I do open this up for conversation with the right, then they're just going to cut it. And so I'm just going to hold to my narrative and say this is all working out because I don't have the trust that we can work on this in good faith without just trying to cut it out. And so we got to find ways to work past that and work for the better of the people and just build some trust because that's why I think we can't get big things done. And I think conservatives have the same trust issue. And if I talk about this, they're just going to talk about expanding it. They're just going to talk about adding more welfare, which also, I don't think,

addresses the problems that are already there. Let's talk about some of those big issues that conservatives like me just can't get past when it comes to the current Democratic Party. And I know it's not all Democrats. For example, you are theologically conservative. So you believe in the sanctity of life. We probably agree on the same biblical sexual ethic when it comes to gender and marriage. But I don't see those, well, I don't see those things really championed by the Republican Party very much either, but conservatives certainly hold those things dear. But when I look over at progressives, maybe it's just a caricature, but what I see is a complete denunciation of the sanctity of life, a complete denunciation of biblical marriage and gender as totally bigoted. And that just

makes me feel like the other side hates me and I can't even imagine voting for the party that represents that. Can you tell me maybe where I'm wrong or where I'm seeing something that isn't true? No, I mean, I've written about kind of the extremes that we've gone to on the Democratic side of things when it comes to those two issues. I'm not going to battle you and try to justify the party on that. I don't care enough about the party to do that. And I think they're wrong in that regard. I think one thing that you might want to consider, though, is how those issues got such a foothold and why, you know, why they, you know, why in some ways they're gaining momentum in some ways on those issues. And I think it's because Christians didn't have what I would call a whole life

perspective. I think because in many instances, Christians weren't as compassionate to people who had crisis pregnancies or people who were LGBTQ who really were looking for community, who were in our community, who are our neighbors and our brothers and sisters, and weren't responded to in a loving way. Not all the criticism of the right in this regard or conservatives on this regard is fair, but I think, you know, within the church, there's certainly things we could have done better to not give them a foothold here. And we need to approach it in a different way. So what I say in regards the issues is that I agree with you, the left has some real problems when it comes to this. I will continually fight against that, whether somebody, I've been told that when I made my speech at the

2016 Democratic DNC selection that I had committed political suicide, well, I'm going to continue to say that because I think it's, I think they're wrong for going so far left on those issues. However, I don't think the conservative, ideologically conservative approach is the best approach. And I think we need to reexamine how we might want to really focus on those issues and how we address those issues. See, I would disagree with you at least on, at least when it comes to abortion. Now, I would say, like, within the actual walls of a church that there does seem to be either a silence about abortion in that. there could be, you know, people who had abortions in the congregation who wouldn't feel comfortable coming forward and saying, hey, this happened in my life. I need help. I need counseling.

I need grace or whatever it is. I think that's probably true. But when I look at the crisis pregnancy centers, when I look at the pro-life centers that I have spent so many hours at, that I have talked to so many people who run these organizations. I obviously can't say they're exclusively conservative evangelicals, but they are these pro-life evangelicals who pour their entire lives into helping women and families and babies in crisis. And so a lot of times I hear this, what I think is a false dichotomy from people on the laughter, Christian Democrats saying, yeah, sure, we need to care about babies inside the womb, but making it illegal isn't the way to do it. We need to do XYZ program to show that we really care about the women.

in need. That's what it means to be pro all life. And that to me is just crazy. So you have to vote for legal access to dismembering babies inside the womb. And you can only be pro all life if you're for these government programs when there are people voluntarily spending their entire lives and livelihoods helping these women. Like it's just not true that most pro-lifers are just pro-birth. So my question is like, what more is there to do for a conservative pro-lifer? They're so many people who spend so much helping these families, we just don't think that the government is the most effective means to do that. Well, I think there's plenty to do. And so let me be very clear. What I'm saying is that no, not that there's, there is good work going on. I'm not saying

that no one that considers themselves an ideological conservative has done anything that's, that's whole life. That's not the conversation. But I think if we step back and we look at the rhetoric. If we go back to the moral majority and really, you know, what got a lot of this really, really going and a lot of their rhetoric was lasting, there wasn't the compassion there. There isn't the compassion and a lot of other issues that we talk about. So when we talk about civil rights and all these issues, these are issues that linger and the failure there lingers. And when you haven't taken, when you haven't taken the precautions to make sure that that never happens again, then people see that. When you talk about immigrants, or you allow people to talk about.

immigrants in a way that is not humane, that's not okay. When you show a lack of care for that, people are going to look at you and say that you're not whole life. That doesn't mean that no one among you is doing things. It just means that you could do better. Just like I admitted that on my side, we can do better. We have to be open to saying, you know what, maybe we can look at that and there's things that we can do. But it's not just that one issue. There are a lot of other issues that seem to tell people that maybe you don't have the compassion when it comes to the lives of others that people think conservatives should have. So I think what I'm hearing you say is that, yes, conservative evangelicals might show compassion

for the unborn, but when it comes to racial justice issues or social justice issues or immigration, they show a lack of compassion that kind of belies the title pro-life. I want to be specific. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I think that's part of it, that they, when it comes to those other issues, I think we see what I call the politics of Christian self-interest rather than the politics of neighborly love. I think sometimes we put ourselves before them and don't realize that those issues have life implications as well. Now, I say that again, without at all defending what's going on on the left,

what's going on the left is not okay. It needs to be stopping. I'll fight for the rest of my life if I have to to make sure that that stops. But I'm just telling you why people, Christians who may vote Democrat, don't see the conservative side of the Republican Party. as being as pro-life as they say they are. I think a lot of conservatives would say that Republicans are not as pro-life as they say they are. I would agree with that just even if we're just talking about fighting for the unborn. There's a lot of showmanship every four years or if it's a, you know, senatorial race, every six years, whatever it is, saying, you know,

we're going to defund Planned Planned Parenthood. We're going to fight for the unborn. It's an issue that whips up conservatives and that we will vote on. But at least I've kind of grown cynical to realize, that there are very few Republicans that will actually fight for this issue, they have to hold on to it because it's what gets them votes every time. If they actually defund Planned Planned Parenthood, what are they going to run on? And so unfortunately, that is true. And there are certainly things I would agree with you that Donald Trump said and did that conservative pro-lifers would say the family

separation, how people were treated at the border was not right. And we can agree on those things. but then the reason why we just can't we can't bring ourselves to turn to Democrat because it's like, but you're fighting for especially someone like Kamala Harris or Warnock fighting for the unfettered access to what is such a brutal act. And I know you agree with me. I'm not arguing with you. And I think that's why we just, it's so hard for us to find any reconciliation there, even if we might agree that some of these other issues are problematic. When we look at what abortion is, I mean, we're literally talking about murder. We're not talking about some in tandem. thing we're not talking about, you know, some historical thing. We're talking about something

that's happening right now thousands of times a day. And it just seems like so many people on the left say, yeah, that's true. But we're still going to vote for the party that it, that allows unfettered access to that. And not only that, but wants me to pay for it. And that's just too far the other direction that when we look at the other issues, we're like, yeah, those are bad. but I know I can't get on board with that. And it seems like you feel that way except the opposite about the Republican Party. Yeah, and mind you, I'm not saying that I respect that decision. I'm not saying that everybody has to be Democrats.

I think that there should be a critical mass of Christians on both sides. And I would love to see two very strong parties. But what I am saying is that Christians, if you are of the mind to say that Trump shouldn't, you know, what happened on the border was terrible, that Trump shouldn't have said the things that he said, there should have been a louder chorus behind that. And when those things happen, you know, it's hard to see the folks that you're talking about. You don't see enough of them saying, no, that's not right. You more so people see people defending it. And that happens on the right, on the left too. Right? When we see things that we don't like because we want to maintain a narrative,

we feel like if I voted for this person, then I'm justifying myself by defending this person. And I think that's just the wrong way to go about it, especially for a Christian. And I think on both sides for those voices to rise up and say, no, that's not okay. That can't happen again. I'm not going to vote for you if you do that again. That's the kind of things we need to do when it comes to immigration, when it comes to abortion on the other side, we need to take those stands and be a little louder. And it's just not happening right now. Yeah. And I think it depends on the people that you hang around too, because I actually feel like there are a lot of people on the conservative side saying, hey, what's happening at the border? It isn't right. Now, I understand. Now, I

understand that's probably not represented in the media in the same way that people on the right would say, I never hear people on the left talking about abortion being bad. It's almost like we add nuance to the topics that are convenient to add nuance to the ones that we don't want to just say, yeah, this is wrong on. I think that's a fault of both sides. I just hear a lot of unnecessary nuance from the left when it comes to abortion that, yeah, it's bad, but, you know, I'm not for it. I'm personally pro-life, but I'm politically pro-choice. I mean, we're talking about murder. And then there are other things on the right that we probably just, you know, we add nuance too

because we don't want to give any credence and we don't want to move an inch in the other direction. I really commend what you do. It's hard for me to understand how the two sides, you know, can, and I don't even want to say it as two sides. they just seem in some ways so fundamentally far apart in what we believe and what we believe the solutions to be. Yeah, they are very far apart in a lot of ways. And so what I want to, what I want to be clear about is this is not saying that if we combine both, they make the perfect position.

That's not what we're saying. Yeah. We're saying take the best of both. And you might get more of the best from one side or the other. It's not a false equivalence. So I understand how, you know, people could think the Democrats may be better, the Republicans might be better. Take the best out of both sides. And how do you judge what the best is by biblical standards, by the compassion and the conviction that the Ann campaign wrote a whole book about and we talk so much about?

That's what we're really trying to get at. Not to say if you can bind them, they're equal and you'll come to the right place in some kind of Hagellian, you know, dialectic. But don't just assume that your side is right and stand up and say something when your side is wrong because there's, there's a possibility that the other side gets something right, even if you think the majority of the stuff they get wrong. That's what we're saying. I do see, I mean, at least a few, at least a few weeks ago, I don't know how I feel now. We're recording this in January. This is going to come out in April or May, and there's a lot of craziness it's going on before the inauguration and all of that. I do think that there could be a path forward for people

who are socially conservative like you and me, but I wouldn't call myself economically liberal, but if there's anywhere I could find wiggle room, it would be on those issues. I do think that there could be a path forward for people like that. And that some people would say that's a form of right of center populism, that there are people on the left and the right who could represent that. I think the big sticking point, I've heard you talk about this, is the cultural issues for people on the left. Like even if I agree with some of solutions or some of the problems that they point out

and maybe even some of the solutions, like I don't disagree with everything that AOC says, or Ilhan Omar, and they're like very far over to the left. But some things they say, I'm like, okay, that's fair. But the reason why I couldn't support them is because of these social cultural and, you know, moral issues that we just can't get past. Do you see any path for the social conservatives and the economically, at least left of center people to move forward together and say, okay, these are the best policies for families, for working class people, and for poor people, because at the end of the day, that's the kind of country that I want. Yeah, I think there's plenty of room for a realignment. We see what's going on with the Republican Party.

I mean, there could be some divisions there. I don't know if these differences are irreconcilable or not, but there's some very serious differences that we'll see how they get ironed out. And then on the, on the left, there's some serious fractures. And really what people don't realize is that on the left, the only thing that was holding these folks together was Trump. I mean, Trump held together a group that is really falling apart. We'll see how Biden does and kind of keeping that together. I think he may struggle to do that. But there's some fault lines that I think are going to be exposed.

And we'll just see what happens. I think, you know, at very least when it comes to people of faith, there should be some core issues that we should be able to say, you know what, even if we remain in different parties, that we can come together on some of these core issues. I mean, that type of coalition, that's that nimble coalition that can do some of those things is probably more likely in the near term, more doable in the near term. But we'll just have to see what happens. But something's got to change because I think, especially for Christians, there's some elements on the right and on the left that we should just not tolerate and that we should push harder against. And I think you talked about civic literacy and how important that is.

I think it is important for us to be able to distinguish between the values that we hold dear and what the government's role actually is in some of those things. Like if we believe in traditional marriage, well, is there a government role in that or is there not? Like how do we balance some of these social issues on the left with things that we hold dear like religious liberty? And how do we bring those things together in a way that allows freedom to flourish for all people, but also doesn't leave anyone out, even if your personal values, disagree with someone

else's lifestyle. And I'm very open to that conversation. I think that you see that struggle already within the Biden administration. You saw it in the campaign, but I hear it in the speeches now, wanting to appeal to those people of faith who are still kind of over here, maybe in the center or center right, but also trying to get those far left progressives, like saying things like, sure, if an eight-year-old wants to change genders, that's fine. And the rest of us are like, what are you talking about? And the Hyde Amendment and things like that. And for me, the constant categorization of people by race, that is a real turnoff for a lot of Christians on the other side.

But I want him to do well. And I want the country to come together. I just, I don't want to be cynical. I just don't see I don't see him doing that I don't see that from his rhetoric I just think that he's trying too hard to play both sides and it's

going to end up being everyone's frustrated yeah he's going to have a difficult job I you know I think he's more up to it than a lot of those other candidates were and so we'll you know I'm going to give him a chance to see what he can do but yeah it's going to be interesting

to see how he deals with that one of the problems that I think a lot of Democrats are having is staffing. And so there's, you know, they may think one way. And you saw it in the Biden campaign where he may think one way, but he had a staff, a communication staff and other staff that was trying to go in a completely different direction, go completely left. He's going to have to find a way to get that under control. And then really it's going to be about the people who are around him working with him in good faith to get his vision out. Because I do think Biden has shown that he does try to work across the aisle, that he, that he's not as far left as even

that he seems to have been pushed in some areas, but he still doesn't seem comfortable there. Yeah, I agree. But in regards to the first part of your question, I think you were kind of asking, how do we apply biblical values in a way that still respects the pluralism of this country? Right. And I don't know that there's a bright line for how we do that, but I think it starts with being able to articulate why Christian values are good for everyone, right? Not just saying this is what the Bible says, therefore you should do it.

I think that was kind of the moral majority stance and some of the things we did before, but articulating why marriage is good for everybody, why, you know, our definition is good for everybody, why, you know, children not going through some of the things that they're being pushed to transform to, why those things are good, but you've got articulated in a way where people who aren't Christian

can see, oh, that benefits me too. There are practical benefits for society as a whole and not just doing it because Christians said it. I think that's the first way to start, because we can get caught flat-footed on issues because we haven't thought them through in that wider context. And I think that will help us articulate and persuade people to some Christian values. If they are willing to debate those issues, I think one of the problems that we see on the right is an unwillingness by some, it seems like a lot, on the left, to debate these issues. Like I hear a lot, abortion or bodily autonomy isn't debatable.

people's identity, which they say is, you know, gender isn't debatable. How people love isn't debatable. And so it's hard to find a forum where people on the other side will talk about these understandably tense issues. I have. There was someone who he now identifies as a conservative, but he was a liberal and he's married and he's gay and I was able to tell him. This is what I think because, you know, this is what the Bible says. It was a theological conversation, but it's very, very rare. to be invited into a space like that to discuss those issues. How do you think we can better facilitate it? Yeah, we've gone back and forth on a lot of things today,

but you're not going to get any pushback on me on that one. The left has created so many rhetorical devices to cut off the debate, to not have to discuss the things that they know don't really have a rational basis. That is a tough conversation. But I think it's really a small group, right? I think it's a lot of the representatives. I think it's the professional class that stand there. And it's really, it's shallow.

And so we have to get to the people. We have to get to the grassroots to have those conversations. Because most people understand that in a democracy, what do you mean? You have to debate these things. You can't move legislation and have these sweeping changes and not have a real public debate and discourse about what's going on. And so we just have to really, one of the things the end campaign tries to do is really dismantle some of these.

rhetorical devices that, you know, and many of these are on the left that the left uses to not have a debate, to not have to discuss the things they really want to do, but can't really defend. We got to call it out and we got to make sure that we let others know that we can't, democracy can't survive like that. We have to have discussions. There's nothing that's above debate. We can have decorum. We can be civil. But you don't get to say that I don't want to talk about that, but I'm going to enforce it on other people. And that's why conservatives are so worried about censorship. Not that these tech companies can't have rules that they can enforce, but we are worried about political bias and censorship. And I mean, we do feel like we have to self-police,

especially when we're talking about some of the issues that, you know, we just mentioned. And that is one thing that I feel like it's almost an exclusive concern of the right is censorship. Is that, you know, there's some people on the left who think that conservatives are harmful, that almost, I saw a pro-life activist who really is nonpartisan. She said abortion is violence. Well, she had an abortion doctor who has tons of followers say, this is what domestic terrorism looks like saying abortion is violence. I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa. So we're not even allowed to say anything without someone saying that's inciting violence. We, I mean, we can't move forward like that. And I think that's very rare. That doesn't happen a lot on the left, but that's something that people on the right are concerned

about. Yeah, I mean, I'm concerned about censorship, too. I just think, you know, on the right, you got to maybe choose the examples better. I think I don't know if Trump and what, you know, what happened with the U.S. Capitol is really where you want to place your argument there. One of the things I think that conservatives can do better is realize you have a lot of, you know, there's on some issues, especially an issue like this, there are allies on the other side. But we got to make sure that we're connecting in a way and on a, you know, on a premise that people can can gather together. And I think to, you know, to really make the what happened with the Capitol and what happened on Twitter in regard to Trump, what you're arguing based on,

you're going to lose a lot of the people that really agree with you, that hate the idea that they can't say what they want to say, that react to polls differently because they don't trust that they can say what they really want to say. All these things, there's a lot of people who feel that way. I think it's a small minority, a very powerful, well-resourced people who are trying to do this. But when you get on the ground when you really get to the grassroots, they don't agree with most of the stuff that these folks are pushing forward. Yeah. Like the ACLU, who I would say is on the left, they had a problem, they actually had a problem with the president being taken off Twitter. And they do have a

problem with censorship because they are actually able to see, okay, if they can do this in this case, then they're probably going to do it in other cases, too, to people like, you know, consistently marginalized voices. And that does become a problem, which is why I should, I do think it's a bipartisan issue, not necessarily the president, but just in general. there's one more thing I want to ask you about. If you have time, do you have time? Yeah, let's do it. Okay.

And it has to do with something that you said about rhetorical devices that I think are used. I agree that they're probably on the left and the right. But one thing recently that I see, a rhetorical device that has come up on the left, and I think you're going to disagree with me based on a tweet that you said about critical race theory. you have said, you know, it's better to just, you know, we don't have to worry about critical race theory if we just abolish racism. It seems to me, though, that critical race theory is kind of a bludgeon that is used by people on the left to dismiss any conversation about systemic racism today, what it actually looks like, which disparities actually point to

discrimination and which doesn't, what are actual, what are examples of white privilege, what aren't examples of white privilege? It's almost like we're, we're, we're shutting down conversation with just the critical race theory assertion that all black and brown people are oppressed, all white people are a form of oppressors, and anything that I say is just evidence of white fragility. That to me seems like a rhetorical device where we can't even have conversations about this and certain people aren't allowed to push back because of the tenets of critical race theory. What do you think? Yeah. So what my statement was saying, because I don't really use critical race theory to say anything. I mean, I think there are some merits. I think there are some

perils to it. So that's not the argument I was making. The statement I was making was, I think racism is worse than critical race theory. And if you look at the history again, I think the reason that people don't accept. Because a lot of people, I mean, in my community, most of people don't even really know what critical race theory is because that's not, you know, we know racism. We have our theories on it. But we don't even, it's not like. It's not like. I think people use it without knowing what it is. Right, but I'm just saying even those things, we're not like married to wedded to any of those theories, right? My understanding of what race is and how it's been used is through history, through, you know, my grandparents and people who taught me in reading about what this was,

you know, I'm not like, you know, you're not going to see a lot of adherence to, to critical race theory. But I think what part of the problem is, is that the people that want to talk about critical race theory don't have any credibility on race based on the history that I've named already. And so when your tradition fails on civil rights, when it fails on many of these things that come up over and over again and actually perpetuates it, people aren't going to accept what you have to say very easily when it comes to race, when you haven't shown a real concern to get it fixed. It seems like a distraction. And so that's what I was trying to say. Like worry more so about what racism is and maybe the failures there than critical race theory.

Because I don't think a lot of, I think, again, I think there's a group that uses that for everything. I think most people aren't even worried about critical race theory. I don't really, I wasn't given a defense of it. I think it has some merits because when it comes to race power, there are some very serious power dynamics that have been used historically. But I also think there's some very serious perils. And so when people in a Christian community ask me about critical race theory, I say, look, before you go to anybody talking about critical race theory,

you better understand the perils of this. Because one thing you and I both know, there are good people who are black, there are good people who are white, there are bad people who are black, there are bad people white. Your color tells nobody anything about your character. And I think we can both agree on that. And so in any system or theory that says anything different is just wrong. But at the same time, power has been used when it comes to race. I mean, this is a country that codified discrimination for hundreds of years. That has an impact on the present day. And we have to be able to admit that. Yes. Now, I don't know if it's fair to say that people can't criticize critical race theory

if they've been a part of like a quote tradition that hasn't fought against race because that's very, that's collectivizing people in a way to say, okay, well, because I'm a white evangelical and white evangelicals didn't fight against, or they did fight against civil rights in the 1960s. I can't talk about critical race theory. Yes. So I'm not saying you can't talk about it. I'm saying you might not have credibility when you talk about it. So I'm never one of those people to say you can't talk about it. I'm saying when people look at it and they look at the history of how either somebody personally or their group has handled race, if you haven't handled race in a concerned way, in a careful way, then people are going to say, you know what, this seems like a distraction. Why don't we do something about the race issue? Then we can have the credibility to really attack the perils of what comes with CRT.

But I actually think that there's such an opportunity right now with the people who are talking about. critical race theory to be able to say, hey, I want to have a conversation about these solutions too. I think people are thinking about race and race issues for some people for the first time, some people more than ever, whether it's on the left or the right, and are very willing to have conversations where they would listen to something that you've said and say, okay, yeah, that is a problem. I wasn't aware of that or that is a historical injustice that hasn't been righted. But I think when, I think that critical race theory that you can't just say, okay, racism is worse because critical race theory is a form of racism. It is a form of racism. And so it is counterproductive in

these conversations because if someone wants to hear about race, but they say, you know, they hear terms like, you know, you're just fragile if you're, if you defend this or everything that happens that a white person does is white privilege. Then that's, is really hard for people who genuinely are like, okay, I want to talk about race, let's talk about this, but you're not allowed to push back at all. Like you're not allowed to have any defense against any assertions. You're not allowed to say, okay, what is the proof of that? Or, well, that doesn't really sound logical. Or do we know that that's evidence of discrimination? When we're not allowed to ask those questions because we're white or because we're conservatives,

then there really is no way for it because people are just like, well, I don't know how to have these conversations, and I guess I don't have any credibility to. And so I think that the tenets of critical race theory turned people off to what could be very, very productive conversations about solutions that can be done. So yeah, so let me be clear. There's no question I don't think somebody can ask based on that. There's no person that I wouldn't have a conversation with. So I want to make sure that we distinguish between my position and where some, you know, maybe secular progressive theorists may be. I want to have those conversations. I invite those conversations with you and others, and you can ask me any question that you, that you want to ask. I want to be very clear about

that. But I think we also need to realize that, number one, there needs to be a sense of urgency, because as we have these conversations, I would say that people are still suffering. So it's not something that we can just kind of lolly gag around and kind of deal with when we can. And the other thing is, if you really think something is wrong, if you really think there's racial injustice, or those, you know that historically this country has codified racism and that still may have lingering effects, somebody else's rhetoric should not stop you from doing what's right. And that's the thing that I don't accept. That's a lot of this stuff is obnoxious to me too. But listen, a lot of this stuff is obnoxious to me too. But if I think something is wrong, I'm not going to let somebody

else's rhetoric or how they talk about it or because they're annoying or because they try to shut me off stop me from doing what is right. And that's what I don't accept kind of from the conservative point of view. If you think this is right, don't let their rhetoric get in the way of you doing what's right. That doesn't make sense, especially from a Christian point of view. If it's right, then you need to do it regardless. And what I'm saying is, I have an open invitation to have those conversations with you, even if there's some other people that won't have those conversations. You can ask me whatever question you want to ask. So let's have that conversation, but understand there should be a sense of urgency. And I don't care what anybody else is doing.

And if it's right, then you should do it anyway. Like what? Like what would be some tangible thing that someone could do? You should pursue making sure that some of these communities who have been, you know, who have been downtrodden since we had codified discrimination in our laws that have never risen up. Make sure that you're going out of your way to kind of provide resources. Make sure that you're looking at some of these issues when it comes to disparities in education. When it comes to disparities in health care,

black people were dying at such a rate when it came to COVID, unlike other communities. Take your time to look at the policies that have an impact on that and have conversations with people in those communities. I think one of the unfortunate things that happened, Ali, and I appreciate this conversation, is that the conversation between me and you don't happen a lot. We talk through other people. We talk through Fox News or we talk through MSNBC. We need to have these conversations, and we need to make sure that once we decide something is right and something needs to be dealt with not to let these other voices and other distractions stop us from doing what's right. And there's a number of disparities that we could go in depth on that we really need to examine and see how we can

fix some of these things. Because again, people are suffering. And I don't think it's something, I think it's something that, again, we should have a sense of urgency about because these are serious issues that I think could have been prevented if, you know, people in the church had stepped up sooner. And I think where, I think here's like one minor adjustment that people on the left and the right can make in these kind of conversations about like disparities in education, disparities in abortion rates, disparities in poverty. There are disparities between white and black people. There are also disparities between Asian and white people. The bigger disparities are really between classes more than between races. I think something that people on the left need to

understand is that not every disparity points to discrimination. That's a logical fallacy. What people on the right need to realize is that some disparities do point to discrimination, that we shouldn't be searching for every other possibility that it could be when it may very well be discrimination. But we can't on the left say every single disparity between every single group is because of racism or is because of discrimination. I think that would actually blind us to other possibilities that need other solutions that could be fixed because they could be class issues. People in Appalachia have been dying at the same rate as people in inner cities. And so I think that we have to have, and that's to me where critical race theory gets in the way,

is that some issues are racial issues, some issues are class issues that we see as racial issues because of the lens of critical race theory that prohibits us from actually looking at what the issues are. But to your point, we can't just say, well, that's critical race theory. And so the end, we need a sense of urgency into saying, okay, if it's a class issue, if it's a racial issue, whatever is causing this disparity, let's get after, let's get after making making it right as much as much as we can. Disparities will never be closed forever. They just won't. Individuals are different. But if there is an injustice there, if something wrong is happening there, then I agree with you. There should be a sense of urgency on both sides to fix it.

I'm about finding solutions. And so if that is not the problem, then I want to identify what the problem is. And I'm not one of those people. You know, I push back against that. I think there are a lot of disparities and issues that are based on class. And I push it. back on that all the time. So I think that's something that we may be able to end with an agreement on. Yeah. Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate you taking the time. If you could just tell everyone again where they can find you, social media, your book, all that good stuff. Yes. Again, I'm Justin Gibney. I am the president of the Ann campaign. You can go to Twitter and Instagram and that's at and campaign, A-N-D campaign. Or you can go to my personal,

which is at Justin E. Gibney, G-I-B-O-N-E-Y. You can catch us there. You also can go get our book, which is compassion and conviction. It's the Anne Campaign's Guide to Faithful Civic Engagement. And we just really go over what we think it is to apply biblical values to the issues of the day and let people know that whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, we can disagree and be Christian, but there are certain principles that we must all adhere to. Thank you so much. I appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. Thanks for having me, Ali. You take care.