One of my obsessions over the past few

years has been the role of attention in

modern American politics. The way

attention is a fundamental currency. And

so I've been particularly interested in

politicians who seem native to this

attentional [music] era, who seem to

have figured something out.

>> So what's your take? I should be the

mayor.

>> Somebody who's been breaking through

over the past year in a very [music]

interesting way is a state

representative from Texas named James

Telerico.

>> James Telico.

>> James. [music] James.

>> James Telerico. James Tico who was on

there a while back out of Texas.

>> Oh, that guy's good, right?

>> He's terrific.

>> And Terrico is a little bit unusual

[music] for a Democratic politician. He

roots his politics very fundamentally in

way you don't always hear from Democrats

in his faith

>> because there is no love of God without

love of neighbor.

>> Breaking through on Tik Tok and

Instagram and viral videos where he

would talk [music] about whether or not

the Ten Commandments should be posted in

schools. This bill to me is not only

unconstitutional,

it's not only unamerican, [music]

I think it is also deeply uncchristian.

>> And the ways in which the [music]

Bible's emphasis on helping the poor and

the needy had been perverted by [music]

those who wanted to use religion as a

tool of power and even greed.

>> Christian nationalists are more [music]

committed to the love of power than to

the power of love. And then what was

really surprising to many [music] people

is that he ended up on Joe Rogan's

podcast.

>> How are you, James?

>> I'm too well. How are you?

>> It's the first [music] significant

Democrat that Rogan seemed interested in

in a very long time.

>> You need to run for president.

[laughter]

>> Yeah, we need someone who's actually a

good person. [music]

>> Now, Telerico is running for Senate in

Texas.

>> The only minority [music] destroying

America is the billionaires. He's

running in a primary with Congresswoman

Jasmine Crockett for what will be

[music] one of the most important Senate

elections in the country. So I want to

have Tyler on the show to talk to him

about his faith, his politics, [music]

and the way those two have come together

in this intentional moment to allow him

to say things that people seem to really

want to hear. a language of morality and

even of faith at a time of incredible

cruelty

and [music]

at a time when the radicalism of faith

[music] seems to have been perverted by

the corruption of politics.

As always, my email Ezra Klein

showtimes.com. [music]

>> James Telerico, welcome to the show.

>> Thanks for having me. So I wanted to

start in your faith because your

politics is so rooted in your faith for

you. What is the the root or the

experience of your belief? Is it learned

for you? Is it embodied? Cerebral? Is it

something you always had? Something you

had to struggle to find? All the above.

[laughter]

So my my granddad was a Baptist preacher

in South Texas in Corpus Christi and in

Laredo where my mom grew up. And when I

was real little, he told me that

Christianity is a simple religion. Not

an easy religion, he would always

clarify, but a simple religion because

Jesus gave us these two commandments to

love God, our source, and to love our

neighbors. And and so those two

commandments, I think, have really

guided my life um at its best moments.

And [snorts] it's why I'm in public

service. I was a public school teacher

and now a public official. That's the

loving my neighbor. And it's why I'm a

seminary student studying to become a

minister one day. And that's the loving

God part. And both of them sustain each

other, challenge each other, reinforce

each other on a daily basis.

>> But you just slipped into how you live

your faith, not what it is for you.

>> Yeah.

>> So has belief come easy to you?

My, you know, part of being a seminary

student is studying Hebrew and Greek.

So, you can uh actually read scripture

in its original language. And one of the

mind-blowing things that happened to me

my first year of seminary is I was

studying this word faith and many

translations it is uh belief. you know

the idea of believing in a concept or an

idea which makes sense in English

western translations but it can also be

translated as trust um which to me is

much much more experiential

um trusting that love is going to get

you through the hour through the day

through your life that love is going to

carry all of us forward that love will

ultimately prevail even when it's

temporarily defeated to me That's what

my faith feels like. It feels like

trust. Almost like I I learned how to

swim in our neighborhood pool and I

remember my swim teacher telling me,

"Don't fight the water, right? Like let

the water carry you." And there's so

much temptation in our lives to control

our surroundings. Um control other

people. And I think the opposite of that

control is faith. is that kind of trust,

letting life, letting the universe hold

you up and not fighting it. And so

that's that's what it feels like for me.

Um, again, when I'm most faithful, it's

a struggle on a on a daily basis to to

feel that trust and not to fight the

water.

>> Was it always there for you or did you

have a period as a college atheist

reading Christmas? [laughter]

>> You know, I was really lucky that I grew

up in an incredible church community. I

didn't grow up with my granddad as my uh

pastor. I grew up in a Presbyterian

church actually uh in Round Rock, Texas,

St. Andrews. Shout out to to our our

church. And our pastor, Dr. Jim Rigby,

he he married my parents. He baptized me

when I was 2 years old. And he's a

unique, I think, religious leader and

thinker. Um and got in trouble a lot

when I was um in elementary school. He

uh was ordaining gay and lesbian clergy.

He was blessing same-sex unions, which

now doesn't seem controversial, but

certainly back in the

>> traditions, it certainly is.

>> That's true. Um, but I think it's hard

to remember just how controversial

universally it was,

>> uh, how radical and and dangerous it

was. And we almost lost our church

because of those actions by our our

minister and our congregation. and the

National Presbyterian Church uh put him

on trial. And so these early memories

were kind of seared into my my brain.

And so I I I was brought up in a very

countercultural faith um that didn't

sound like um everything I heard at

school or at work in the media. And so I

I feel like I was given a really healthy

tradition and one that has worked for me

partly because Dr. Jim, my pastor,

always said that [snorts] religion

shouldn't lead to itself. Religion

should lead you deeper into your own

life in into your own being. And to me

that is such a gift um that you can give

a young person.

>> Can you say more about what that means

to you?

>> Yeah. So, you know, I think for

Christianity, I'll just speak about my

tradition. Um, [snorts] the genius of

Christianity, the miracle of

Christianity is not the claim that

[snorts] Jesus is God. It's that God is

Jesus. Meaning, Jesus helps us

understand the mystery. A mystery can't

help us understand Jesus. So this idea

that ultimate reality, the ground of our

being, the cosmos, however you want to

define God, that that somehow looks like

this humble, compassionate, barefoot

rabbi in the first century, someone who

broke cultural norms, someone who stood

up for the vulnerable and the

marginalized, someone who challenged

religious authority.

That to me is such a revolutionary idea

and it leads you to challenge organized

religion because the gospel I think uh

just inherently

tries to break out of some of these

religious dogmas and orthodoxies and and

challenges religion itself. I've heard

you talk in different clips and

interviews about the difference between

live a living religion and a dead

religion.

>> Yeah. Is this what you're talking about

when you describe that that this

difference between a religion that has

been absorbed into structures of power

that now is itself a structure of power

versus one that is still challenging the

ways of this world?

>> Yes. um the separation of church and

state. I was taught that that

constitutional boundary was sacred, not

for the benefit of the state, although

there's benefits to our democracy, but

for the benefit of the church because

when religion gets too cozy with power,

u we lose our prophetic voice, our

ability to see beyond the current

systems, the current era. One of my

favorite verses in the New Testament is

in the sermon on the mount. Uh this is I

I encourage everyone to go back and read

it, especially as Christianity is more

and more in our political conversation.

Go back and read Christianity 101, which

is the sermon on the mount. And it's

it's interesting because Jesus takes his

followers not into a church, um not into

um a business, uh not into a

governmental building. He brings people

to a hillside. And he says, "Look at the

birds of the air. Look at the liies of

the field. This is how we're supposed to

live. This is who we truly are." That is

revolutionary. It is radical in the true

meaning of that word. Going to the root

of our of all of our lives and our

problems and our dreams. And to me, that

is the spirit of our tradition of

breaking these chains, of breaking out

of these systems. The word church in

Greek means to be called out of. To call

out of our culture, called out of our

economy, called out of our political

system. That is what religion, I think,

at its best does. It's what I I was

given a I was given that kind of

religion just because I happened to be

growing up across the street from this

incredible church. How do you think

about the competing claims of different

religions? Do you believe Christianity

to be

>> more true than other religions? Do you

do you believe there to be exclusivity

in these beliefs that they're

incompatible with each other?

>> I believe Christianity points to the

truth.

>> I also think other religions of love

point to the same truth. I think of

different religious traditions as

different languages. So you and I could

sit here and debate what to call this

cup and you could call it a cup in

English. You'd call it something else in

Spanish and and French. But we are all

talking about the same reality. I

believe Jesus Christ reveals that

reality to us. Um, but I also think that

other traditions reveal that reality in

their own ways with their own symbol

structures. And I've learned more about

my tradition by learning more about

Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and

Judaism. And so I see these beautiful

faith traditions as circling the same

truth about the universe, about the

cosmos. And that truth is inherently a

mystery. And I think the most

destructive thing is when religion

becomes an an end in and of itself.

That's when religion implodes. My pastor

always told me growing up that religious

symbols are like aspirin. In order to

work, they have to dissolve. They point

beyond themselves. If you get lost in

the symbols, if you get lost in the

words, you're missing the the reality

that we're all trying to describe and

[clears throat] talk about. What is your

relationship to prayer?

>> [snorts]

>> Uh prayer is essential for me. Um I

start out uh every morning in prayer. Uh

sometimes it's um silent prayer um which

to me is is probably the most helpful.

Often times those are just prayers of

gratitude that God woke me up this

morning. um that I have health, that I

have my family, that I have my friends,

that I get to do um a job I really care

about making an impact. That gratitude

to me just it checks the worst parts of

myself every morning. Uh and then almost

every morning I'll say the Lord's Prayer

aloud and that's a different experience.

um it's much more of a ritual, but

rituals are are also a gift. Um because

uh it's almost like a it's a rhythm that

you're getting back in touch with. A

prayer that's been said for 2,000 years

in our tradition. Um and and that prayer

in particular reminds me about um the

work that we have in front of us. Uh cuz

you know, religion without works, faith

without works is dead. When does prayer

feel real to you and when does it feel

false?

>> Well, you know, sometimes a ritual um

you know uh sometimes you're you're not

ready to feel it, but part of the

ritual, whether it's the Lord's Prayer,

whether it's communion, uh on a Sunday,

uh part of that is to get you into that

mode even when you're not feeling it.

I've been thinking about prayer in my

own life recently and I've been reading

this book by Abraham Joshua Hesshel on

prayer. Uh and he writes, "Prayer is our

humble answer to the inconceivable

surprise of living. It is all we can

offer in return from the mystery by

which we live.

>> Who is worthy to be present at the

constant unfolding of time?"

>> And I like that a lot. I've been trying

to think about when does prayer feel

real and when does it feel false? and

understanding it as a kind of admission

of gratitude and wonder has been a

little bit closer to something that I

could touch.

>> Yeah. It's almost, you know, my one of

my favorite books of all time is the

Sabbath by Rabbi Hel, one of mine, too.

>> And to me, prayer is is almost like the

Sabbath breaking in throughout the week.

M

>> um and you know in that book he

describes this you that throughout the

week we're all concerned about our

status and our jobs and our to-do lists

and the Sabbath is when you I think he

describes it as glimpsing

uh eternity and to me that's

[clears throat] a little bit of what

prayer is um you know for a few minutes

uh in the morning or throughout the day

it is trying to touch eternity even as

you're trapped act in a in a finite

world.

>> So prayer is an act and and it seems to

me that your the way you have described

your faith to me your faith is a faith

of acts that you don't I don't want to

say you don't think much of a faith that

doesn't but the question of whether or

not you are living in religion is not

about what you believe but about what

you do well and that's what we're taught

as Christians. Matthew 25 tells us

exactly how we're going to be judged and

how we're going to be saved. By feeding

the hungry, by healing the sick, by

welcoming the stranger, by visiting the

prisoner, nothing about being a

Christian, nothing about going to

church, nothing about saying the Lord's

Prayer, nothing about reading the Bible,

just helping others, just loving. I

mean, it's remarkable when you go back

and read that passage. But they need

each other. Prayer needs action and

action needs prayer. And so I don't I

don't want anyone to com to

misunderstand what I'm saying because

you can be out there doing the work. Um

and if you're not connected to something

deeper, you're going to burn out really

fast. When I said earlier that the love

of God and the love of neighbor sustain

each other, they are in relationship.

They are united. Um you know, this is

the the entire mystery of of incarnation

is the divine and the human being

brought together into one union. So, I

listened to you when you did your Joe

Rogan appearance and you offered there a

very very progressive form of

Christianity.

>> What do you think is the biblical

evidence to support the opinion of being

proabortion?

>> Before God um comes over Mary and and we

have the incarnation,

God asks for Mary's consent and she

says, "If it is God's will, let it be

done. Let it be. Let it happen." So to

me that is a an affirmation in one of

our most central stories that you cannot

force someone to create. Creation is one

of the most sacred acts that that um

that we engage in as human beings. But

that has to be done with consent. It has

to be done with freedom. And and to me

that is absolutely consistent with the

ministry and life and death of Jesus.

>> You're arguing for a scriptural basis

for abortion. You're not just

emphasizing in your politics different

aspects of your faith.

but you're very much challenging

quite widespread interpretations of it.

Again, I think that's what we're called

to do as Christians. Um, almost every

debate Jesus is in is with the religious

authorities of his time and challenging

directly challenging orthodoxy. So, I do

think this is, you know, Jesus was a

religious reformer. Paul was a religious

reformer. And so I think when we're at

our best as Christians, we are

challenging religious dogmas and

religious supremacy. But you know, I I

also try to come at this with humility

on the issue of abortion. I've said

before, I don't know what Jesus thought

about abortion. The Bible doesn't tell

us. The Bible doesn't mention abortion

at all. And so, as with many issues that

aren't mentioned in the Bible, we have

to take scripture and u we've got to try

to piece together what we think is what

love demands of us on a particular

policy question. And you're right, for

the past 50 years in this country,

the religious right, a political

movement, convinced a lot of Christians

in America that the two most important

issues were abortion and homosexuality.

two issues that aren't really discussed

in scripture. Um, abortion is never

mentioned. Consensual same-sex

relationships are never mentioned. And

so, it's it's remarkable to me that you

have an entire political movement using

Christianity to

prioritize two issues that Jesus never

talked about. And so, I'm not saying

they're not important. Um, I actually

think both of those issues are very

important. But to focus on those two

things instead of feeding the hungry and

healing the sick and welcoming the

stranger, uh, three things we're told to

do adnauseium in scripture to me is just

is mind-blowing.

>> How do you understand that? Because I'm

Jewish, but when I read the New

Testament,

>> I am I always come away a little bit

amazed that politicized Christianity is

so worried about

gender, sexuality, and so unconcerned

with greed.

You're preaching to the choir.

[laughter] You know, I absolutely

[snorts]

concern for the poor, concern for the

oppressed is everywhere. I mean,

economic justice is mentioned 3,000

times in our scriptures, both the New

Testament and and the Hebrew scriptures.

And so, this is such a core part of our

tradition, and it's nowhere to be seen

in Christian nationalism or on the

religious right. Um, and the Bible is

all over the place when it comes to

marriage. Paul tells us not to get

married, and you see certainly different

many different kinds of marriages uh

throughout scripture. Um and the

[snorts] same with gender, you know,

Paul says that in Christ there is

neither male nor female. Um which is

pretty woke for the first century, you

know, and so yeah, again, it's because

religion is being used to control people

and accumulate power and wealth for

those at the top. This is a tale as old

as time and it is not unique to

Christianity. powerful people will

always see religion as a tool to make

more money and and um and be able to

keep people in line.

>> For those unfamiliar with the the term,

what is Christian nationalism?

>> You can define it a lot of different

ways. Uh I define it as the worship of

power in the name of Christ. I define it

that way because I I want us to see it

as part of a very long tradition.

>> How do they define it? [snorts] they

being the people who would selfidentify

with it. I would think they would define

it as wanting a Christian nation.

But again, these politicians want a

Christian nation unless it means

providing healthcare to the sick or

funding food assistance for the hungry

or raising the minimum wage for the

poor. Uh and so I it seems like they

want to base our laws on the Bible until

they read the words of Jesus. Welcome

the stranger. uh liberate the oppressed,

put away your sword, sell all your

possessions, and give the money to the

poor. I mean, I I I'm not exactly sure a

Christian nation is is really what these

people want. Um, again, I I believe the

separation of church and state is

sacred. Uh, I think a a nation with one

supreme religion is not just unamerican.

I also think it's uncchristian given how

Jesus taught about religious supremacy.

Um, but I do think if these people are

going to call for a Christian nation,

they need to reach for all of it. Um,

and that is, um, you know, I I fought

the bill to require the Ten Commandments

posted in every classroom. And I've

often wondered, instead of posting the

Ten Commandments in every classroom, why

don't they post money is the root of all

evil in every boardroom? Why don't they

post do not judge in every courtroom?

Why don't they post turn the other cheek

in the halls of the Pentagon? Or it's

easier for a camel to pass through the

eye of a needle than for a rich man to

get into the kingdom of heaven on the

floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Th

this is this is the inconsistency I'm

trying to call out. Um because they're

using my tradition. They're speaking for

me. And and so I think I have a a

special moral responsibility to combat

Christian nationalism wherever I see it.

One thing I appreciate about Donald

Trump, about President Trump, is he

doesn't pretend that his politics are

built on piety, [laughter]

right? He that's not his that's not his

style. But the vice president JD Vance

does suggest that his politics are built

around a Christian ethic. And and I want

to play a clip of him for you. And as an

American leader, but also just as an

American citizen, your compassion

belongs first to your fellow citizens.

It doesn't mean you hate people from

outside of your own borders, but there's

this old school, and I think it's a very

Christian concept, by the way, that you

love your family and then you love your

neighbor and then you love your

community and then you love your fellow

citizens in your own country and then

after that you can focus and prioritize

the rest of the world. What did you

think when you heard Vance say that?

>> That's not the gospel. Uh, and I and I

don't think I'm saying this as a

Democrat. Um, I think I'm saying this as

a fellow believer. JD Vance and I are

are part of the body of Christ together.

And I think this is antithetical to the

gospel. The gospel is all about

prioritizing those on the outside, those

who um are least lovable. And that's

what's so revolutionary about it. There

are some strange passages in the New

Testament. And one of them is when Jesus

tells his followers that they have to

hate their mother and father.

I I don't think Jesus was speaking

literally. I don't know. But I don't

think so. Um cuz I think we should love

our our moms and dads. I love mine. Um

the Ten Commandments um require us to.

And Jesus was a devout Jew the day he

was born till the day he died. But I

think I think he's using shocking

language to teach us something. And that

is that sometimes our little loves for

our parents, for our our friends, for

our children, for our neighborhood,

really important, crucial, beautiful,

profound loves. Sometimes those smaller

loves can get in the way of the big

love. the love for the stranger, the

love for the outcast, the love for the

foreigner, which are, and I should add,

love for our enemies, the hardest love

to to achieve. And so what JD Vance is

describing is the the culture that we

already live in. That's the world. Um,

and we Christians are called to to see

beyond the world. And that's to a divine

love, a godlike love, cuz you know, as

scripture says, um, the rains and and

the sun fall on the righteous and the

unrighteous alike. God loves all of us.

No matter what we've done, no matter how

good or how bad we are. Uh, and we as

Christians are called to have that

divine agape love for every person

equally. And that's hard to do. I fail

at I love I love my family more than I

love other families. I'm guilty of that.

Um I think we all are. But the gospel is

pushing us to move beyond that and to

have the same love for a child on the

other side of the world that we have for

our child. And it is it's almost it's

almost impossible to do that. Uh but it

is what we are called to do. I think as

somebody who's outside Christianity

and as such is always a little bit

astonished by the radicalism of the

text.

>> Yes. And the strangeness of it, God

incarnates in a human being.

That human being is tortured and

murdered

and rises again as a lesson in mercy and

forgiveness and transcendence and and

there's all manner of violence I'm doing

to the story there. when but the the

incarnation in the in the least among

us, the structure of to me the New

Testament as Jesus goes to one outcast

member of society after another and then

I look up into particularly this

administration

and I see people

who are incredibly

loud in their Christianity

and also incredibly cruel.

in their politics. Put aside the

question of what borders you think a

nation must have.

You can enforce that border in all

manner of ways without treating people

who are coming here to escape violence

or to better their family's life cruy.

>> Amen.

>> You can do it without the memes we see

them make on social media of a cartoon

immigrant weeping as she's being

deported. of the ASMR video of migrants

shackled to one another dragging their

chains with the implication being that

the sound of that should soothe you. It

is the ability to

insist on your allegiance to such a

radical religion and then treat other

human beings with such genuinely to me

unmitigated

cruelty that that I actually find hard

at a soul level to to reconcile.

Scripture says you can't love God and

hate other people. That's in First John.

You can't love God and abuse the

immigrant. You can't love God and

oppress the poor. You can't love God and

bully the outcast. We spend so much time

looking for God out there that we miss

God in the person sitting right next to

us in that neighbor who bears the divine

image in the in the face of a neighbor.

We we glimpse the face of God. All of

this is rooted in your tradition. All of

the the commandment to love God and love

neighbor is not from Christianity. it is

from Judaism. And all Jesus is

clarifying as kind of a

radical rabbi is that neighbor is the

person you love the least. Um the

parable of the good Samaritan, maybe the

most famous of of Jesus's parables, is

so I I think we forget in our

[clears throat] modern context how

shocking it was because today being a

good Samaritan just means helping people

on the side of the road, which is good.

You should do that. But for Jesus's

listeners in in the first century, the

Samaritans were not just a different

religious group. The Samaritans were

their sworn enemies. And so he is

pushing the boundaries on how we define

neighbor uh in who we're supposed to

love. Loving our enemies. I mean again,

it's become trit in in a culture

dominated by Christianity. But none of

us actually do that. None of us actually

love our enemies even if we say we're we

try to. And so, yeah, I I I share the

same revulsion um that Christians in the

halls of power are blatantly violating

the the teachings uh of Christianity on

a daily basis and hurting our neighbors

in the process.

>> Let me try to get at maybe the appeal of

some of this form of Christianized

politics.

Society alters very fast.

what it looks like today versus what it

looked like when I was growing up before

I had a personal computer to say nothing

of the internet.

>> Yeah.

>> And one thing I see people looking for

in religion and in religious politics, I

see it partly on the right with a

re-embrace of Catholicism and even Greek

Orthodoxy is people want something to

hold on to. Yes.

>> When everything around them feels like

it is changing.

And what I see you offering to some

degree is a religion and a set of

answers that are that are still

changing. After you're on Joe Rogan, the

conservative Christian commentator Ali

Beth Stucky published a long rebuttal of

your arguments um and and an argument

against progressive Christianity in

general. And I want to play you a clip

from it.

>> Progressive Christian is an oxymoron. It

is actually a contradiction. It is like

saying a I want a flat waffle. Well, a

flat waffle is a pancake because what

makes a waffle a waffle are the ridges.

In the same way, a progressive Christian

is not a Christian because Christianity

is not progressive. It is static. It is

defined by a central fixed truth. This

truth does not change. It doesn't

progress. It doesn't evolve.

>> What do you think of that?

>> I think she's partially right. If you

read the sermon on the mount, again, I

think Jesus should have a say in what

Christianity means.

In that sermon, he is the ultimate

conservative and the ultimate

progressive at the same time. You know,

as all great teachers, he is breaking us

out of the dualistic thinking that

plagues us. He is rooting everything in

his tradition, Judaism. Everything goes

back to Moses and the Ten Commandments

and the Torah. Everything. and he says,

"I'm not here to to destroy the law. I'm

here to fulfill the law." So, he's

connected to something that's bigger

than himself. But then he's also pushing

us to to take those teachings to the

next level, to go deeper into them. The

law tells you an eye for an eye. I'm

telling you to turn the other cheek. Um

because, you know, Moses told you an eye

for an eye because you weren't ready to

hear turn the other cheek. And so that

was that was that the eye for an eye was

meant to keep things from spiraling out

of control. It was meant to have a

balance of justice. And then Jesus is

going further and teaching non-violence

which is consistent and uh and a growth

an evolution and and that's the universe

we live in. God created an evolving

universe. And so

and you can actually go back in the New

Testament. The first word out of Jesus's

mouth is change. uh some can call it

repent um or turn around but change is

the first thing he says uh in his public

ministry. So I think both of these

things can be true at the same time. We

are rooted in something eternal,

something that has existed

since before time existed and it is also

always moving us forward and we are

always changing and evolving and both of

those things can be true at the same

time. your campaign slogan is it's time

to start flipping tables.

>> Yeah.

>> What's that a reference to?

>> So, it's um again a story in the New

Testament of when Jesus um walks into

the temple and it's it's I think it's

hard for us in our modern context to

really understand an equivalent of the

temple cuz you would think it's a church

or a synagogue or a mosque, but the

temple was so much more than that. It

was the center of not just religious

power, but economic power and political

power. And so this humble rabbi from the

backwoods in the Galilee um doesn't just

stay in his room and pray when his

neighbors are being hurt. He walks into

the seat of power and he flips over the

tables of the money changers, the tables

of injustice. And it's a profound act of

protest of civil disobedience. It's

ultimately what gets him killed by the

Roman Empire. And I and many others, we

always think about Jesus being gentle

and kind and soft, all those things he

was, but he was also strong and tough

and confrontational and aggressive when

people were being hurt. And at least for

me, and I think for this country, um, we

have to remember that that is what love

demands of us sometimes. And so I I

wanted to center that story when we

started the campaign because this

campaign was going to be about fighting

back the billionaires who own our

algorithms, who own our cable news

networks, who own the politicians

fighting on our screens and keeping us

all divided. This was going to be a

campaign that was going to bring people

together to stand up to those forces.

>> Who who were the money changers?

>> So the we were talking earlier about

religion being corrupted. Um folks who

were going to the temple sometimes had

to um make sacrifices um and and part of

that that ritual uh and so the money

changers were um allowing them to

participate in that temple economy and

in the process uh getting rich off of

those people. This is again um partly

why we are so focused on trying to keep

these uh these traditions sacred because

in this case the money changers are

profiting off of people's search for the

sacred and it's what we're called to to

challenge directly.

>> Let me ask you then a question about a

term you use a lot which feels connected

to this to me which is the rage economy.

What is to you the rage economy?

>> I just mentioned the the billionaires

who own the algorithms and the news

networks. Um they have created

for-profit platforms that with these

predatory algorithms that divide us on

an hourly daily basis dividing us by

[snorts] party, by race, by gender, by

religion. And they elevate the most

extreme voices very strategically to

provoke our outrage, to provoke our

anger because that leads to more clicks,

which leads to more money for them.

Because anger sells, hate cells, fear

cells. These billionaires, and their

platforms are engineering our emotions

so they can profit off of our pain. They

are selling us conflict right into our

bloodstream, and they're calling it

connection. It's almost like feeding

someone empty calories and I think it's

left people starving for actual

community for real real relationship.

Well, the thing you had said a minute

ago about the money changers that made

me want to jump to this question of the

rage economy is

it is actually quite intimate and I

think sacred would be going probably too

far but but to go to a place searching

for connection.

>> Mhm.

to go to a place searching to be

understood

which I think at its core

is what social media was originally

offering us.

>> Correct.

>> To go there and say this is where your

family is.

>> Yeah.

>> This is where your friends are. This is

where you can find people like you. And

you know for many of us it was that for

a time and uh it is not that now. I

thought it was amazing in the U FTC

versus Meta case the it came out that on

Instagram now only 7% of the time people

spend on Instagram 7% is spent on

content offered by friends and family.

>> Yeah. And I noticed this. I turn on

Instagram and it's much better at

hooking my attention than it used to be

because the algorithm is better at

finding things. It might grab my

emotions and my friends and and family

are. But I came looking for

connection and all of a sudden I'm

pissed. I'm confused. I'm being fed

content about psychedelics from the

1970s. It's not all that it's bad, but

it is

>> a

um

it is a perversion or a

instrumentalization

to profit off of what was a very

intimate

>> Yeah. impulse to say nothing of to

profit off of my attention which is my

most intimate faculty.

>> Right. Well, and the business model

depends on us uh leaving behind our real

human relationships. The the the biggest

competitor to these platforms to meta is

actually not Tik Tok. It's not uh it's

not X. Uh it's not Snapchat. It is real

human relationship. And that should be

terrifying. We have a whole economy now

built on keeping us in our rooms on our

phones for as many hours in the day as

possible. And so their competitors are

church and uh and neighborhoods and

pubs. It is it is the the the actual

messy complicated beautiful human

relationships that we require to live.

Uh and I think it's not some I think

it's something we don't talk about

enough. We're seeing the effects of it

every day in our own lives and the lives

of people we love, but I don't think we

recognize how this is destroying us from

the inside out.

>> What should we do about [clears throat]

billionaires?

>> You talk a lot about how they're the the

source of the problem. What should we do

about them? Should billionaires exist?

Is the the question that goes around

Twitter?

>> I I I I've been accused of demonizing

billionaires and I want to be really

clear that that's not what I'm doing. In

fact, I am trying to humanize

billionaires because I think the

accumulation of more wealth than you

could spend in a 100 lifetimes. Elon

Musk is about to become the world's

first trillionaire

uh is not just bad for the world. It's

not just bad for our neighbors. It's not

just bad for Texans. It's also bad for

those billionaires. Um, and I actually

think the path that I'm laying out,

which is going to include higher taxes

on billionaires. Um, depending on how

much money you make, it may mean you're

not going to be a billionaire anymore.

But

I think a more just economy where we

grow together, kind of like the economy

we had in the middle of the 20th

century, I think is actually good for

all of us. Should there be billionaires?

I mean, you can imagine a structure of

taxation that just says nobody needs to

personally control more than a billion

dollars at at the point that you have

that

taxation becomes fundamentally

redistributive, right? It just over that

you're getting taxed at 95% you're

getting taxed at and it's complicated,

right? Because you have assets and

incomes. I I get all that, right? I

don't I don't need the we can we can

talk tax policy another time people in

my email inbox. I'm not talking to you

here.

>> And I'm not proposing a maximum income.

>> I am I'm asking if you should.

>> No, I'm not. And and but what I do think

is if you have tax rates on the richest

people in the country like we had in the

1950s and the 1960s, a lot of people are

no longer going to be billionaires. Uh

and that is just going to be the result

of a fairer economy. Uh so if that's the

result, so be it. But I'm not trying to

put a ceiling on success. I'm a big

believer in success. I want to be

successful. I want my family to be

successful. I want my neighborhood to be

successful. So, I'm not trying to

demonize that kind of success.

>> You keep saying though that you're not

trying to demonize billionaires. In

fact, what you're doing is [laughter] is

is trying to humanize and be good for

them.

>> I think it would be good for them.

>> Say more what you mean because what I

keep hearing you say in your ads and in

your speeches is that it's the

billionaires versus the rest of us.

>> Yes, I believe. And so, so walk me

through the the distinction between not

demonizing them, but also seeing them as

the fundamental class enemy.

>> Well, cuz billionaires, it's a chosen

identity, unlike a lot of identities.

Um, if I said the problem was Christians

or Jews, um, or people of color or gay

people, that's a problem. Uh but if I'm

pointing out a an identity that someone

actively chooses and very much could

could could not be then to me that's a

that is a fundamental distinction and

again I think the result of the vision

that I'm articulating is going to be

good for those billionaires or maybe

former billionaires.

>> What does it mean billionaire?

>> Um Franklin Roosevelt, Bobby Kennedy

were trust fund babies. They were some

of the wealthiest people in the country

and they used their wealth and their

power to help other people, particularly

working people, people that that

struggle to get by and not just through

philanthropy and through charity, but

through changes in the structure of the

economy itself. What should we do about

the the rage economy? What should we do

about kids spending, you know, two to

five hours a day oftentimes on TikTok?

[snorts]

>> That's a question, I guess.

>> I'm really interested in um policy

proposals. You know, I was the the

co-author of a bill that passed in Texas

that bans cell phones in our public

schools um particularly the you know,

smartphones. So, I'm very, you know, I'm

also interested in some of the federal

ideas about um, you know, the liability

of these companies and and a regulatory

framework. I'm I'm interested in all

that. Um, I'm also interested in how you

allow for economic solutions, how you en

encourage the development of more humane

platforms that I think could succeed. I

really do. I think we're going to look

back at 100 years and we're going to see

these as kind of the rudimentary first

versions of these platforms. It's kind

of like we see child labor and things

like that and we're like, you know, so

glad we progressed beyond that. These

feel so much better. But here's what I

would just say. Those political

solutions, those economic solutions, we

should talk about and we should pursue

them vigorously.

But at the core, this is a spiritual

problem. It really is. I I mentioned

earlier that the biggest competitor for

these platforms is human relationships.

You now have a closed system almost

where the platforms like Instagram make

you feel insecure, make you feel lonely,

make you feel isolated and then AI

provides you the therapy to treat that

loneliness and that isolation or the

simulacum of friends.

>> Yep. Of lovers of companions of

different kinds. I mean when I found it

a little chilling when Mark Zuckerberg

was on Dores Patel's podcast and he

said, "Look, most people have three

friends. they want something like 15,

but who's got the time? [snorts]

[laughter]

>> I'm paraphrasing, but not by much.

[clears throat]

>> And suggest as many people do that that

AI will will fill that gap. And I think

Meta in particular sees given what their

business is, you know, you can create

these AI uh companions of different

kinds, right? If

>> you know the problem with your friends

and family is they're not good enough at

creating content you want to see. So

what about if we create AI friends and

family who are very good at creating

content you want to see?

>> Exactly.

>> We don't know.

We do not know what it will mean, how it

will change people to have these kinds

of relationships with AI. To say nothing

of changing children who don't know

anything but a world where you have

relationships with AIS and and honestly

like of every part of this, I think this

is the part that maybe scares me the

most.

altering our intuitions and expectations

for for human contact. Having just

people in uh people being raised in an

economy that is dehumanized and then

also a social world, a digital social

world that is dehumanized, where you

send in your job application, you're

interviewed by an AI, which is happening

to people now,

>> where you come at the end of the day and

you want to tell somebody about your bad

day at school and you tell an AI.

I mean, I I don't think we understand

what that will do to people. I'm not

even saying it will be bad. Just it's a

hell of an experiment to run on human

beings.

>> Well, and the question you're circling

that we're all circling is what does it

mean to be a human being?

>> Yes.

>> And that is not a question I'm going to

be able to answer in a bill in the US

Senate. Well, podcast. Yes. That's where

all the answers are.

>> Fundamentally, I feel like every podcast

is asking that question deep enough.

>> I actually I in all seriousness love

podcasts because of that. Um it is

sometimes we can we can say that these

these technologies these platforms are

all terrible all toxic but you know

podcasts I think are one of the

beautiful things that have come out of

it you know also as much as you if you

spend time on TikTok how it's abusing

your attention and addicting you um it's

also an opportunity to see just how

hilarious and creative and beautiful

human beings are all over the world. So

I don't I don't mean to say that this

technology can't create something

beautiful too. I think we just have to

understand the harm it is inflicting.

>> But but I want to stay on what you where

you just went which is I have noticed

that the best tech criticism much of it

comes from religious

>> yes

>> figures and communities.

>> Yes.

>> And one reason I think is because modern

liberalism, neoliberalism you might call

it. I think it is a lot of trouble with

moral judgment.

It is built on the interest of the

consumer. And if you're an adult and

you're making a decision that is not

hurting anybody else, who are we to tell

you you're doing something wrong? And I

think it is a truck that the algorithmic

media giants have like [snorts] driven

their their products through. And I

think in religious communities, you

still have more of a framework for

talking about human flourishing that

does not require like a market

justification that that does not does

not need to prove that it'll reduce your

income in 10 years to say this is not a

good way for human beings to live. So

when you say the fundamental question of

AI is what does it mean to be a human

being? I think that's right. So I I I am

curious what your intuitions about this

are as somebody running for a position

of power where you would have a hand on

on levers the rest of us don't.

>> Such a good question. So yeah, I agree

with you. Economic answers aren't going

to get us there, but I also don't think

political answers are going to get us

there because the question is not should

the state intervene to stop you from

doing something. That's a whole

different question. I think our

conservative friends, if they were

sitting here, would remind us about the

bloody history of governments trying to

perfect the individual or trying to

enforce moral um moral

>> I'd say it's our liberal friends who

would re remind us of that. But but fair

point.

>> Well, yeah. But [laughter] so my point

is that my point is just in the question

how we're framing it, economy and

government, there's a third a third

dimension to our lives. It's it's um

it's weakened. It's atrophied over

recent years. But we used to have robust

communities where we wrestled with these

spiritual questions, right? churches,

mosques, synagogues, temples, um,

meditation clubs, whatever, whatever

you're a part of, a community to deepen

these the spiritual dimension of our

lives. And that is what we have to

rebuild, especially as we enter this new

era where figuring out what it means to

be human, maintaining real human

relationships outside of work and

outside of politics is going to be

necessary if we're going to survive

this. And that is you mentioned what can

I do as a US Senate candidate. I

actually don't think that's the role.

what can I do in my role as a

seminarian, as someone who's studying to

become a minister one day, which is a

goal of mine. That hat that I wear,

which is related to the politician hat,

to me, that's where the solutions are

going to come from. I don't want to take

away from the importance of that, but

that's not going to come fast enough.

It's not. If your answer to what are we

going to do for kids in AI is we need to

rebuild and institutional and religious

life. I mean it's it's hitting faster

than that. I mean maybe that would be

good but it like my question is more

along the lines of

does believing that human beings should

be formed by other human beings which is

something I believe mean we should do

something more like Australia which just

implemented its ban on social media for

kids under 16. this flatbed.

>> Like I said, I'm all for those. In fact,

I've already worked on those policies.

I'm if we pass that, I'm all for it. All

I'm telling you is that the economic and

political solutions are not sufficient.

I think one of the paradoxes of you is

that you have such a

searing and I think morally righteous

critique of this algorithmic rage

economy and you're an absolute victor of

it. I mean, you're

>> I'm a money changer. I'm [laughter] not

calling you a money changer, but you

know, you're you're on Rogan. You're uh

because you are very good at these

>> viral videos. And when I was going

through your your your clips, you know,

a lot of them do have the structure of

conservative idea or conservative person

stands up and James Terico delivers a

stirring sermon about why what they're

doing is uncchristian or immoral. You

know, I think a lot of the liberals

clicking clicking the heart on that are

feeling self-righteous and,

>> you know, maybe right. Yeah. Um but

maybe smug.

>> Yeah.

>> How do you think about your

participation in this world?

>> I think the sometimes I think my team

and I feel like Luke Skywalker

infiltrating the Death Star to destroy

[laughter] it.

>> And you know this, sorry to keep

bringing everything back to to

scripture. I think it's cuz we started

with a conversation about faith, but

Jesus tells his disciples something

really weird. He says to have the heart

of a dove and the mind of a serpent. Um

Dr. King would later reinterpret this as

uh for his the members of his movement

as tough minds, tender hearts. The idea

is that if you're going to change the

world, if you're going to challenge the

powers that be, you got to be smart and

strategic to do it. And it's not

something we should be ashamed of. and

my team. I think I I have some of the

the brightest young minds in Texas

politics um on our team, which is a real

joy and a privilege. And I think we have

figured out how to use these

platforms against the platforms

themselves. Uh and so yes, we we are

building things that can reach as many

people as possible. Um because if no one

hears a message, it it doesn't really

matter. and we are learning what these

algorithms like um what these platforms

promote and we're using that against

them.

>> What is it that you would say you

figured out if you're giving a

[laughter] presentation to to other

Democrats who

>> are maybe less intentionally

>> skilled or have come from another

generation, maybe not Tik Tok native uh

in the way you might be?

>> What have you learned about attention?

How would you describe the the

fundamental equation of attention at the

heart of your efforts.

So, I um I hate the word communications,

but um I would say my two simple rules

for political connection, cuz that's

what we're really talking about is how

do you connect with people and politics

is connection all the way down.

>> The way that I think about political

connections, the two rules I have are

>> be yourself and tell the truth.

I think if you do those two things, you

can stand out and get attention. I think

especially young people, my fellow

millennials, but also Gen Z, they're

looking for moral authenticity in this

moment. And that's going to look

different, right? For me, given who I am

and how I was raised in my life, faith

is at the center. And that's and I'm

honest about that even when it bothers

people in my own party, which it does a

lot. I can't tell you how many, you

know, um, emails or messages I get with

people telling me to stop all the

religious talk because it makes them

uncomfortable. And I I get that and I

try to be I try to be as sensitive as I

can be to the religious trauma in this

country and and I understand where

people are coming from when they feel

that way. But it is who I am. I can't be

anybody else. Um, and so I think showing

up as the person you are and then

saying something real, saying something

honest about the world, um, that is

refreshing to people in this moment. And

so I think when I look at all the videos

that get all these views and all this

engagement, the videos that do that the

most are when I'm being myself and

saying something true.

>> I think you're sanding the edges off of

this.

>> Okay, tell me. [laughter] Yeah, I'd love

to hear.

>> It's also about

the things that work online generate an

immediate emotional reaction in the

audience. These online quick videos

you're seeing on Instagram, on Tik Tok,

on YouTube shorts, there's not that much

time for plot. You can't sort of weave

in slowly. It is about creating an an

instant sensation. And I think that

there is a dimension often of conflict.

Like my implicit uh equation of

attention is curiosity plus conflict

equals attention. People have to be

curious about what you're talking about.

And there has to be the energy that only

in politics some amount of conflict like

one side versus the other side

unleashes. It doesn't always have to be

Republican and Democrat. It can be you

know billionaires versus the rest of us.

It can be many kinds of cutting a line.

But but I think usually there is a

dimension of you know somebody verse

something.

>> I don't know if you and I are saying

different things though because isn't

that telling the truth?

>> Isn't when you pretend like there is

>> some some forms of truth work better

than others is maybe what I'm saying.

>> I guess my point is if you I've actually

seen some of our videos about policy and

some of our explainer videos do the

best. I think there is a hunger to

understand what's happening. But if you

pretend that that policy is being

created or needs to exist in the world

without the conflict that is the

context, then you're not being honest

with people. You're not shooting

straight.

>> And you mentioned earlier people want to

be moved. Don't we want politics that

moves people? And in fact, I see the

major problem in at least in my party is

politics that doesn't move anyone or

moves them in unhealthy directions

because you can move people toward anger

or you can move people toward hope. We

have had a politics that moves people

toward anger and toward fear and toward

division and hate. We've had that for 10

years on both sides of the aisle. I

think the reason that I'm getting

traction on these platforms, the reason

I'm standing out is because I'm moving

us toward hope. Tell me the difference

there on the Democratic side. I think

that people would sort of expect what

you'd say about the Republican side.

What does the Democratic politics that

moves people in your view unproductively

towards anger look like? What has that

been when you say it's existed? And what

is the version that moves people towards

hope? What is that distinction you're

drawing? Well, I think we have to

recognize the asymmetry between the two

sides of our political discourse. And I

don't mean parties, but I mean people

who are a little more conservative. They

want to hold on to what we have or maybe

backwards regressive is a better term

for that. Or those who are a little more

progressive and they want to move us

forward. Those are two different jobs.

Trying to get us to move backwards

requires certain appeals. Getting us to

move forward requires certain appeals. I

think the the mistake too many Democrats

have made is adopting the tactics that

work for the regressive side of our

discourse, the Trumpian side of our

conversation. And that's things like

fear and hate and and anger. That's what

gets someone to look backwards and

think, you know, we got to we got to u

we got to go back to what was. But to

move someone forward, you've got to

inspire. You've got to excite um and

you've got to to cultivate a little bit

of hope because that's the only thing

that'll get you to move forward. One

division it sounds to me like you're

tracking in the Democratic conversation

right now is how much is Democratic

politics about Donald Trump, about the

opposition to Donald Trump and to his

administration? There's a lot of uh I

think much of it merited among

Democrats, anger, fear. I'm not going to

go so far as to say hate, but I've

certainly heard some hate in my

conversations with people.

But also, the Trump administration is in

power and they are doing things, as

we've discussed already, that are are

are cruel or outrageous or corrupt.

And something that I hear Democrats

debating a lot among themselves is how

much Democratic politics be about Donald

Trump and the opposition to him or how

much it should be about an alternative

vision.

both because you know there can be a

tension between allowing Donald Trump to

set the terms of everything and

describing something different and

because some of the voters Democrats who

need to win certainly if you're a Senate

candidate in Texas are voters who do not

hate Donald Trump are voters who voted

for Donald Trump voted for um Greg

Abbott you know in his busing of

migrants all across the country. How do

you think about that question?

>> And I should say some of those Trump

voters are in my family. Mhm.

>> Um, many of them are my constituents. I

first got elected to the legislature

>> when I was 28 years old. Had never run

for office before. I was a former

teacher and I was running in a district

that had voted for Donald Trump 2 years

before I ran. And at the same time that

I won, Greg Abbott won my district in

2018. So there were a large chunk of

voters in fact the voters who made the

difference in the election who voted for

Greg Abbott for governor and me for

state representative and being

comfortable with that contradiction. I

mean, that's the messy world of politics

and human decision-m and if we are going

to defeat Trumpism, the culture that

gives rise to someone like Donald Trump,

it's going to require putting forward a

new vision of what a different kind of

politics would look like. The what is

what is the antithesis of Trumpism? What

does that politics look like? What does

the country look like with that kind of

politics?

>> What does it look like? I think that

people are really tired of being pitted

against their neighbors. They're tired

of being told to hate their neighbors.

It's been 10 years of this Trumpian

politics.

Again, sometimes on both sides of the

aisle, and I think people are ready for

a politics of love.

um a love not just for the state of

Texas or for this country, but a love

for our neighbors, a radical love uh

especially for our neighbors who are the

most different from us. And that that

kind of politics I think could transform

this country. If we actually if we

actually treated all of our neighbors

as bearers of the image of the divine,

how would our discourse look? How would

our how would our public policies

look? To me, that is that is the primary

question that we should all be asking.

And I don't know cuz again this is this

is this kind of politics is not what

we've had but I do think people are are

searching for it.

>> Have you ever seen a politics of love in

the real world?

>> Oh, of course. First I think we should

define what we mean by love cuz I I'm

not talking about a sentimental feeling.

I believe love is a force as real as

gravity.

The force that drew elements together in

the Big Bang. The force that drew life

from

those primordial oceans. The love that

drew you and I to this exact moment in

this exact conversation. The love that

we were born of, the love we exist in,

and the love we will one day return to.

You can call that the logos. You can

call it the Christ mystery. You can call

it God. In fact, our scriptures say that

God is love. And I always think the

question, do you believe in God? is such

a strange one because to me God is the

realest thing, ultimate reality, the

ground of our being. I think the

question people are asking when they say

that is, do you believe in love?

[snorts] And love to me

is the most powerful thing in the

universe. It is not weak. It is not

neutral. It is not passive. It doesn't

paper over disagreement.

It sometimes provokes conflict in order

to heal conflict. I mean, I think back

through American history. Um, you know,

I I I think about uh labor organizers. I

think about civil rights marchers. I

think about farm workers. U you know, I

think about um the politics that made

the New Deal possible. Not saying not

saying there's not criticism on policy

grounds, but the coalition that came

together during the New Deal era, during

the Great Society era, the coalition

that came together to pass the

Affordable Care Act, to me, we we can

glimpse the politics of love there

because that was about building a big

enough coalition to transform the

country and it included people who

didn't agree on everything. Um, but it

was people who agreed on some of the big

things. And I, and I don't mean to look

at history with rosecolored glasses.

There's problems in all these things,

but I'm talking about a general

thrust, uh, a general direction of what

a politics of union would look like over

and above a politics of division. So,

let me try to pick at the what I think

is the weak spot of this.

>> Sure. which is that for Democrats, for

liberals,

the

the politics of love that includes

the person without health insurance, the

immigrant family,

the gay or lesbian or trans teen is

actually not usually in this era a

stretch. That's actually an intuitive

politics for them. The hard part I think

about a politics of love is for your

Abbott Telerico voters or your Abbott

not Telerico voters. The division in

this country that the people who don't

like Democrats right now feel Democrats

don't like them.

>> Yes,

>> they're not confused as whether or not

Democrats want to give people

healthcare. Maybe some of them are, but

in general, they certainly believe

Democrats have a love for undocumented

immigrants.

But what Trump has very effectively

weaponized

is the belief many Americans have.

That the only Americans Democrats don't

love are Americans like them. Americans

with a Christianity much more

traditional than yours, who are

uncomfortable with what our society is

or has become or might one day become

Americans who have views that are

different than those that uh are usually

voiced on this show.

What is your politics of love for them?

not for the people Democrats

sort of easily align with, but actually

for the people they now understand as

maybe not their neighbor as as maybe

their enemy. The people who, you know,

when you see these polls about how

Democrats are more likely to cut off a

family member for political views than

Republicans are those people. It's not

the gospel unless it includes love for

our enemies. And again, as I said

earlier, it's the hardest love to

fulfill in our lives. But it is

absolutely necessary if we're going to

save this American experiment, if we're

going to save the experiment in

self-governance all over the world, is

can we have a love for those we disagree

with? And I I've been able to cultivate

that in my life. Again, not not

perfectly. I oftenimes will feel anger

or or start to feel hate for some of my

colleagues in the Texas legislature, but

at my best, I'm able to maintain a bond

of love with them. Even as we're

fighting, even as we're disagreeing,

even as we're debating, even as I'm

standing up to some of their most

extreme policy proposals, I still see

them as my siblings, as an expression of

the same love. Um and and that to me is

such a fundamental difference from the

politics that we have now. You're not

the first person running for office to

sit in front of me and tell me about a

politics of love.

>> Good.

>> Uh but the question I always ask and the

question many people like that run

around on

>> is what does that actually demand of

you? Because it it's often it can just

be a inspiring way to say what every

other politician's already is doing

also. So, where does it push you into

something different?

>> I'll just tell you one quick story. Um,

my colleague James Frank uh represents

Witchaw Falls in North Texas. He's

Freedom Caucus member, one of the the

most conservative members of the House.

James and I started a stupid friendship

based on that we share the first the

same first name. [laughter]

And, you know, we joked about it and

talked about how we were the James

Caucus and he was chair, I was vice

chair, you know, whatever. But then that

led to us having some more real

conversations and we started to figure

out that he and I are both really

dissatisfied with this two-party system.

We are both frustrated by how hard it is

to challenge orthodoxies in your own

party and the pressure to conform within

a political party. And so I uh convinced

James to co-author my bill, a Bernie

Sanders idea actually in the Texas

legislature to import cheaper

prescription drugs from Canada into

Texas. James risked a lot to work on

that bill. We got it passed to the House

to the Senate and signed by the

governor. It is now law. We are working

on our application as a state to the FDA

to start importing those cheaper

prescription drugs. So that's an example

of how love changed someone else. But

then James had a bill that would have

allowed uh homeschool kids to

participate in something called UIL,

which in Texas is basically our sports

league, uh our extracurriculars, the

arts, and you know how serious Texans

take our our high school football,

Friday Night Lights. Every Democrat was

opposed to it, and I was opposed to it

because I'm like, public education is

not a buffet table. you can't come in

and take the sports or take the the

music uh the band and leave behind

everything else and not participate in

the community. James sat down with me

because we had a relationship. We had

trust. We had love for one another. And

he said, "When we talk about

immigration, you always say we shouldn't

punish children for the decisions their

parents make."

And [snorts] suddenly it dawned on me

that I was morally inconsistent here.

that for these homesooled kids, this may

be the only opportunity they have to

interact with kids in of of their own

age and to participate in a community

like that. So, I ended up crossing party

lines. I got a lot of heat from the

education groups and my colleagues.

I voted for that bill. It passed. I then

got to meet some of the kids who

participated in the program. It was

life-changing for them. So, and there I

can we can talk about countless examples

of that where not only has a Republican

done something risky, but I've done

something risky in return because we're

both out on that ledge of love.

>> I think something that your

success and and um the the way what

you're saying breaks through suggest is

that people are actually hungry for more

>> moral leadership, including from

political leaders. the the sense that

our

politics became managerial and

technocratic and sanitized and and that

is to use this world in word in another

sense it has been demoralizing to

people. I think this question of what is

the purpose of all this is salient to

politics as well. And you know one thing

I think that has been true is that you

know we drafted

>> in our society for a long time off of

the fact that we had so many other

healthy institutions

and a more communal sense of who we were

that infused our politics with purpose.

>> Yeah.

>> Without anybody having to

necessarily reach that hard. That's not

to take away from the incredible moral

fights that had to be waged. But when I

go back and I read old political tracks,

how close the language of morality and

spirituality and civic life is to people

on all sides of debates is really

noticeable. We don't talk like that

anymore. We're trying to prove

everything on a chart. And I love a good

chart.

>> But me, too.

>> But but it is a difference.

>> Yeah. We were talking earlier about

politics doesn't move people anymore. I

mean, you read Common Sense by Thomas

Payne. Um, you read Lincoln speeches,

you listen to Fanny Liu HR, you read Dr.

King. Yeah.

>> I mean, these were they infused their

politics with a moral foundation

>> often times explicitly rooted in faith.

And that changes the game because your

politics should grow out of that

morality. There's a sequence here. And I

feel like what we're suffering from now,

people start with their politics and

then try to figure out the morality on

top of that, right? When it should be

reversed. Who are we as human beings?

Where do we come from? Why are we here?

How should we live?

The politics should grow out of that.

And so, yes, I mean, that's why I'm in

politics. I I really do feel like this

is a this is a way that I can love my

neighbor at scale through good public

policy, reducing the cost of

prescription drugs, reducing the cost of

child care, the cost of housing, all the

things I've worked on in the

legislature. It was to love my neighbor,

make their lives easier and better, help

them become who they're supposed to be,

to give the gift that they're supposed

to give. I think what's if we can infuse

our politics with more of this this

spirituality

I think we could treat politics like a

sacrament

we could have an incarnational politics

because like I said

>> what does that mean

>> if you take seriously and again you

don't have to be a Christian you don't

even have to be part of an organized

religion I I do think that everyone is

religious um

>> that's a bold that's a bold claim that's

my hot take what do you mean by that

>> I think we all put our trust in

something.

Um, sometimes it's you were talking

earlier about whether Donald Trump was

religious and I I think I disagreed with

you because Donald Trump does put his

trust in money and in power and in

status and a lot of us do.

>> I said he wasn't pious and he doesn't

depend his

>> Well, he's pious of that religion.

[laughter] He's very faithful to it.

>> I mean, yeah, you you could look at the

Oval Office as a quite a shrine to

>> It is. I mean, you're kind of joking,

but Yeah. No, I mean that's exactly

right. So my point is we all put our

faith in something. I choose to put my

faith in love which sometimes the

evidence suggests is not going to work.

Sometimes love is defeated. Sometimes

love experiences setbacks. But the trust

is that it will one day win. And that's

what my tradition is all about. But my

point is if we

even if you're not formally religious,

if you do believe that each person is

sacred, that each person is holy, that

each person bears the divine image, that

should fundamentally change how we

engage in politics, how we treat our

neighbors, and how we treat our enemies.

To me, an incarnational politics would

take seriously that idea that every

person is uh is God. The biggest concern

I hear about you in Texas is that you're

sort of a a liberal's idea of what a

Christian politician should be.

>> Yeah. Okay.

>> Um in the primary, you had an opponent,

Terry Vertz. He's since dropped out, but

but he ran an attack ad about you, and I

want to play it here.

>> Okay.

Modern science obviously recognizes that

there are many more than two biological

sexes. In fact, there are six. God is

non-binary. I find this to [music] be a

deeply offensive bill. James Telerico is

talking about the bill that would ban

biological men from playing [music] in

women's sports. Remember this ad?

>> Biological men compete against our girls

in their sports. Kamala is for they

them. [music]

>> The same ads will be played by Ken

Paxton. The result will be US Senator

Ken Paxton. James Telerico owes it to us

[music] to tell us how he's going to

answer these attack ads.

>> So, how are you going to answer those

attacks?

>> Man, the music was [clears throat]

your voice sounds disorded to me there a

little bit. It didn't quite sound like

you.

>> Yeah. Um

>> but but those are but those are clips of

things you said and the idea is to say

you are out of step.

>> You can talk about love all you want.

>> Sure.

>> But but the idea is to say you're out of

step with with Texans and they are not

going to feel loved by someone they feel

doesn't agree with them. You know, I

think most Texans have seen the

extremism in the Texas legislature.

Instead of allowing local sports

officials and school district officials

to make decisions about um if trans

athletes can play in a certain sport, if

it maintains fairness and safety, which

I think is what we all want, some common