The Eric Metaxas Show - Larry Elder and Lawrence Reed

Episode Date: July 21, 2020

Salem radio host Larry Elder shares an update on the phenomenal success of his new documentary, "Uncle Tom"; then, economist Lawrence Reed asks (and answers) a very big question: Was Jesus a Socialist?

As the announcer of this show, I sometimes ask myself, to what shall I compare Eric? Shall I compare him to a summer's day? Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May. But not Eric. I'll tell you nothing shakes this guy. And now here he is, wearing green leotards and a gestures coxcomb, Eric Mataxis. Exiton, stage left. Folks, welcome to Eric Mataxis show.

Oh, boy, am I excited? Why? Because I have the man behind the film Uncle Tom. You know I've talked on this program about that film a number of times, and we've had my friend and Salem faculty colleague, as Sebastian Gorka puts it, Larry Elder on. Larry, congratulations on Uncle Tom, the film. I know it has been just like kicking butt all over the country.

People have had their eyes open. I mean, look, this is why we do what we do. And when you have a success like this, we need to just celebrate. Well, I couldn't be more excited. As I was telling you, it has exceeded my expectations, both financially and in terms of critical review. And when you go on IMDB, that big international movie database, and you see the reviews that are posted up there. Over a thousand of them, about 300 of them have done written reviews. And from time to time, Eric, you'll find some liberal who kind of found his way to the movie, either because somebody dared him to see it

or because he heard good things about it and sort of reluctantly paid the money to see it. I'm getting reactions like this. I assume the movie was a about Larry Yelder. It is not, as you know, I'm barely in it. That would have been boring. The second thing is, I thought it was going to be a bunch of right-wing black people telling people what to think. Instead, you're telling people that they are free to think. And that's exactly the reaction I hope that I would be getting from the left. Well, that's the shock, isn't it? That to tell people that they're free to think in America is suddenly a radical refrapping message. But, you know, I know that we need to be reminded of the basics.

over and over and over again, because our tendency is to drift toward socialism and some kind of tyranny. So it is a wonderful thing, because I really do believe that, you know this, that the black American community has been taken for granted by the Democratic Party for 50 years. And I really think finally we have enough, you know, reality in history to look at that people are saying something's not working, I may be open to something else. We've arrived at that moment, and it seems a perfect time for the film. You've said that black people have taken for granted. I think you're stating it kindly. Black people have been manipulated and used and made worse off because of left-wing policies. Policies that reward a woman to marry the government allows men to abandon

their financial and moral responsibility, policies that will not allow an inner-city parent to get his or her kid out of a bad underperforming nearby government school. I think I've told you I went to Crenshaw High School, which is a high school that was in the center of that movie, Boys in the Hood. Right now, according to an L.A. Times article, only 3% of kids in my high school

can do math at grade level. And the school is a Crips school, meaning that is run by the gang called the Crips. The reason I know that is because Ice T went to my high school years after I did and told me he selected Crenshaw High School because he wanted to go to high school where the Crips ran the school. Now, you're a parent living within that geographical area.

One party, the Democratic Party is mandating to send your daughter who just graduated from middle school to that school where only 3% of kids can do math at grade level, and is they a clip school. And one party, the Republican Party, wants to give that inner city parent an option. Why are we even having a conversation of which party is a better party for blacks? If education is the route to the middle class, and if education is that both Democrats and Republicans say the 21st civil rights issue, putting first century civil rights issue, then why are you not allowing parents the option to opt out of a bad underperforming government school? Well, look, it's so upsetting to hear you say this, and I'm glad you're saying it so that my audience can hear it. The idea, Larry, that parents are forced to send their kids to a school that is like a prison. I mean, you say run by the Crips, by a violent, bloodthirsty gang of thugs, running a school,

and then the school is paid for by tax dollars. I mean, this is madness on a level that's almost incomprehensible, and the Democrats don't seem to care. And if you need proof that they don't care about blacks in the inner city, all you need to do is say what you just said. You say, how is it possible that they could actually care if they cared the least they would do? I mean, the least they would do is give some options and school choice. And Eric, the proofs in the pudding.

Ask public school teachers who teach in major cities where they send their own school-age kids. The average family, around 10% of us have our kids in private school. Around 6% of black families have their kids in private school. But among Philadelphia school teachers who have kids of school-age, 44% of them have them in public school. In Chicago, public school teachers with school-age kids, 39% of them have them in private schools. LA, 28%. That's the equivalent of having a restaurant. putting on a sign saying, come on in, just don't eat the food.

Now, the people that know the school system the best don't put their own kids in it. What is there to say? Some years ago, a man who ultimately became mayor of L.A., Antonio Villarosa, during the debate, was asked, why is it you don't have your own kids in public school? Your wife teaches in public school, and you're a big public school proponent. Why don't you have your own kids in public school? He said, quote, I would not sacrifice, close quote, my kids by putting them in public school. He didn't get elected that year. he stopped using that rhetoric, but he was honest and referred to putting his kid in a public school

as, quote, a sacrifice. What does that tell you? I mean, honestly. Well, I guess my question really is how are these things possible? And it was this level of corruption, this level of failure. You have to take the free market out of it. Now, there's only government is able to screw things up this badly. If there was any choice, any free market, any of the principles that make this country great involved, you know that these things would go away. In other words, no one would send those kids to the schools. Well, that's right. And regarding government interference and bad policies, Eric, 1940, 87% of black lived below the federally defined level of poverty. 20 years later, 1960, that number had been reduced to 47%. A 40-point reduction over a 20-year period of time.

That is the greatest period of 20-year economic prosperity of black Americans in history. And notably, this is before the so-called war on poverty, before affirmative action, before all these programs for black people. Jason Riley, who was an editor with the Wall Street Journal, wrote a book called Please Stop Helping Us, where he talked about all these social policies that were advanced by the left with the best of intentions that have horrible consequences. We need to rethink this. and when people like myself and Thomas Sol and Candace Owens and Herman West and Alan

Kevin Keane rather and Alan West, all of whom are in my movie, when we raise these issues, instead of it sparking a healthy discussion within the black community, we are demeaned, discredited, marginalized, dismissed as Uncle Tom, self-lovers, Coons, and other things I can't say. Well, I got to tell you, Larry, you know, when I think of Uncle Tom, I think we said this when I last had you on the program. I didn't read Uncle Tom's cabin until about a year ago. I was simply staggered. The figure of Uncle Tom in that book, it's one of the most Christian books.

It might be the most Christian work of fiction I've ever read. It led to this nation finally confronting the satanic abomination of slavery. And in that book, The Hero, the Christ-like figure is Uncle Tom. Somehow over the years, as you know, this has become a term of derision. I want to thank you personally for putting that phrase back on the map so that people can understand who Uncle Tom was and what does it mean to be called in Uncle Tom in this country. If somebody calls you Uncle Tom in this country and you're a black person, I would take it as a high compliment because honestly, anybody using that term as a term of derision, those folks are the problem. And Eric, you point out that this was a Christ-like figure, and this is precisely why, in my opinion, Uncle Tom is not read in our public schools. You cannot read Uncle Tom without getting a whole lot of preaching, a whole lot of references to God and to the Bible, and to what Christianity means to him and to this country.

And that's why I believe that it's not a popular book to read in public schools. Abraham Lincoln, as you know, when he met the author Harry and Beatrice Stowe, said to her, you're the little lady that started this civil war because for the first time, northerners were reading in graphic detail the depravity of what the black people were suffering through during slavery. And as you pointed out, the character, Uncle Tom,

is really based upon a real-life man named Josiah Henson, who was a hero. He ultimately started a free colony in Canada because of oppression. He was a great, great man. And Harriet Beatrice Stone, and she was criticized about this because she accused of making up all these characters produced a list of every single person on whom she based her fictitious characters.

The most popular book of the 1800s. The only book that outsold it in the 1800s was the Bible. Of course. We're going to go to a break more with Larry Elder, folks. Don't go away. I'm talking to my friend Larry Elder, who has a nationally syndicated radio program. But big deal. Who doesn't have one of those, right?

Larry. Honestly, I've got to say, your film Uncle Tom, spectacular as it is, is part of something larger that is happening in this country. It seems to me that a lot of blacks in America are finally waking up, thanks to you and others. And they're looking around and they're saying, I have been sold a bill of goods.

For example, even I didn't really know the history that the Republican Party was formed to end slavery and that the Democrats were the proponents, not just of slavery, but of keeping blacks down, of the KKK, of opposing Jim Crow. And I'm thinking, wow, the Democrats did a very good job of fooling most Americans to thinking that somehow they are pro-black. When they have been anything but that, and then when they finally did get power, they used that power to enact policies that have crushed urban communities across this country.

I mean, these are facts. You know, the whole reparations movement is designed to right the wrongs of the past. Then why are Republicans paying one dime for reparations? The Democratic Party's founding principle, one of them, was to preserve slavery. The Republican Party's whole reason for existence was to stop the spread of slavery, ultimately to end it. And you're quite right. Democrats founded the KKK.

I said that once on Fox News. I got fact check. And the fact checker said, Larry Elder said the Democratic Party founded the KKK, when in fact, Larry Elder said, Larry Elder. didn't say that. Larry Oda said Democrats founded the KKK, which is objectively true. Democrats opposed the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, unanimously, and as a percentage of the party, more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act in 64 than did Democrats. And what you get in response to that, Eric, is, well, in the mid-60s, in mass, they switch

sides. All the racist left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party. A couple of problems with that. First of all, look at all of the Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights of 64 in the Senate and ask yourself, how many of them switched? Answer, one, strong Thurman. Ask yourself the same question about the House. How many Democrats switch? One, whose name I can't even remember. These guys were born Democrats, raised Democrats, died Democrats, one of whom was Al Gore's father, Al Gore's senior, who helped to lead the longest filibuster in history of the Senate to prevent to be able to even coming on the floor. And as I mentioned, as a percentage, more Republicans voted for the Act. If you're a racist, white Democrat

and you're ticked off because the Civil Rights Act just got passed, you're going to the Democratic Party and join the party whose members voted at a higher percentage for the act that calls you to leave the Democratic Party in the first place, it doesn't make any sense. It's a lie. It's a lie that's told to justify, to mask, to pardon the question, white over the racist past the Democratic Party. Well, it's so fascinating, too. I mean, I've learned so much over the years. Like, I had no idea, for example, that one of the icons of the civil rights movement, Jackie Robinson, campaign for Richard Nixon. I thought to myself, what? How is it

possible that I had this idea that anybody involved in the civil rights movement must have been on the left. It turns out that many of them were not. And we really have lost sight of that. We have forgotten this history. And that's why I'm so glad for this film. There are people listening right now, Larry, who have not seen it yet. They can go to uncle tom.com. I hope they will. I think if they use my name, there's a discount. But folks, you can't miss this. This is vital. history that has been kept from us. And Larry, think about this. Why isn't this, since everything we just said is true, why is it not taught in public schools? This is true. This is not our version of the truth. It's not taught in public schools because the people who teach in public

school by and large or left wing. And their view of history is that America got great by exploiting women, by sporting blacks, by quoting the Native Americans. And America no longer it is great. And by the way, the problems facing black America can be directly connected to slavery into Jim Crow. That's how they think, that's how they feel. And that's why we have a whole bunch of young people who are now in positions of responsibility who have been raised by what I call the access of indoctrination. We have a lot of left-wing people now who are serious players in the media business, and they're pushing this narrative that racism plagues black people to a greater extent than bad schools, crime, and bad economic policies. This is the mantra. These are why these kids have come out and

their social justice warriors. I believe, Eric, that a lot of these young people out in the street protested, sincerely believe that racism is a huge problem facing America. They're not lying to themselves anyway. They are wrong, but that's what they honestly believe, because they've been trained by this access of indoctrination. There is a sociologist, a left-wing sociologist in Harvard Black. His name is Orlando Patterson. And in 1991, Eric, he said, America with all of its flaws is the least racist, majority,

white society in the world, advice more opportunities for blacks than any other country in the world, including all of those of Africa. Orlando Patterson is still at Harvard. He's still black. He's still a sociologist. And he said this in the 90s. We're crying out loud. This is not your grandfather's America. Back in 1997, Time magazine and CNN did a poll of black teenagers and white teenager. And ask them about racism. And not too surprised me, he both said racism remains a major problem. But when black teenagers were asked, is racism a big problem, a minor problem or no problem in your own daily life? 89% of them said minor or no problem. In fact, more black teenagers said yes to the following proposition.

Failure to take advantage of available opportunities is a bigger problem than racism. More black teens said yes to that than did white teens. That was in 1997. Before Obama before we had back-to-back black secretaries of state, before he had back-to-back black attorneys general. What are we talking about here? Black man who became the governor of Virginia, one of the states of the Confederacy, Doug Wilder, out here in L.A., where I am, a black man in the late 60s got elected mayor of L.A. got elected three more times after that.

Every major city, every big city, to my knowledge, has had a black mayor. Chicago has, New York has, L.A. has. 10% of Congress is black. We've had black CEOs. CEO of McDonald's was black. CEO of Maryland was black. A mayor of an express was black. I mean, honestly, pick up the cards. play them to the best of your ability, work hard, stay consistent, get married, but don't have kids

before you get married, finish high school, get a job, keep a job, you will not be for. I mean, can you imagine, my parents, you know, came to this country from Europe, right? And they didn't know racism and they didn't experience racism, but they did experience what it is to come to country where people look at you differently because you have an accent and so on and so forth. And they kept their heads down and they worked hard. And I think that is the story of America. And what is happening now is we're getting this victim mentality. It's been happening for a long time.

But it's like saying to somebody in a wheelchair, don't try. You cannot succeed. Most people with physical disabilities would be offended. There was, excuse me. I know people look at me differently. But shut up. I don't care. I'm going to work harder and I'm going to succeed.

I'm going to prove to you that I can succeed. But imagine if they were told, no, no, no, take that disability and go with it. Just buckle under that disability and just say, I can't do anything. I'm a victim. I'm a victim. I'm a victim. There's something to me as a Christian that it's like you're cursing

somebody. It's like saying no matter what you do, you cannot succeed. That's the message that's coming out of the left for blacks in America today. It's a very curious message because it's really designed to keep people down, which is rather ironic, obviously. It's offensive.

to me, these people don't preach what they practice, but they practice is hard work. I did a video a few months ago about all these rich black people on cable, whether it's Dan Jones or Don Lamont or Joey, telling their non-black viewers that racism stops them from becoming rich and black. It's so phony. It is so inconsistent. What are you doing your own household, Dan Jones? What are you telling your own kids, telling your own kids to invest in themselves? You think Obama's telling Sasha Malia they're going to be held back because of racism? Bull. They're telling that they could be anything they could be in America. just as your father did.

That's what they're telling people, but then they tell you because of politics, because they need to get black people angry, racism remains a huge impediment to your success. Didn't hurt me, didn't hurt them, but it'll hurt you. I was going to say that's what Morgan Freeman said on Don Lemon's show at some point. I mean, it's hilarious, you know. I was going to say it seems to me that part of what's happening is that

when the facts are stacked against you, as they are now against Democratic politics, and the history of the Democratic Party, all you have left is name-calling. And so I can't even think of the name of the person. Jamel, somebody said, if you vote for Trump, you are a racist. It was on Twitter like this morning, and I thought to myself, now we know that racism is the last bastion of a scoundrel. I'm sorry, to use the term racism, because you have nothing else. And so you just throw names like this. It's just absurd. But people, really need to reject it strongly and don't take it sitting down.

It is so manipulative. You have Joe Biden, as you know, telling Charlemagne the God, if you haven't figured out whether you want me or Trump, you ain't really black. This is a guy Joe Biden who has consistently lied about his civil rights record. He has said publicly several times that I work to desegregate lunch counters and movie theaters in Wilmington, Delaware. Zero evidence of it. And Jake Tapper some months ago disclosed that and said that his staffers quietly approached him and said, Mr. Biden, can you stop saying this? And he said, yeah, I'll stop. And then said it again.

He also lied and said that he was arrested along with Andy Young while they were trying to visit Nelson Mandela in Africa when Nelson Mandela was behind bars. And Andy Young said, no, we weren't. This is a guy Joe Biden who said he's always gotten the endorsement of the NAACP. NWASP, he is a 501C3 organization. They can endorse. And they publicly said, we have never endorsed Joe Biden. He is lied.

Now, why isn't that offensive to you as a black person? Rachel Dolos off defended people by lying about her ethnicity, but Joe Biden can lie by what he's done for the civil rights movement, lie about Nelson Mandela, lie about the NAACP, not a problem. It's killing me that we're out of time. Larry Elder, you know radio. I'm so sorry. God bless you. Folks need to go see Uncle Tom, Uncle Tom.com. Thank you, Larry Elder.

I bless you, Eric. Thank you so much for having. Appreciate it. You know that I've been watching you for quite some time. President Trump has a huge announcement for his top supporters, We'll be celebrating the 2020 Republican National Convention this summer, and he wants you to enter for your chance to join him at the convention. If you win, the team will cover the flight, hotel,

and give you VIP passes for yourself and a guest. All you have to do is text Metaxus to 88022. Today, for your chance to meet President Trump at the convention. Again, that's METAXAS to 88022 to enter to win this once-in-lifetime opportunity via special guest paid for by Donald J. Trump for president. If you change your mind, take a chance, on the first in line. Take a chance.

Take a chance on me. If you need me, let me know. Hey there, folks. I am talking right now to Lawrence Reed. He's written a book called Was Jesus a Socialist? Huh. I wonder, was Jesus a socialist? Why this question is being asked again and why the answer is almost always wrong. Lawrence Reed is the President of the Foundation for Economic Education, the author of many books.

He allows me now that I've announced him as Lawrence Reed, the author of Was Jesus a Socialist, to call him Larry. Larry, welcome the program. Tell us about this book. Answer the question. Please, was Jesus a socialist? We're dying to know. Okay. Thank you, Eric, for having me today. And by the way, if I had a dollar for every time I recommended one of your books, I'd be a very wealthy man going way back to Amazing Grace. I grab everything you write. So it's an honor to be on your show. You're very time, thank you. Jesus was not a socialist. In fact, I would not use either that term or the opposite capitalist to describing, because those are terms that arose some 1,800 years after his crucifixion, and either one would limit him to but a fraction of who he was and what he had to say. But I do say that there's nothing in the teaching of Jesus

that is compatible with the ethics or the economics of socialist. He was a defender of things like personal choice and private property, free exchange. He was interested in what's in your heart, not how you vote. And he never once advocated any of the things that we associate with modern socialism, like the central planning of an economy or the redistribution of wealth at gunpoint through government or the government ownership of the means of production. But the question becomes, why do so many people, people so often say Jesus was a socialist or Jesus was a communist? You hear this often,

if you're talking to atheists or agnostics or just people who don't know what they think. You hear it over and over again. Why do we hear that? Well, they equate socialism superficially with the sentiment of compassion, the idea of helping other people, sharing with them, that sort of thing. There are a lot of young people who come out of high school and college these days who've been told by their teachers, that socialism is nothing more than wanting to help people. But of course, you can do that under capitalism, and there's a lot more help and a lot more sharing and caring under capitalism than there ever is under socialism. But when you dig a little deeper, you discover that socialism is not voluntary.

It is the use of force to accomplish certain objectives, and Jesus never advocated any such thing. Now, why do so many young people not understand that socialism, is about the use of force. They kind of act like it's a happy, like it's a black party. It's kumbaya. But it involves the use of force. Why do people not get that part of socialism?

I don't think they've been acquainted with that aspect. I think they've been sold a bill of goods, typically by academicians or even their K-12 teachers who have told them that socialism is nothing more than sharing and caring. Michael Gorbachev, the last leader of the old Soviet Union, said as much when he said that Jesus was the first socialist because he was the first to seek a better life for mankind. Well, if that's all that socialism is, well, then just about everybody must be what. But, of course, that's not what it's all about. And the case that socialism rests upon force is one that we just have to make more strongly to convince people because they're just utterly unaware of it. Thanks to academia.

Well, in your book, was Jesus a socialist, you, Lawrence Reed, have a chapter called The Gospel of Envy. Would you talk about that? Because I do think a lot of what's going on today, it's really an angry, almost a deification of envy, as though they were a demon of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, a envy and that that demon is being worshipped and being given a vent to rage and roar as though envy were a good thing. Yeah, I think envy is at the core of the socialist agenda, whether socialists want to admit it or not. In fact, socialists to a person will advocate all the time, sky-high taxes.

Well, they think that government is the best way to help people, and so we need to give it money. But you scratch that a little bit and you discover that they're likely to be in favor of higher taxes, even if the government took the money and just dumped it into Pacific, because what really is motivating them is not so much the good the government might be able to do with the money, but rather the idea of punishing people for earning it in the first place. They get more excited about that. If they didn't, I don't know why they would wait until taxes go up to send more money to the government themselves. But of course, none of them do that. There was a funny thing, tragic, sick, and to my mind also funny. AOC Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was ranting the other day

that New York City has 130-something billionaires, and we need to soak them with heavy taxes. And she didn't seem to realize that if we were to do that, they could simply move away. They don't need to stay here. Their money is creating jobs and helping the economy. How can a congresswoman today be so economically ignorant as not to understand that? I marvel that this is happening in our time. Yeah, it is amazing. And of course, she didn't get to Congress by appointment. She got there by election. So apparently there's enough people in that district who like what she has to say to send her there. That's a shame. You know, socialists have no theory of wealth creation. Those of us who believe in freedom and free markets, when we talk about wealth creation, we talk about things like

entrepreneurship and investment and savings and incentive. Hold on right there, Larry, because that's a huge issue. Socialists have no theory of wealth creation. I want to talk about that when we come back. Folks, I'm talking to the author of Was Jesus a Socialist? Lawrence Reed will be right back. Hey, folks, I'm talking to the author of Was Jesus a Socialist. This name is Lawrence Reed. Lawrence Reed, you know a lot about economics, and you talked about something that I didn't really understand myself until fairly recently.

This idea of wealth creation. In other words, it seems to me that socialists or letters, just have this idea that there's a pie and that there's only one pie and that we've got to divide it up. Whereas capitalists understand that it's possible to increase the pie, to increase the wealth, and to help everybody, and they know that that's possible, it's been done. Why does some people not understand that? Talk about wealth creation. Yeah, you know, ever since Adam Smith, a father of economics, well over 200 years ago, those of us who believe in freedom and free markets have spent a lot of time exploring how wealth comes into being.

It's no big issue to explain where poverty comes from. Poverty is what happens if nothing happens. Mankind is sort of born into a state of nature, which is poverty-stricken until we do something about it. So economists have been able to demonstrate how wealth comes into being through such things as risk-taking, entrepreneurship, investment, people saving the price system, and so forth. But as you talk to socialists, they seem to think the wealth is just there. They have no idea where it comes from, but it's just there like a low-hanging fruit for them to come along and pick it and distribute it to somebody else, which is why then they have no

conception of what happens if they choke all that off. If you start stripping away incentives, you create, disincentives for savings and investment and entrepreneurship, well, then the wealth of society begins to evaporate. Those who know how to create it go someplace else, or they sit on their fannies. Well, you can't say fannies on this show. You know, it's a funny thing because when Trump did all these things you're saying,

get rid of regulations, get rid of taxes on corporations, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, what did it do? It benefited the middle class dramatically, just as he said, trickled down economics, we had the greatest economy in in 50 years i mean it was an extraordinary example of this thing at work and and to me i guess sometimes i wonder are democrats just going along with this because they know they can get political power why would they go they have to understand that this doesn't work or they just have they they know it's a it sounds populace we hate the rich and it'll work it'll get us votes i mean because

Because people have to understand that doing that doesn't work. The Lafra curve tells us at some point, if you raise taxes high enough, you're just going to destroy things. In other words, it's one thing to have no taxes, you're going to raise zero income. But if you tax people too much, you destroy things that's been shown over and over. Why do you suppose people keep banging the drum of socialism? I can't make it out. That's a great question, but I think you hit the nail in the head, Eric, when you use the word power. There is no more destructive motivation in the history of the world that I'm aware of than the lust for power.

It takes even the best of people and can grind them up into unprincipled power seekers. So if the truth isn't your first priority, if power is, whether you realize it or not, well, then you're going to be embracing all kinds of nonsense. Whatever serves the purpose of putting you in power, giving you the limelight, is what you'll tend to be for. So what has to happen is people have to understand truth is a value in and of itself, and a person of solid character should commit himself to truth, not to simply whatever gets him into a position of power over others. Well, I realize that, and I guess it's hard for me to see how cynical some politicians can be. In other words, that you know that these policies aren't really going to help people, but maybe they have persuade themselves or something,

but they've got to know, I mean, when I think of democratically controlled cities who have Democratic mayors and city councils, they have destroyed the urban port. They have destroyed decades, generations of communities, minority communities, with the city councils, with, these policies. We now have the data. In other words, it's no longer in 1965 or 1975. We have reams of data showing that these policies have harmed families, have destroyed lives, have crushed opportunity. You would think at this point we should be able to make the case that much more clearly. Well, you think so. If they were committed to truth, we wouldn't be able to make that case to them. But until they put aside their personal political agenda,

their desire to be in power over others, all the data in the world may not make much difference. They need a change of heart and a change of soul and a commitment to the truth that presently they don't have. Well, so you're saying Jesus was not, not only wasn't he a socialist, he was not a redistributionist. Where do you get the idea that he wasn't a redistributionist? Talk a little bit about that, you know, if you... Well, there's not a sentence for me. Jesus in the entire New Testament, in which he even remotely endorses the political or governmental redistribution of wealth. There's a passage in the book of Luke in chapter 12 when a man

approaches him and says, Master, speak to my brother that he divided the inheritance with me. In other words, hey, you've got some influence, some power. Divide the wealth a little differently. Make sure I get some more. And Jesus immediately rebuked the man. He said, man, who made me me a judge or divider over you. And of course, that's what socialists are doing all the time. They act as judges and dividers over the rest of us, and they want to do more of it. Then he went on to say, take heed and beware of covetousness or envy. So I see no statement that he ever made that supports forcible redistribution of wealth. In the book, and again, folks, I'm talking to Lawrence Reed, the book is, was Jesus a socialist?

list. You also have a chapter that says two theologians who got it right. Who are those theologians? Yes, two of my favorites. One is C.S. Lewis and one is J. Gresham Machen. C.S. Lewis, of course, was perhaps the greatest lay theologian of the 20th century, the author of the Chronicles of Narnia, of mere Christianity, the screw tape letters, and so many other wonderful works. he wrote mostly on matters of theology, but when he focused on government and its proper relationship to people, it's quite apparent that he recognized that this lust for power is at the root of evil in the human soul, and that concentrating power in the hands of flawed human beings in government is one of the most destructive forces you can ever put in place.

Let me hit pause. When we come back, we'll continue talking about C.S. Lewis, the book is Was Jesus a Socialist? Don't go away. Folks, I'm talking to Lawrence Reed. He is the author of Was Jesus a Socialist. Don't you hear that a lot of times? People say that. Was Jesus a Socialist? Well, here's an entire book

that explains how not only that isn't true, but how we can really know that it isn't true. You talk, Lawrence or Larry, as you're letting me call you, in your book about two theologians who got it right. Tell us more about C.S. Lewis and Macon, who both understood this idea, because they were theologians, but they got this idea. Yes, C.S. Lewis and Jay Gresham-Machin understood the nature of human beings. They understood

that each of us is unique, that God did not make any two of us precisely the same, and that one of the great implications of that is that we need to have substantial freedom in our lives in order for each of us to express himself. You know, if you're told at every turn what to do, if your economy, your life is planned by somebody with political power, well, then you're not really free to live your life. Somebody else is living their life through you. And that's not what God intended,

or he would have made us just a fleet of robots. Both men understood that, and they also understood the terrible power that concentrated earthly political power has, over civilization, and they were very afraid of people giving to government and its power over others, control of life and the economy, because it would invariably produce tyranny. They understood what Lord Acton told us, and that so many socialists today don't, and that is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

Well, the conclusion of your book, again, and I'm talking about the book was Jesus a socialist, and it's a short book. The conclusion of the book is titled The Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove. Tell us a little bit about that because it seems to me important to this conversation. Yeah, a big reason why socialism seems attractive

to people until they learn more about it is that it's usually sold to them by way of the Velvet Glove approach. That's the part of socialism that its salesman will tell you. They'll say, oh, it's going to help people. It's going to provide for you. It'll give you security.

It means free stuff. But they never tell you that none of that is possible without the use of the iron fist, which is invariably within the Velvet Globe. That all of that is to be accomplished, not by persuasion, not by cooperation, but by political force. Just listen to any social speak

and outline their political agenda. It's not a list of voluntary tips for the suggestion box. It's a list of mandatory compulsory programs that they want to impose on people. And if you don't comply, you go to jail or pay fines or both. It's so important that we say this. I know this because I talk to people, you know, when I go do speaking and book signings, and there are people, they say, thank you for having the guests you have on your show, Eric,

because you've helped me to see something that I didn't get. And I think this is a big one for a lot of people who socialism has always presented as sort of a happy way of helping everyone. And what you're saying and what I have come to know is that, unfortunately, it's precisely the opposite. Now, if you really care about the poor, socialism won't help them. It might help them very temporarily. But if you really care about them, this will never be the solution.

You can't create wealth in that way. And a lot of people, myself included, didn't really understand. What does it mean to create wealth? Wow. What a concept that we can make everyone. better. It's not a zero-sum game. We're out of time, but Lawrence Reed, I'm just grateful that you took the trouble to write this book, was Jesus a Socialist, was Jesus a Socialist, why this question is being asked again and why the answer is almost always wrong. Thanks for coming on the program.

I hope a lot of people will learn the truth from your book. Thanks so much. Thank you, Herod.