The Daily Stoic - Ask Daily Stoic: Ryan and Congressman Dan Crenshaw Talk Fortitude, Outrage, and How to Be Inspired By History

Episode Date: July 11, 2020

In today’s episode, Ryan and Congressman Dan Crewnshaw talk about personal accountability, who if anyone we should commemorate as heroic figures, how to follow the lead of Epictetus and “choose not to be offended,” and more.Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) has served in the US House of Representatives since 2019. He is a former Navy SEAL who served three tours in Afghanistan, losing his right eye in an IED attack during his final tour. In addition to serving in the House of Representatives, Dan Crenshaw also hosts a podcast, Hold These Truths with Dan Crenshaw, and has recently written his first book, FortitudeGet Dan Crenshaw’s book Fortitude: https://geni.us/71B7AgxThis episode is brought to you by GoMacro. Go Macro is a family-owned maker of some of the finest protein bars around. They're vegan, non-GMO, and they come in a bunch of delicious flavors. Visit http://gomacro.com and use promo code STOIC for 30% off your order plus free shipping.This episode is also brought to you by Trends. Trends is the ultimate online community for entrepreneurs and business aficionados who want to know the latest news about business trends and analysis. It features articles from the most knowledgeable people, interviews with movers and shakers, and a private community of like-minded people with whom you can discuss the latest insights from Trends. Visit trends.co/stoic to start your two-week trial for just one dollar.***If you enjoyed this week’s podcast, we’d love for you to leave a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps with our visibility, and the more people listen to the podcast, the more we can invest into it and make it even better.Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: http://DailyStoic.com/signupFollow @DailyStoic:Twitter: https://twitter.com/dailystoicInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/dailystoic/Facebook: http://facebook.com/dailystoicYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/dailystoicFollow Dan Crenshaw: Twitter: https://twitter.com/RepDanCrenshawInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/dancrenshawtx/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CrenshawforCongress/Homepage: https://crenshaw.house.gov/Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hold-these-truths-with-dan-crenshaw/id1498149200See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hey, prime members, you can listen to the Daily Stoic podcast early and add free on Amazon music. Download the app today. Welcome to the weekend edition of the Daily Stoic. Each weekday we bring you a meditation inspired by the ancient Stoic, something that can help you live up to those four stoic virtues of courage, justice, wisdom, and temperance. And here, on the weekend, we take a deeper dive into those same topics. We interview stoic philosophers, we reflect, we prepare. We think deeply about the challenging issues of our time. And we work through this philosophy in a way that's more

possible here when we're not rushing to worker to get the kids to school. When we have the time to think to go for a walk to sit with our journals and to prepare for what the future will bring. Hi, I'm David Brown, the host of Wundery's podcast business wars. And in our new season, Walmart must fight off target, the new discounter that's both savvy and fashion forward. Listen to business wars on Amazon music or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, it's Ryan Holiday.

Welcome to another episode of the Daily Stoic podcast. I got a fascinating guest this week, someone I've wanted to talk to since I first saw some of his videos. I'm talking about Congressman Dan Crenshaw. I was introduced to Congressman Crenshaw through another guest we've had on the podcast and another Congressman, Congressman Mike Gallagher. Dan is a fascinating guy. He's a former Navy SEAL.

He did five tours of duty with the Navy SEALs, a real American hero. He lost his right eye in 2012 in an IED explosion. He's been awarded two bronze stars, the Purple Heart and Marine Corps Commandation Medal, achieved the rank of Lieutenant Commander in the Navy. And then in 2018, he won an election for the United States House of Representatives in Texas's second congressional district, which

is not far from me in Texas. I first heard of Dan like a lot of people when he was made fun of by Pete Davidson on Saturday Night Live. I was telling you about his ID explosion. So Dan wears an eye patch. And so he was teased on television. And while it would have been probably an easy way to score political points, to be outraged, to be offended, Dan reacted with good humor and grace, he ended up going on SNL and joking about it.

This sort of catapulted him to the national stage, to be sure. But he's had some awesome appearances on Joe Rogan's podcast. A couple of weeks ago, we did an amazing appearance on Bill Marr, where he sort of presented what was a pretty compelling counter-narrative to the idea that Donald Trump has bungled the response to the coronavirus pandemic. Dan's really smart. He's got a graduate degree from Harvard. He knows his stuff.

I don't agree with him on everything, but he knows his stuff and he's smart. And I think it is important that we have conversations with people we disagree with, people who are smart, who can challenge our viewpoints. And that's really the premise of Dan's newest book, which I read and really enjoyed. It's called Fortitude American Resilience in the era of outrage.

It's a great book. Obviously, Fortitude and endurance and strength is a really important idea and stoic philosophy. He talks about epictetus in the book. A lot of these political memoirs are just sort of like they're done by ghost writers. They're not really sincere. It's just a campaign device. This book is not that. It's a really sincere. It's just it's a campaign device. This book is not that.

It's a good book. It's an important book. It deserves to be read. Again, don't agree with all of it, I think, as I talk about with Dan, the idea that I'll sort of lack of fortitude is victim culture. Snowflake culture exists solely on the left as preposterous.

We've talked about this before, but we live in a culture where people are afraid of, as General Mattis would say, the dangerous world of ideas. They want to retreat into the safety of their own views, their own partisanship, their own convenient, clean narratives, but reality is history is messy,

the world is complicated. We're all trying to do the best we can within it. And that becomes really hard when people say certain things are off limits. Instead of engaging with ideas, we label the other side as evil or racist or stupid or malicious or whatever it is that we're doing. And so we have to talk about these things. And it's actually in the conflict between these ideas that I think we get closer to the approximation of the truth.

So there's a great conversation, Dan, is a fascinating guy. I think you'll like this. Check out the book, Fortitude. Fortitude is clearly a virtue. It's something we all need more than ever. And as I would say, just as I've said in past episodes to people who were mad that I've criticized, you know, the president or criticized Republicans, if that offends you, the problem is with you, as Epictetus would say.

But conversely, people who are upset that I'm talking to Congressman Crenshaw about some of these ideas that we're getting into it, that this wasn't a sort of a gacha thing where I'm trying to get him to admit this or I'm trying to argue with him on this or try to make him look stupid. If you're offended that that didn't happen, again, that problem is with you. So enjoy the interview. It's great stuff and I hope to bring you more guests soon. Dan talks about Epictetus in the book. There is this great overlap between Stoicism and Military Culture, particularly in the Navy where Admiral Stockdale is from, Dan talks about that, and the interview he talks about how

that's how he came to Epictetus, and actually he didn't know how to pronounce it, because he just sort of read about it. But I think that's fine. I mean, I think there's all these different ways that stoicism is being spread, and then Dan is, in turn, paying the favor forward by talking about an ins book to all sorts of people

who may not have ordinarily heard about it. And so Dan's great. We'll get into it and I'll talk to you soon. As a bit of a twist today, I thought I would read one of my favorite letters from Senka. This is letter 12 from the Penguin Classics translation of Senka's letters from Astoic. He writes, wherever I turn, I see fresh evidence of my old age. I visited my place out of Rome recently and was grumbling about the expense of maintaining

the building, which was in a dilapidated state. My manager told me that the trouble wasn't due to any neglect on his part. He was doing his utmost, but the house was old. The house had taken shape under my own hands, and what's to become of me if stones of my own age are crumbling like that. Losing my temper I seized at the first excuse that presented itself for venting my irritation on him. It's quite clear I said that these plain trees are being neglected. There's no foliage on them. Look at those naughty dried up branches and those wretched flaking trunks. That wouldn't happen if someone dug round them and watered them. He swore by my guardian angel that he was doing

his utmost in everything his care was unremitting, but the poor things were just old. Between you and me now, I had planted them myself and seen the first leaf appearing on them myself. And then turning towards the front door, I said, who's that? Who's that decrepit old person that doors the proper place for him? All right. He looks like he's on his way out. Where did you get him from? What was the attraction taking over someone else's dead for burial? Whereupon, the man said, don't you recognize me? I'm Felicio. You used to bring me toy figures. The man's absolutely crazy. I said, become a little child again. He has actually calls himself my playmate. Well, the way he's losing teeth at this very moment, it's perfectly possible.

So I owe it to this place of mine near that my old age was made clear to me at every turn. Well, we should cherish old age and enjoy it. It was full of pleasures if you know how to use it. Fruit tastes most delicious just when it sees in his ending. The charms of youth are at their greatest at the time of its passing. It is the final glass which pleases the inveterate drinker, the one that sets the crowning touch on his intoxication and sends him off into oblivion. Every pleasure differs till its last its greatest delights. The time of life which offers the greatest delights is the age that sees the downward movement, not the steep decline already begun. And in my opinion, even the age that

stands on the brink has pleasures of its own, or else the very fact of not experiencing the want of any pleasures takes its place, how nice it is to have outworn one's desires and left them behind. And Seneca goes on and talks much about old age and watching himself age and then he concludes, but I must close this letter now. What you will be saying, is it coming to me just as it is without any part in contribution? Don't worry, it's bringing you something. Why did I call it something though? It's a great deal for what could be more splendid than the following saying, which I'm entrusting to this letter of mine to you, to live under constraint is misfortune, but there is no constraint to live under constraint. Of course not, when

on every side, there are plenty of short and easy roads to freedom there for the taking. Let us thank God that no one can be held a prisoner for life. The very Constraints can be trampled under a foot. It was epicurus who said that you protest. What business have you got with someone else's property? Whatever is true is my property. I shall persist in inflicting epicurus on you in order to bring it home to the people who take an oath of allegiance to someone And never afterwards consider what is being said, but only who it, that the things of the greatest merit are common property. Celebrity feuds are high stakes. You never know if you're just going to end up on page six or Du Moir or in court. I'm Matt Bellesai. And I'm Sydney Battle, and we're the host of Wonder 's new podcast, Dis and Tell, where each episode we unpack a different iconic celebrity feud from the buildup, why it happened, and the repercussions.

What does our obsession with these feud say about us? The first season is packed with some pretty messy pop culture drama, but none is drawn out in personal as Brittany and Jamie Lynn Spears. When Brittany's fans form the free Brittany movement, dedicated to fraying her from the infamous conservatorship, Jamie Lynn's lack of public support, it angered some fans, a lot of them. It's a story of two young women who had their choices taken away from them by their

controlling parents, but took their anger out on each other. And it's about a movement to save a superstar, which set its sights upon anyone who failed to fight for Britney. Follow Disenthal wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen ad-free on Amazon Music or The Wondery App. So in Stoicism, as in Christianity, the core virtues, the cardinal virtues, courage, justice, wisdom, temperance, sometimes a courage is rendered as fortitude. And so I love this so I love this word, I love that you built your book around it.

To you are courage and fortitude the same thing or is one subordinate to the other? Can you have one with the other? What's the relationship to courage and fortitude? Oh, I'm sure there's a relationship. I mean, if there's not a question, I've given a whole lot of thought to until right this minute. So I guess I can stumble through it.

Put out your ass. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so, yes, of course, they're related. I guess I would define courage as the ability to confront what makes you uncomfortable and to confront hardship and fortitudes more defined as resilience through adversity. Of course, they're related, but they are different, I think. Yeah, I think the Stokes would probably say courage includes in fortitude. You can't be courageous

without fortitude. Certainly, you could be tough and resilient in an uncarriages way as well, sort of around the wrong thing. But if we take fortitude as this core virtue, this thing that we need, I'm curious, how do we cultivate it? Because I agree that it's lacking, you know, sort of, I don't think it's a political statement to say that we live in a time, sort of devoid, both of courage and of fortitude. How do we cultivate that, then, whether it's in young people or in ourselves? Well the first step is to read my book fortitude based on the instruction manual on how to cultivate it. So we start the book with a couple lessons that I think are very in order

for a reason. You'd probably change up the order slightly but for the most part I think you need I think you need a sense of perspective on what's actually hard and what isn't. And what suffering really is and what it isn't. And then you need to identify that you even want to have fortitude. You have to want it. You have to envision it in your own attributes. And so like the first chapter is called perspective from darkness. And I walk through what my perspective was and literal darkness and then you know, being blinded by an IED and then but a bit of perspective that's associated with that and thinking of others who have gone through it and had it worse and others who have paid the ultimate price.

And you have to live with a certain truth about your hardship and suffering in this life, which is somebody else has gone through worse and they probably handled it better than you did. And you should be kind of ashamed of that. That feels like a very callous, tough love comment, but it's true, it is a guaranteed truth. And it's also possibly true

that you've lived through something harder before. And you should think back on that and remind yourself of the scars that you bear and how you can overcome this too. And so perspective is just really important and it takes a level headed person to have it. But you have to want all these things. And so the second chapter is called Who Is Your Hero? And it's a chapter about developing this sort of like vision board for yourself about heroic attributes and about identifying

what is truly a heroic attribute and what isn't and how our society is just totally screwed that up. We believe that heroes are victims basically. And instead of looking up to Superman as a person who makes the right judgments and shows courage in the face of adversity, we would prefer that he's a victim, who has been victimized in some way, and then we could elevate him to the heroic status. And that's a crazy thing. And it's created a fragile society, but it's also created very angry society that would prefer to follow a fist-shaking activist trying to tear it all down,

as opposed to somebody who talks optimistically and courageously about overcoming adversity and talks about the future. Yeah, I think, I think what you, what you talk about in the book that I think ties into both those things, both perspective and your sort of hero, is this idea of a narrative? Sort of what is the narrative that you're following? What's the narrative that you view history from? How do you look at, you know, the story of America?

Is it a story of, as we're being told now, it's a story that sort of, what's stamped from the beginning with white supremacy, or is it you look at it as a story of unrealized hope and optimism and principle that we've been inching closer to? So that perspective, do you see the glasses half full, half empty, do you see it as irredeemably evil, or as not realizing its full potential, sort of how you decide to view the world, the story you tell yourself about the world and your place in that world

determines What choices you're gonna be able to make in response of things? Yeah, you know personal narratives matter and in the book I go into personal narratives in the stories you tell yourself and overcoming your own hardship and And the statements you have to make and then I broaden that out to talk about the story of America, as you mentioned. And it's not even about being optimistic. It's about being objective.

With respect to the story of America, especially, we've allowed this narrative to be spun that the American founding is based in some evil. And then that it's, you know, there's, I mean, you're watching it play out. Everything I talked about in the book, you're watching play out right now, in extreme form. And we always knew that eventually they'd come for the founding and the 1619 project as an example of that tearing down statues of Washington and Jefferson, our examples of that, you know, it's no longer just some Confederate statues,

which you can make a much more reasonable argument about, but it's about the union now, basically. And that's a crazy thing. And again, it's much more than just a different perspective. It's more of a false telling of history, and it's extremely dangerous. And it comes from the victimhood culture that we've lived in for a while now. And so the victimhood culture, it hurts you personally, for sure.

I mean, it feels good at first because it allows you to blame somebody else for for your own circumstances. So it's a bit of a warm blanket to wrap yourself in, but objectively speaking, it has no benefit for you. It is fundamentally a look at the past as opposed to the future and what you can do. And so there's simple little mantras that I think you can tell yourself, which is what I point out in the book is, I have two statements or I get two statements. And I like this little trick. And it is a trick because it's, you know, here's what I mean to statements. And I like this little trick, and it is a trick

because it's, you know, here's what I mean by it. Like do I have to wear an eye patch? Do I have to wear these big thick glasses or do I get to? Do I get to wear an eye patch? Because I can find some kind of silver lining. Do I have to go find a new job because I lost my last one

or do I get to explore new opportunities? Now, to a certain extent, like this is a mind game, right? Like there's, there isn't some great thing about losing your job, right? I don't know what pretend there is, but there's certainly no benefit in wallowing and self-pity, objectively speaking. And there is benefit in this sort of false optimism,

even if it is false. It doesn't matter, It's objectively good. And so telling a correct story about self-empowerment is an objectively good thing, even if you were truly victimized. And of course, outrage culture, the victimhood cultures is more about perceived injustices that aren't even true.

And that's been a wildly popular narrative for a while. It doesn't mean there are no injustices that are true. Of course there are. But the way you deal with those doesn't really change. I think it's, and what the Stokes would say is sort of, is the story that you're choosing to tell yourself about this thing, is it giving you more agency or less agency? And so I think the opposite of victim culture is sort of

high agency culture, right? Or a victim narrative versus an agency narrative. I mean, if you look at the civil rights movement, or you look at the leaders who have brought about great change in this country and in the world, what they're almost always doing is focusing on a narrative of agency. Like I think that you look at a Frederick Douglass,

or you look at a Martin Luther King, what they focused that they didn't, they're sort of unflinching in their assessment of what is wrong and who is to blame and the severity of it. But what they're doing is looking at how this contradicts the promise of the country or what is objectively and sort of inalienable,

inalienably sort of right, and then they're focusing on how do we get closer towards realizing that vision as opposed to, as you said, let's tear this all down because it sucks and it's broken in a typical critical or what have you. Right, right, and that's why I mean, we're, and I write about Frederick Douglass's speech in the book in the last chapter where it is a great example of becoming part of the American story. And that was Frederick Douglass's message. He was pointing out the hypocrisy of the times compared to the founding because the founding was inherently abolitionist and only, and every, any objective scholar agrees on that.

It was there is no other interpretation of history. They're just isn't. And it's just a fundamental lie that keeps getting told by by institutions like the New York Times and the 1619 project that that that our founding was was based in slavery. Our founding occurred in the midst of a of a worldwide epidemic of slavery that had long been an institution. So to say that it's a uniquely American sin, it's just historically absurd claim. It is Western civilization that ridd itself of slavery, and painfully so, but did it.

And America did it within a century of its founding. And to tear apart that history is really strange and unfortunate. What Frederick Douglas said was that these are glorious liberty documents and that we should live up to them. And that if we're going to write these things like we rightfully did, then maybe we should live up to those things. And society has to catch up to the theme of America, to the founding of America. And the society eventually did, but it is society and it takes time. And he was one of the fighters for that. We've turned that narrative on its head now.

And it's deeply unfortunate. And there's only chaos that it leads to. We're already seeing it. This is something I always said before, but it was always like, well, I don't see any chaos. So, you know, I don't know, Dan, you're just making this up. But clearly, that's not not true. And it's just a really sad time in America because it happened much quicker than I thought

it would. Well, I think this is why these virtues are related, right? So this is why Christianity and Sources and both, you know, obviously courage and fortitude is a virtue. But so is wisdom, right? And you can't have wisdom without courage, because it truths are hard and uncomfortable. You also can't have wisdom without courage

to face those facts. But I think what you're talking about is, you have to actually understand what those documents are. You have to have the sort of mental rigor to sort of go to the original text, to understand them to mess around with the uncomfortableness of history and the truth of it to figure this out. And I think we live, we sort of, we now live in this sort of tweet or sound by culture

where, you know, someone can, oh, I read in the New York Times in the 1619 Project or whatever, this, and then that becomes true. What I think people are lacking is a sort of, a basic sense of civics or a basic sense of, or knowledge of history that allows them to sort of wrestle with this stuff and also not be so easily manipulated by, you know, sort of claims by activists and extremists on both ends of the spectrum.

Yeah, and it's been happening for a long time. I mean, you know, if the 169 team project was the only thing, then it wouldn't be as persuasive to people, but these narratives of anti-Americanism have been around since the 60s, really. And sort of a Marxist ideology kind of came to be in the new left movements of the 60s and And it's and it's been with us ever since and as they've they've slowly seeped in Dacodemia and pop culture Where it's it's become more and more popularized to believe that America is a scourge on on the earth

And sure it was it was easy to To do that in the Vietnam era. And it's been that that sentiment has been applied to more and more aspects of American life, to where this is sort of self-loathing that occurs. And now it's still not the majority, but it's clearly growing. And just from the statistics would tell you that and surveys would tell you that. And it's very problematic and it is based on a objectively wrong view of history, the Howard's Inn history. And we have wisdom is a virtue and people are not really willing to softly engage in it unfortunately.

There is more of a call to emotion, and again, this kind of gets to some of the things in my book where you, getting back to the heroic attributes theme, you want to be somebody who is wise, not somebody who is emotional. There's no virtue in emotional reactions, even though that's been elevated as a virtue in our current culture, and it's dangerous.

It's very dangerous. And I've talked about this before, but I'd be curious for your take. This idea of heroes, which is actually one of my favorite chapters in the book, it's something I've written about before, I think when you really look at the history, the Confederate monuments, it becomes more and more indefensible. Not just because what did the actual documents of the secession plan for the states, sort of explicitly why were they rebelling, so on and so forth,

which is almost secondary to when and why do these monuments go up? And what was the intention of the people putting them up? I feel like that position becomes more and more indefensible. And if I was a black person, I would be rubbed quite the wrong way by the idea that the courthouse that I have to walk into is adorned with a statue in honor of the people

who enslaved my people. And by the way, that this was put up and funded with my tax dollars over the last 100 years, which I was forced to pay while being illegally deprived of my right to vote. Right? So I think that position becomes somewhat indefensible. But what I think is interesting to go to your point about heroes, who do we worship? It's interesting to me that we don't have a good answer as a society as to who should we put up there, right? And so I'd be curious, like, when you think about heroes, when you think about this idea

of fortitude as a American and a cultural value, who should we be holding up as like the embodiment of what is good and what we should be teaching our children to strive to be like. I mean, there's a huge variety of options there. Again, it's easier to look at who we shouldn't. Sure. As opposed to who we should. There's a million reasons why you erect a monument. And there's usually something that that person has done

that has contributed to society. It's usually what it is. You're not erecting a monument because you think they're a god and you think they're Jesus Christ and perfect. Sure. And that this is what people forget and it's again, it's totally reasonable as he stated to be having debate about Confederate generals being erected as You know, an idolized in a way that's it's a perfectly reasonable debate to be had. It should be had in a democratic process, and not like a mob form, because nothing should happen in mob form.

But again, that's quite different than tearing down at the founders. You know, the question. Well, you say, of course, but a lot of people disagree with that now, and they've been radicalized to such a huge extent. And that line has to be very clearly drawn. It just has to be very, very clearly drawn.

And the question does have to be asked, why was it put up? Like you said, that is a good question to ask. Was it put up to sort of stick it to the North? I mean, in and of so, does I mean, are you defending the deeply evil ideology? And if so, then, okay, I don't know, that is a good reason to want to remove it and replace it with something else. But it has to be done democratically and objectively. And then, you know, it's not a unreasonable conversation to be having by any means. But it's hoping.

Yeah. And I just, I'm not asking you to sort of say who should America put up on, on, on, you know, if we replace all these money, and it's who should it be? I guess I'm just sort of like, sort of who are your heroes in this regard? Like who, I'm just like, if someone was like, hey, I want to learn more about, you know, somebody that embodies these ideas. Who is the best of us? To me, I think it's interesting. We got a lot of statues of Robert E. Lee, but very few statues of, say, a George Marshall. Who does embody the best that we should think about?

Who are your heroes, I guess, is what I'm saying. I mean, even in the book, I don't list my heroes. I don't have, I noticed that. Yeah, because I've just, I've never, I've never been in the biographies. I've never, never thought about it that way. I think heroes are important, but not in the way that people normally think of heroes.

Like, what do you, who do you look up to? And like, who do you, who's your favorite general and who's your favorite president? I just don't think that way. It's not how my mind works. I'm also, you know, I don't, and I declined to ever answer it because I'm like, who's your favorite general and who's your favorite president? I just don't think that way. It's not how my mind works. I'm also, you know, I don't, and I declined to ever answer it because I'm like, well, I don't know enough about all of them, frankly.

You know, I'm not a student of all of them. And I just, so I just find the premise of the question to be, just, it's not well suited for me and how I view history. The what I talk about in the book are attributes. There are virtues and some people embody those in a decent way and some people don't. And you don't need to wrap your head around one person.

In fact, it's unhealthy because everybody's got something about them that isn't so great. And it also opens you up to all the criticism, oh, well, that's your hero. Well, didn't you know that they cheated on their wife? So you think it's okay to change your wife? No, it's a super disingenuous accusation. But it's what people do because they're jerks.

And I'm not saying I do it to protect myself against jerks. I just, it's just not how I think, I guess. Like, I don't have that historical mind. It's, I have a conceptual mind. So I'll draw upon little tidbits of history to back up the concepts that I think are long and deeply held and tried and true over time. And I think that's just a more,

I think that's just a healthier way to think about it. Because I can never come up with a bunch of people that I think are heroic and that should be erected and statue form. I'm asking you all. Then who your favorite this is, who your favorite that is, and I just don't have it. I don't even like,

and even if I am thinking of something, I just don't wanna say it, because I don't wanna be pinned down to it, you know? It's interesting to hear you say that as a very biographical person, that's just always sort of, I guess I was always looking for models and sort of advice and structure and you know, things, Seneca says, you know, sort of without a ruler, you can't make crooked straight. And so he talks about picking a Cato, you know, so for Seneca Cato, it's his hero.

But I wondered then if maybe that explains your sort of love of fiction, I kept seeing you mention the sort of novels that you would read in the book, a lot of sort of historical fiction or sort of military fiction, where, you know, if you're describing them, what you'd say is, although the people and the events aren't real,

the ideas and the traits are real. And so maybe that's sort of where you've been getting some of your guidance, if not from the biography of this man or this woman. Well, yeah. And I did talk about that in the art, because when I'm talking about our heroic archetypes, that's the term we use.

And that's a maybe psychological term. But archetypes are a better way to talk about this. For the reasons I've stated, real people have real flaws. It's us better not to idolize them. Except for Jesus, Jesus is the only real person that has no flaws. And so that's an important tenet of Christianity.

You're never able to become him, but you at least know it's a strive for. And fiction, what fiction gives us is kind of those perfect person stories as well, like Superman, because it's fiction. So there isn't, there isn't gonna be some like bombshell that comes out about them. Like, yeah.

And so a better way to teach people how to live is through storytelling and through narrative and that's why Jesus talked in parables. Because Jesus didn't really look to past figures either. He always spoke in parables as well. I think it's the right way to teach and start what to think about who you want to be. So again, the answer to who is your hero, because that's the name of the chapter, who is your hero, the answer is you, you're supposed to be your hero. But it's your vision

that you build for yourself. Yeah, that makes sense. Okay, so let's talk about outrage here, because obviously that's a theme in the book, and I think it's, I was talking to Shaka Smart, who's the head coach at UT this morning about this. He had sent something to all his players about sort of being offended by things and how you manage that. And we were talking one of my favorite quotes is from Epictetus. He says, you know, when you find yourself offended, understand that you are complicit in

taking the offense. Essentially that it takes two to tango, which sort of reminds me of something you talk about the book, which is a great quote. I forget who it's from, but it's worth repeating. You said, try not to offend, but try harder not to be offended. That is a statement of human agency, right, that you have the ability to choose not to be provoked, I think is really interesting and not discussed enough these days.

Yeah, I want to put that quote in my book, if I heard it until now. It quote, because I talk about, I can't pronounce this dang name. I picked it. Yeah, I picked it. But he's in my book. I do talk about him. Well, I don't really talk about him. I reference Admiral Stockdale, who was a don't really talk about them. I reference Admiral

Stockdale, who was a student of his and talked, and what you're really saying in that quote is hyper accountability. And that's what you control what you control. And you don't control what you don't control. And you have a hyper rational view of what that is and the reality that the problem most people have is they believe more things are out of their control than are really out of their control. And so, yeah, being offended is your choice. 100%, just like getting coronavirus is your choice.

It is. It's always, strikes me as insane that we're even talking about lockdowns at all anymore. I think it's a totally deep-bunked idea at this point because all along you could choose not to get it. You can choose to lock yourself down. It doesn't mean you can lock other people down. There's a huge degree of power that we have over our own lives that we just consistently refuse to admit. So that lack of accountability does at least leads to outrage culture. Because if you're offended, you choose to be offended. You're letting somebody else control your emotions.

And that quote, by the way, that I put in the book about, you know, try hard not to offend others, but try hard or not to be offended. That's, I came from a Harvard professor and he said that to the class in orientation. And I just, it always stuck with me. Because it was just, it's so spot on for a college campus. And it's just the right balance that our country needs so badly right now. Don't be a jerk.

Don't try to trigger others. And this is what the right needs to learn too, you know, because the left is always triggered. But the right, we love to trigger them, you know? And that's not necessary. There's a way to trigger them with truth and because I trigger them too, but I'm doing it with, I think, objective facts and truth,

and there's a way to do that without just pissing people off. And, but being offended is 100% with the end-year control. And, you know, I agree. And look, I think this sort of, it's interesting how this sort of snowflake culture begins on the left on college campuses. And it's a real problem. It's really something to, it shuts down ideas.

It shuts down debate. It prevents people from learning as we talked about. But it's been interesting to me as someone who sort of identifies as center right, but is not a fan of the president. And you know, sort of talks about these things from a historical sense,'ll sort of criticize things. It'll be, it's interesting to me, when you see how easily triggered people are,

even on the right about, you know, the inability to, like, if I really liked a writer, and then I found out that they had different political views than me, and they happened to mention this in something they said, I cannot imagine so losing my mind that I would have to send this person a really angry email. So what is it culturally where we've just lost the ability

to understand that other people's beliefs are their beliefs and that they don't have to have any impact on your beliefs. You don't have, that doesn't have to upset you. And if you disagree, you can just talk to that person about that thing. Yeah, I just, I don't understand that. It's so, or agree to disagree, you can just talk to that person about that thing. I don't understand that. It's so- Or agree to disagree, right?

And it's like, yeah. Yeah, because the right gets triggered, but in very different ways than the left does. And it's unhealthy, but it's not quite as unhealthy as the left-wing sort of microaggression triggering culture that they have. They're much more detrimental on their side, but it's not like that. And I talk about this in the book too. It's not like the right doesn't have its flaws and inability to think through, you know, being a politician. Like I call those types rhino hunters. They're always looking for a rhino and meaning a Republican in name only. And so they're always

looking for someone who's betrayed them. There's sort of a deep paranoia there. So the left is always very quick to try and force conformity, force a thought process, force a certain narrative. They really want to change others' nature and their thoughts and beliefs. And they want to force them to do it and they'll cancel and shout you down to whatever extent they can. The rights are a bit more paranoid of betrayal. And so they're always looking for someone who's betrayed them. And as opposed to engaging in classical liberal values, which are just conservative values at this point, of free thought, discussion, and debate.

And what I say is it is the sign of a mentally weak person that gets mad instead of formulating the argument to just debunk whatever they disagree with. And again, that needs to be part of your hero archetype. The Miley Typing person who just spouts off, or am I the type of person who spouts off, but also lists a lot of good reasons and facts as to why I disagree with them. And you know, because that's healthy. It's healthy to disagree. It's just the way you disagree. I think that's not, you know, because I don't blame anybody for sending an email to a writer that they used to like, but then had an opinion they don't like. It's just the way you do it. You know, is it a, are you, are you, and then there's a big difference in just kind of activist fist shaking versus and just calling somebody, oh, you're not a real Republican if you don't

believe this, you're not a real this, if you don't believe it. You know, seek to understand. And that requires a degree of mental toughness. I would, I would also say, and this was striking to me in your interview with Bill Marr and then also your, your reaction to Pete Davidson that I think is interesting and maybe it's a place to wrap up. But is it a thing that's also to me

sort of severely lacking? The only other place I saw it sort of, particularly well done was in that sort of famous Jordan Peterson interview. I think it was with the CBC, where even though the the other person on the other side is hostile, even if that person's being critical, even if you're at, you know, complete opposite polar ends of the spectrum in terms of what you believe, what I thought was so

interesting about your your Bill Maureen review was just your calmness under that pressure. I'm sure that comes from your military training, but it's sort of nothing compared to what you've been through. But I struggle with that myself. How do you win attack, win criticized, win dealing with a confrontation? How does one maintain that kind of coolness under pressure? To me, that is also a key element of fortitude, it's grace under pressure. Yeah, and I have a whole chapter about that. It's called Be Still.

And it's stillness in the stillic sense, but it's stillness in the classical sense of like your mom taught you to count to 10 before you react. So these are tried and true virtues. And they've long been a part of our culture, but we have to remind ourselves of them constantly. And so what I like to point out is none of these ideas that I talk about in the book are new,

which is kind of why they're good. Now, I frame them in new ways and I'm kind of re-exploring them, but I don't think anything is new. And that's made obvious because every time I have a lesson in there, I back it up with a lot of historical anecdotes. So, you know, I use the stoic philosophy to back it up in thousands of years old. So, it must be something to it. I use biblical foundations too. And, you know, there's a lot to back these basic ideas up. But stillness is really, and it is military training. I talk about how we train that way in the seal so that, so that when you do come under fire, your immediate reaction isn't emotional. It's,

it's you, you just kind of train yourself and this is done through war gaming really. Like, you're just constantly thinking of what could happen. And so when it does happen, it's not this big surprise that causes an emotional reaction. It's just something you expected. And I talk about combative interviews, too, where you can't just throw your hands up and call the person names because you're mad at them. I mean, you can, but you're not going to look good.

And you're certainly not going to win that way. So it takes practice. And people can practice this in their daily lives too, like with, because most people's confrontations happen on social media and that's a great way to practice this. You're just not sending send or not hitting send. You know, and thinking about, wait a second, what are the counter arguments

what I just said? Maybe I can just send a message that basically eliminates all counterarguments if I just put some more thought into it first. And I'm not saying don't argue online, go for it. But do it thoughtfully and using your head and not your heart all the time. Because it's, and you'll feel better afterwards for sure.

Because how many times do you have having a emotional reaction? And the next day, you're like, I really wish I could have that instead. We'll learn from that moment and war game it in your head and imagine those moments going forward and you'll be better off for it. Yeah, I feel like I've never been glad

that I lost my temper and I generally find anger to be a poor strategy and no, it's funny that you bring up stillness. My last book is called Stillness is the key and it's about the sort of overlap between stoic philosophy and Buddhist philosophy about that idea. We tend to think stillness is the absence of doing anything. Actually, to me, it's the sort of active taking of one's agency and deciding, I'm not going to do this. I'm not going to respond. I'm not going to be jerked around. And I'm going to sort of focus on what's in front of me.

And obviously, yeah, under fire, you have to have that. Because if you are jerked around by your emotions, you're going to put yourself or other people in harm's way. Yeah, and that's the point. It's an active decision, which is, again, why I start the book with who is your hero, because that's the chapter that tells you you have to decide that you're going to abide by all these lessons. And if you don't decide that, then you'll never abide by these lessons. So it's an active decision, and that takes takes work and it takes some self discipline. Yeah, I think we're on the same page. I think unfortunately we are in the minority these days as far as, you know, as you mentioned,

the prevailing view is if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention, if you're not angry, you're part of the problem. You know, and I do agree there's outrageous things happening. I think it's just hard for people to understand that being angry is not how you solve problems. In fact, it's usually blinding you to the solution. So if you do think that what's happening is evil, or you do think that what's happening is wrong, or you do disagree with the president,

or this or that, or please brutality. If you wanna solve that, what you need is stillness and calmness and those heroic archetypes because they're really complex problems and you're not going to solve them emotionally, interactually and passionately in the ancient sense of the word passions. Yeah, yeah, and that's why I start the book

talking about the intro is know, the intro is about staying outraged. And, and, and it's sort of slogan that you, they're, you refer to of stay outraged, and there's like shirts made and buttons made, stay outraged. And you're like, you're actually perpetuating the totally wrong philosophy. That's in no way, shape, or form, is that how Martin Luther King made vast changes. It's completely the opposite of his philosophy. And he was successful. And there's a reason for that.

The reality is, with the current cultural narratives of stay outraged, things will get worse before they get better. And we just have to start teaching the right things. No, that's great. Congressman, thank you so much. Thank you for having me, Ryan. I really appreciate it. If you're liking this podcast,

we would love for you to subscribe. Please leave us a review on iTunes or any of your favorite podcasts, listening apps. It really helps and tell a friend. Hey, prime members, you can listen to the daily stoic early and add free on Amazon music. Download the Amazon music app today, or you can listen early and add free with Wondery Plus in Apple podcasts. you can listen early and add free with Wondery Plus in Apple podcasts.