Sponsor Message and Introduction to Biblical Worldview in Governance
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.
Defining Conservatism, the Right, and the Misuse of Labels in Modern Discourse
This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, September 23rd and this is 2026. Just so you know. And because we're seeing so many influencers and people on social media who claim to be conservatives and some even claim to be Christians and they really don't understand conservatism. They don't understand and I don't know if they even want to be conservatives at this point but, but they claim to at least be on the right. And the right of what is, is the question, of course, right. And of course the right meaning the political spectrum. And if you have a, ah, definition that makes sense meaningfully at all, it has to be the right in terms of conserving natural law, conserving the rights that are given to us by God our Creator, not our government. And that the purpose of government is to preserve and protect those individual rights so that we can have human flourishing, exercise libert liberty and ultimately preserve freedom. But you know, you can call yourself anything these days. I mean, you know, men can become women, you know, you can trans whatever you want and all this stuff. And so, so many people on the right are kind of using that logic to assume that they can call themselves on the right, they can call themselves Christians, they can call themselves conservatives maybe. And it doesn't mean anything anymore. It just means that maybe they're not voting Democrat, maybe they don't identify as a liberal, but they don't really have a framework and a holistic understanding and definition of what it means to be on the right.
Critique of Joel Webbin's Argument for Embracing Socialism on the Right
And one of the prominent figures, and we've talked about this guy in the context of the Rise of Christian nationalism and this whole throwback to the patriarchy and, and some of these blasphemy laws and some of these other things that some on quote unquote on the right want to impose. But Joel Webbin, who claims to be a pastor and to be on the right, has now posted this almost hour video, yesterday, or I guess two days ago that is titled the Right Must Embrace Socialism to Win. So without even going into the entire 50 minute presentation, which if you want to do a deeper dive, you know, you're welcome to listen to, but just that title right there, the Right Must Embrace Socialism to Win. That is a premise that is fundamentally flawed because really it's just about capitulating instead of actually standing firm on what our values are. And so, you know, I have a lot of questions about that title. First of all, who are we talking about when, when he says the right and when he talks about embracing socialism? I don't think this guy actually understands what socialism is, what it means. I think a lot of people actually on the right don't. And this is why a lot of the discussion and the messaging around the midterms isn't actually helpful when we're just, you know, screaming, you know, but socialists on the left, well, what exactly is it that we're fighting? I mean we have this probably general idea of socialism equals communism and communism bad, but what exactly are we talking about? And then what does he mean by winning? Because if we're embracing something, you know, we as conservatives are embracing a premise that we fundamentally disagree with, right? In order to win, what exactly are we achieving? Because I mean, this would be like saying Christians need to embrace abortion so that we can have, you know, what a bigger church. Is that how we define winning? The metrics? Right? I mean, what are your goals here exactly? I mean if we are, are claiming to stand firm on a premise and to define ourselves meaningfully as conservatives or the so called right, that must mean that we stand for something, a worldview of government. Because the right inherently means we're talking about politics, right? We're talking about political theory, we're talking about legitimacy in government, we're about talking, we're talking about what government can and cannot do, the purpose of government, all of that, right? So when we talk about the right, we're necessarily talking about politics. And that means we stand for certain things and we embrace the ideas that government is only legitimate when it carries out certain activities and is not legitimate when it tries to do other things. And if we are embracing a premise that we fundamentally disagree with, then we're no longer the right and we're redefining winning. So, I mean, there are so many things wrong with this statement.
Clarifying Socialism, Conservatism, and the Proper Role of Government
But I think if you go and listen to anything by Joel Webbin and he posted, you know, a couple of other just rants and, you know, a few other shorter videos, and, I'm not going to play any of them because, you know, it doesn't even matter. But I, I don't think that because to this conversation, but I don't think that he actually understands what socialism is, or if he does, he's purposefully trying to manipulate the definition to fit his premise. And so I think we're using on the right, if we can define that as the conservative base that opposes what the Democrats stand for, and we stand for conservatism, conserving a legitimate biblical worldview of government. If we can use that definition, were using socialism far too loosely. Because one of the laziest arguments in politics right now is that if conservatives support any government program subsidy, tax credit, benefit intervention, then how can we complain about socialism? Then we're saying, basically, yeah, we're for socialism. That misunderstands both conservatism and socialism because American conservatism has historically defended limited constitutional government, private property, free enterprise, individual liberty, the traditional family, and all of these things within the context of civil society. A current, Heritage foundation statement of conservative, first principles, for example, expressly identifies limited government and free enterprise among its commitments. And even Speaker Johnson, if you go to his website, a part of this as free enterprise and being fiscally conservative is all part of this worldview of our economic policy. And so the opposite of socialism isn't the government never does anything. The opposite of socialism is an economic and political order in which the state does not own direct or subordinate private life and private property to centralized control. Let me read that again. The opposite of socialism isn't government never does anything. The opposite of socialism is an economic and political order which the state does not own. Direct or subordinate private life and private property to centralized control. So we need to define socialism first before we say that the right should embrace it or before we suggest that, you know, we're opposed or what. Our economic theory is always the debate on anything. Especially though, when we're talking about policy debate or even theological debates. If you've been following this debate on Calvinism, between Dinesh and I and Leighton Flowers and a few others you, know versus the Calvinists, definitions matter because you Win if you define your terms that ultimately prove your theology or your policy. And in theology or policy, you shouldn't try to manipulate the definitions just to fit your preferred outcomes.
The Dangers of Redefining Terms and Misrepresenting Socialism
particularly in theology, if you have a good hermeneutic or good exegesis, then you define the terms in their plain meaning, in their context and in the original language. And then you derive your interpretation from that. you don't try to manipulate the definitions to fit your outcome. But when we're talking about definitions, one of the things that Joel Webbin is doing and some of these others who are suggesting that the right should embrace socialism is that they're actually redefining what it means to be socialist. Or so then they can pretend and insert that definition into what the left is doing, which is really false. And so socialism, broadly understood, centers on social or public ownership or control of the means of production and economic resources. Although some socialist schools disagree, substantially, kind of how that all works and ownership or control and how that should operate. But that's the basic definition. look at the example of Mamdani wanting to have government controlled grocery stores, right? that's an example of controlling, economic resources, controlling, production, and actually controlling a lot of this.
Contrasting American Conservatism with Socialism: Private Property and Free Enterprise
So by contrast, the American conservative tradition has generally treated private property as a safeguard of liberty and something that we, that is a right that comes from God our Creator, that private property is something that we inherently have a right to as human beings, made in the image of God and free enterprise as preferable to centralized economic direction. So, Russell Kirk, for example, explicitly connected private property and freedom. Modern conservative institutions continue to identify property and free enterprise as foundational principles. So if you are conservative, and traditionally if you are on the right and you have a meaningful definition, then you would be for private property and against socialism. So if we, if we extrapolate that out, government spending, just generally speaking, does not automatically equal socialism.
Government Spending, Taxation, and Social Security Are Not Necessarily Socialism
Taxation in, in certain legitimate ways, right? And we can talk about when taxation is theft, which is a fair point, and when taxation is appropriate. But taxation as an entire subject is not automatically socialism. A tax credit or also getting back, returns in your taxes does not automatically equal socialism. Because that money, technically, you know, you gave it to the government, you're getting it back. That doesn't equal socialism, Social Security in all of its problems. That doesn't equal proof that America has adopted a socialism scheme, wholesale and government, government benefits, things that the government provides, like, roads, like, first responders, you know, police, fire, all of those things. Those don't automatically equal socialism. Otherwise, virtually every government in human history becomes, quote, unquote socialist. And that term becomes meaningless because government has to exist, right? And it has to function in some meaningful way. I mean, providing the court process where you can go even in civil government, and you can file a, civil claim against someone else and have it arbitrated by a judge. You don't pay for the judge right now, you may pay for your lawyers, you may pay court fees, you know, some of those things. But, but you don't pay for a. Like you would a private arbitration, right? So the government does provide services, and we can talk about what's legitimate versus illegitimate. But the government providing some services does not equal socialism. So the conservative question always is, what is the proper role of government? Conservatism doesn't say that government has no role. And this is where you get into the debates of, okay, you're on the right and you're conservative because you want to limit government.
The Spectrum of Conservatism and the Distinction Between Limited Government and Socialism
You have traditional, principles, natural law. And you're not into the, into communism. You're not into actual, you know, socialism. You're not into big government or all of these entitlements like the left. So you're to the right on that political spectrum. But then you can get even further right to say that government has no legitimate role other than arbitrating private contract disputes. Or government has even far more limited roles in terms of regulation that even conservatives would say, no, we think that the government should step in. So, for example, this huge debate right now about, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy, you know, those are things that conservatives, if we're conserving natural law, would say, yes, the government should step in and should regulate that so that we are not abusive towards women, so that we do not commoditize children. That's something that, because it has a moral basis, the government can and should step in and intervene. And so we say that the government has a limited role, but it has a legitimate role. So the conservative framework is that government protects the conditions in which people, families, churches, businesses, communities, and also voluntary associations. Right? we have the freedom of associations. All can flourish. But a socialist framework says that economic outcomes or productive resources are subjected to substantially greater collective or government ownership to control and planning.
Fundamental Differences Between Conservative and Socialist Frameworks and the Misuse of Definitions
So there are obviously varieties within both of those viewpoints, but the starting presumptions are fundamentally completely different. So when someone like a Joel Webbin is arguing that conservatives should embrace socialism, I don't think he's actually talking about the real socialist framework. He's trying to redefine socialism into something that conservatives go, oh, yeah, you know what? I am for some government regulation. Oh, yeah, I am. I am for some, you know, tax benefits. I am for, you know, some of these, some of these government programs. Wow, I must be okay with socialism. And that's a false premise because conservatism begins with the person, the individual, the family unit, private property, and civil society, and asks what limited functions government must perform and where the limits are. This is why specific limited powers under our constitutional framework are given to government.
Redistribution, Federalism, and Government Programs Do Not Equate to Socialism
And they're also separated into three branches of government on the federal level, and they're also separated into three different powers on that vertical line between federal, state, and individual powers of government. We the people even have some powers that we can individually exercise. Socialism begins from a much more collectivist conception of, of economic organization. And so this is really important. Redistribution and socialism aren't synonyms, okay? This is really useful because people throw around the word redistribution. And, Joel Webbin did in a number of his videos. And every tax system does redistribute resources in some sense, right? So if taxpayers, you know, here in Florida pay federal taxes that help an aircraft carrier stationed in, you know, Virginia, just as a hypothetical, the government has collected resources from citizens here like me, and spent them elsewhere. But that doesn't make the Navy socialist. That makes us part of a federalist system where. And we can talk about, you know, whether the taxing and the spending ultimately, is. Is valid and legitimate. And a lot of these programs under doge that came to light aren't in a conservative framework. But ultimately it doesn't mean that every single government program means then that we have some elements of socialism.
Defining the Meaningful Questions for Government Action and the Limits of Conservatism
So the, the actual meaningful questions are, what is the government doing? Why, under what constitutional authority? That's the big one, right? And how large is the intervention? Does it preserve private ownership and individual choice or replace it? So government spent money. That doesn't mean socialism. That, that is a ridiculous and unserious intellectual analysis. Conservatism can support government policy without becoming socialist. So take, just for example, school choice, right? And that's been a big debate right now. So the government already taxes citizens to fund education. And when we say, okay, government collects the money, government operates an institution, but government then gives money back to the individual child, that the debate is whether the policy is wise. But this isn't an argument that we're. That this decision is moving toward a centralized government, right? So it's the Same thing with tax policy. I mean, we can, we could give you a lot of hypotheticals, but you know, we're in a constrained, ah, time frame here, so there are tons of examples of that. That doesn't automatically equal socialism. And why conservatism also isn't pure libertarianism. Right.
Historical Conservative Principles and Moral Obligations Versus Political Administration
So this is important because otherwise the argument accidentally defines conservatism as basically, anarcho capitalism. So historically, American conservatives have recognized legitimate governmental responsibilities. National defense, like the Navy in that example, courts, like I mentioned, law enforcement, protection of property rights, enforcement of contracts, and other constitutional authorized functions. So modern American conservatism has generally emphasized that the government should be limited in scope, not non existent. And some of those authorized functions aren't constitutional. They go well beyond those boundaries, which is why we're having that debate. But this doesn't mean that government is socialist. So from a Christian conservative perspective, Scripture recognizes obligations toward the poor, widows, orphans, neighbors and families. But a moral obligation to care for someone does not automatically answer the political question of who should administer that care. Right.
The True Dividing Lines Between Conservatism and Socialism: Limited Government vs. Centralized Control
So that's a big question. But, the important issue, and we'll close on this, is that conservatism isn't socialism simply because conservatives acknowledge a legitimate role for government or because they provide some government services. The dividing line isn't government versus no government. It's limited government versus centralized control, private property versus collective ownership, individual and family agency versus bureaucratic direction, and a vibrant civil society versus a state that increasingly assumes the functions of every other institution. So conservatives can and should argue about where exactly those lines belong.
The Importance of Defining Terms and Understanding the Conservative Question of Government Legitimacy
But if every tax credit is socialism, like in this Joel Webman guy's view, every public road is socialism, every government expenditure is socialism, then the word socialism doesn't even describe an economic philosophy anymore. It's basically just a political policy that everybody has to agree on. The conservative question has never been, does government exist? The question is, what is government legitimately authorized to do? And where must its power end? So we've got to take a break here, but this is why it's so important to define our terms first and to understand that when you see people who post these lengthy videos and they say the right must embrace socialism and ask them to define their terms first. If you can't reach them and they don't want to actually have that conversation directly with you, listen for those definitions. Listen to how they're actually defining the right, what it means to be socialist, what it means to win. I mean, those definitions are all incredibly different, depending now on who you talk to and make sure that you contrast that first and foremost with a biblical worldview of government and also what the conservative policy premise is when we work up from there. So we'll be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Listener Support and Introduction to Government Overreach in Healthcare
Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis. Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net forward slg that's afr.net give. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of things, that are not conservative and, what the government is not constitutionally authorized to do, this is a really wild clip from a discussion with Massachusetts, Governor Maura Healy, who says that everyone who has a baby will be visited in their home by a government appointed health care provider, quote, to make an assessment. Listen to this.
Massachusetts Governor's Proposed Home Visits for New Parents and Republican Messaging Failures
Cut one. Everybody in the state, when you have a baby, you're going to have a home visit. You're going to have a home visit, within days, weeks. And that will be an opportunity for a health care provider to make an assessment. Yeah. No, absolutely not. If that is not the best advertisement for Republicans this midterm election, I don't know what is. And I don't know why their messaging is so bad. But someone who may be able to help us out with this is Mark Mitchell, who is the CEO of Honest Polls. And Mark, you know, this just shows and is just one clear example of how the left and the Democrats want more government and absolute government control.
Analyzing Political Shifts, Democratic Statism, and the Impact of Perceived Economic Conditions
Even when it comes to coming in and invading your own home and giving an assessment. I mean, for what to say that you can keep your child. I mean, this is just so insane. And yet somehow Republicans aren't dominating the midterms. I mean, what is going on?
Mark Mitchell: well, they do trust the government more than people on the right. That is true. I think first off, one of the best charts I've ever seen. I just came across it last week and I think it really explains everything that's going on because politics changed a lot in the Trump era. And part of that is that Democrats became more statist, they became scarier, and some of them became more violent because they honestly do believe a lot of the propaganda. you know, I'm painting with really broad brushes here, but they are very consensus oriented people. They like to win, they like to be in power. They like everybody to, you know, agree on everything. And Covid really sort of broke them. Like, a lot of them wanted to throw unvaccinated into prison camps and take unvaccinated children away from their parents and all of these absolutely crazy things. And then they thought that Trump was a threat to democracy and that he was trying to take the country away. A lot of them really believe that. Almost 50% of people who watched MSNBC and CNN thought that threats to democracy were the number one issue in 20. so that's just crazy stuff. And, you know, Republicans don't really have much in the way of an answer for that. But then the other thing too is, I'm glad I caught the tail end of your previous discussion because I've come on your show a lot. We've been talking about the future and what's going to change. And this is exactly the conversation that was super predictable that was going to happen, which is that Republicans were going to eventually figure out that they need to run on something new and actually like, sort of provide something for the electorate, because elections are becoming increasingly transactional. And the reason, you know, the final reason in that chart, it's a chart that YouGov has that shows monthly results for the question is the economy getting better or worse? And going into Covid, you had about equal in the 30s, economy getting better versus economy getting worse.
The Influence of Hope and Perception on Economic Sentiment, Independent of Hard Data
Then all of a sudden, economy getting worse shot up to 60. And it stayed there for quite a while. But what actually brought it down, it brought it right back down into the 30s was Biden getting elected. And so it wasn't economic numbers. It wasn't, you know, the employment rate or GDP or anything that they put on cnbc. It was hoped that they elected somebody new that was going to come in and fix the economic situation. Now, obviously, Biden made everything worse, right? So the number shot back up to 65. And you're never going to get to 100% of people who say the economy is getting worse. There are a lot of retired people, there are a lot of wealthy people and people that just really don't care. But that's the highest that it's been until recently. So it stayed in the 60s until Trump got elected, and the number plunged right back down into the 30s. So again, here's everybody saying, well, things are terrible. I can't afford stuff. It's not egg prices, it's the fact that health care cost an entire rent check. It's the fact that I can't get a Job and wages have been suppressed, all the things that we've been talking about. And so they gave Trump the benefit of the doubt as well. And then about, you know, seven, eight months after his election, about June of 2025, the number plunged right back up into the six or, skyrocketed right back up into the 60s because people looked at the presidential election and said, no, I'm not going to get these core economic fixes that I thought. And again, it was entirely not driven by any of the financial news, any of the metrics coming out of the BLS or, anything, even the stock market. In fact, the stock market had no impact on what people feel about the economic situation.
The Broken Economic System and the Failure of Republicans to Offer Solutions
And the reason that that's important as well is because that number skyrocketing happened really before Trump's approval rating got bad, really before the generic ballot polling flipped to show that the Republicans were going to lose the House. And it's because it's the economy, and the economy is in post Covid situation, just not serving the people. The economic system is broken and it's all these things again, we've talked about the K shaped recovery, the focus of corporate power, the inability of the government to actually serve the economic common good of the people. And what you have now is that that economy getting worse number is just as high as it was at the height of COVID right after Biden, when inflation was skyrocketing. And some of it is because of the Iran situation, obviously, but really it's because they don't look at the Republicans led by Trump and say, you know what, I'm going to get this golden age, I'm going to get these economic fixes.
The Political Kabuki: Democrats Offer Promises, Republicans Lack a Coherent Plan
And it's because the Republicans don't really have a coherent plan to fix any of this. And the entire political fight for my life has been this like red team, blue team Kabuki, where Democrats run on progress and Republicans run on basically not progress, because reasons, right? And the reasons have been like conservatism and Constitution and they beat you over the head with these principles that essentially mean nothing. It's just their excuse for not doing anything. And so what Joel Webbin is saying is that, listen, it's gotten so bad that people are going to vote for folks who promise them things and no amount of moralizing is going to change that.
Critique of Republican Inaction and the Transactional Nature of Modern Politics
And there's got to be a lot of nuance here because, like, again, everything is socialist really right now, everything's a huge giant transfer payment. Even if you think about it, like the idea that Republicans Cut corporate taxes is a transfer payment from income earners to people who own shares of corporations. Right. Like, it's really, it's really kind of perverse if you put it that way, but it is true because I think objectively, you know, trickle down economics, we've given it enough time. It isn't, it isn't really working. We've had decades of wage.
Jenna Ellis: Oh, yeah. And this, the whole point here, of course, is that it's not like, you know, anyone on the right or conservatives are suggesting that the current government is actually limited and is actually genuinely conservative. I mean, this is why we were such staunch, advocates of what Doge was supposed to do. Right? Because we wanted to make the government, smaller. And we've been saying we want to do that on the right for decades. But Republicans, ah, at least those in office, and especially those in Washington, don't actually want to do that.
Mark Mitchell: Yeah, oh, 100%. It got away, got in the way of the one big beautiful bill, which was their paycheck for being out of office for four years.
Voter Desires for Economic Relief and the Perceived Failures of Both Parties
They didn't really want to attach any MAGA stuff to that, and I guess they did a little bit. Right. And that was the one bill they passed, essentially Trump's legislative, signature achievement. So when, you know, you look at the socialists and the people on the left who are voting for dsa, it's easy to conflate what the candidates believe with what the actual voters believe. And yes, I do think that some of these DSA candidates are actually socialists, but I think you're, you know, based on the polling and how these people respond, they just want, like, economic relief, they want jobs, they want to be able to buy houses. They think health care is a major issue, it costs way too much. And when they say socialist, they're really looking at, like, these countries over in Europe where they think that the health care system works and why can't we have health care like Japan and where everything is cheap and I don't have to worry about a $2,000 a month payment and still have a $12,000 deductible. So really the signal is that younger people especially are getting just completely shut out of the economic, you know, system that we have. And that's like, obviously true by every metric, just not the metrics that the people in Washington D.C. track. They like to track GDP and they like to track, you know, you know, the unemployment rate.
The Need for Conservative Solutions Beyond Simply Stating Socialism Is Bad
But, you know, they're not tracking wages, they're not tracking, like, household growth, they're not so Then the Democrats are going to offer people things, and the Democrats. And people say, oh, they're not going to deliver. Yeah, they're going to deliver. They're going to give you a housing bailout bill. And people will get stuff, Right. And obviously over the long term, that'll probably have massive financial repercussions. And it's like, okay, as the, you know, the conservative, the right, the people who are supposed to have the moral authority and the high ground on the intellectual high ground on this, it's like you have to have a solution. You can't just say it's wrong. And people say, oh, well, you know, we've never been transactional. 2024 was a transactional election.
Republican Failures in Transactional Elections and the Frustration of Independent Voters
And I think we can step back and look and explain to people. last, time I was on, we talked about the generic ballot. I had come out with a D plus 11. Now, a whole bunch of pollsters confirmed that the betting market seems to confirm a pretty big Democrat pickup. Republicans are probably going to lose, and it's because they weren't able to basically fulfill the promises they made on a transactional basis. And the people who aren't going to turn out to vote is mostly independents who voted for Republicans out of desperation and have no loyalty to the party. So, again, this idea that, like, oh, Democrats are evil and you can't vote them in. Well, it's like the person that's deciding this election is the independent who voted for Republicans and Trump because of Trump's platform and is now just sitting out because they are frustrated they didn't get it what they want because.
Jenna Ellis: Because Trump is inherently transactional. I mean, that was his entire.
The Transactional Nature of Politics and Trump's Failure to Deliver on Promises
I mean, even going back to 2015, that was his entire. Yeah, I mean, that was like, vote for me. Not because of any, you know, I'm not this, this beacon of morality and, you know, your conservative overall principles and, you know, he wasn't framing himself to be that type of leader. And conservatives overall said, okay, we're okay with that because we want you to do the things that you're actually campaigning on, because Republicans haven't done that in the last, you know, several decades and news cycles. And by the way, that's not actually a necessarily a bad thing. I mean, politics is, in some kind of crude sense, just transactional. And that's okay with me. If Trump had actually fulfilled on all of the promises he said, then fine. You know, that actually would be, I mean, I would, I would continue to staunchly support everybody that, you know, that he's endorsing and say the Republican Party is doing excellent if they actually delivered on their promises.
Mark Mitchell: Yeah.
Trump's Promises Focused on Non-Monetary Issues and Long-Term Investments
And it's important to point out that most of the things he promised didn't actually have a dollar signal attached to them. We're not talking about spending more money and indebted m further indebted the country. We're talking about arresting people. You know what I mean? We're talking about draining the swamp, reforming the government agencies, accountability for things that happened under Covid. These are all things that, you know, didn't cost really anything other than effort and, you know, risk. Right. There's an aspect of risk with Trump's platform, for sure. 100% deportation. You know, that kind of costs money, but it is a long term investment in the future of the country. Right. Like, definitely that pays off. Right. It'll be increased wages and you know, and the Republicans in power more. Right.
The Shift in American Sentiment and the Impact of Economic Concerns on Elections
Like, and people say, oh, it's always the party in power that loses the House. And this was destiny. And it really, really wasn't like May of 2025. The polling said that a majority of Americans thought the country was headed in the right direction for the very first time. And it was really after, I m hate to say it, the 12 Day War kicked off really the first time. Everybody thought, well, maybe we're not getting what we voted for here. And then one big beautiful bill was a letdown. Doge. By then people realized that Doge had kind of disappeared. And that's when people's concern about the economic future spiked right back up.
Catastrophic Events and the Predictable Political Landscape
And then, since then, it's just like, as we've talked about at length, just a comical string of completely, I mean, the Epstein thing, the government shut down, Trump's remarks on the labor market, like they have all just really been catastrophic. So, I mean, we're in a relatively predictable place if you've been following politics for a year, year and a half. And of course I've been attacked for warning about all these things. And it was so predictable we'd be here that everybody shows up a month and a half from the election, like Newt Gingrich coming out and saying, here's how he can win.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I listened to that a year
The Need for Proactive Planning and Honest Assessment of Political Standing
Mark Mitchell: and a half ago, buddy.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And maybe. And we got to take a break here, but Mark Mitchell, is going to follow through on into the next segment. We're going to continue to talk about this. But yeah, I mean, we should have been thinking about this when there was such momentum after the 2024 election. And then maybe we'd be in a totally different spot. But we've got to be honest about where we're at right now. That's what we'll continue to talk about, when we come back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Sponsor Message: Preborn's Mission to Save Babies and Support Mothers
We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At, PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250, baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
The Failure of the Republican Party to Deliver Solutions and the Confusion Caused by Redefining Socialism
welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And I'm here with my special guest, Mark Mitchell, who is the CEO of Honest Polls. And we're talking about the midterms, and, you know, where we're at in this moment in time in terms of what conservatives should actually be looking for. And, frankly, some of the, failures of the Republican Party to actually perform on and deliver on their promises. And so, Mark, I think you encapsulated kind of this whole problem with the DSA and socialism in a recent post where you say people are increasingly supporting, DSA not because they're real socialists, but it's because they want things like financial relief, higher wages, and a government that works. If you're losing ground to dsa, it's because the marginal voter doesn't think you have solutions. And I think that really gets to the heart of the problem here and where people, you know, like Joel Webbin enter in and confuse the issue by redefining socialism saying, yeah, it's, it's okay and we should embrace it. then people end up advocating conservatives end up advocating for a bigger government and something that ultimately is going to not work and not actually give them what they want. And so they're betraying the only possibility for a conservative form of government, because historically, I mean, Republicans just simply haven't delivered on it, especially in the last two years and maybe since the first term of Trump.
Voters' Need for Systemic Fixes and the Republican Party's Failure to Provide Them
But they're going down this road thinking it's going to give them a government that works, and it's not. And so, I think Republicans need to be able to message this and have a really serious conversation, not just say, well, socialism bad. But as we've been talking about, they're not actually providing the solutions and saying, okay, socialism is bad, but here is what works and here is what we are delivering. They can't message that. And I think that's part of the problem.
Desperation for Systemic Fixes and Trump's Initial Success with Retribution Messaging
Mark Mitchell: Well, they're still stuck in the same establishment paradigm, and voters really needed us to break out of that because the polling under the Biden administration was just absolutely horrifying. And I was out there, really one of the only people giving Trump the polling cover. He needed to really come in and do whatever the heck he wanted. I mean, I had 60% of Americans thinking the media was the enemy of the people, 53% saying Joe Biden, FBI, was Joe Biden's personal gestapo. 72% of America concerned we were living in police, state. 66%, I think, of Americans wanting, an investigation into the origins of Cove I mean, I could go on and on, but people were desperate for systemic fixes. And Trump, remember, ran on retribution. Like, those were the right kind of words to say. And then ever since he got into office, we had two months of doge, and everybody loved it. He had a massive youth approval rating of 60%, unprecedented for a Republican president.
Trump's Incremental Accomplishments and the Missed Opportunity for Radical Change
And, you know, there were a lot of tears on msnbc. But, in the grand scheme of things, that's when Trump got to 50% right direction polling. So, again, a first in the 25 years of Rasmussen polling history. So, they were going in the right direction and then sort of everything got shut down and then really everything Trumps done. And again, he has accomplished a lot of things, but in my opinion, it's all been incremental and within the.
Sidestepping the Constitution and Affronts to It Under the Biden Administration
And so what could he have done? Understanding that it's like, although a lot of Americans would have appreciated, not all, but a lot would have appreciated him sort of sidestepping the Constitution or doing things like just firing judges without legal cover, I mean, we really are there, a pretty big Majority of people agreed with his quote, that he who saved the country violates no laws. But it's like, okay, if we weren't willing to do that, even though objectively the Biden administration crossed the Rubicon in many ways. I mean, there was a lot of just appalling, affronts, to the Constitution under the Biden administration. Imagine if back in March, well, first off, we had continued doge, but imagine if they had done just three things.
Proposed Republican Strategies: Popular Bills, Agency Cleanups, and Arrests
So imagine if every legislative calendar day, the Republicans brought one popular single page bill to the floor for a vote. Things like English as an official language, or things like repealing Hart Celler, or things like, IDs to vote, or things like paper ballots just every day and make Democrats vote no on them. And there's like, maybe your legislative fix. What if you had a firing cam set up across the street from the FBI and the CIA and every other agency and you just frog marched 10 people out every day, you did the investigations, you actually did the effort to figure out who the scumbags were and just fired them and showed America these people getting cleaned up, right? And then the third one is just every week you just arrested somebody. You know, all these people, there's a huge list of the people that we know that need to be arrested. And you just arrest these people. And it's like, okay, a conservative would say, well, you know, they'll never face justice, no court is going to convict them, and blah, blah, blah. It's like, yeah, but then you're showing that the Democrats are the barrier to justice and not the Republicans. Right?
Republican Failure to Act on Promises and Internal Project Shutdowns
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, you're at least doing what you can.
Mark Mitchell: Yeah, right, exactly. So the very idea that they're doing what they can is just false. And quite frankly, they, they did have a lot of cards to play that they didn't. My understanding is that that wave of really good executive orders in the beginning of Trump's term was sort of part of what was supposed to happen under Project 2025. And that Project 2025 got shut down internally. So, I mean, just to summarize, right, People were expecting, a massive fix for a run amok government and an economic system that has failed the American people. And under Republican governance, with the strongest Republican mandate that they're probably ever going to get, they just completely, like, failed on the homework assignment. Like, they just forgot the homework assignment. And not only that, they did what they do with the momentum, you know, the institutional inertia, which is attack something in the Middle east again.
Independent Voters' Punishment of Republicans and the Need for a Future Plan
And so now, I mean, unfortunately, the independent voters are going to punish the Republican Party and they'll probably punish the Democrats again in the future. And I'm not trying to be doomer here. Like, I'm very optimistic that 2028 is absolutely winnable just looking at the state of the Democrat slate. So the problem is that Republicans have to have a plan about how they're actually going to convince America that there are systemic fixes coming.
Jenna Ellis: Literally what I was about to say is that we, we've got to start now.
The Importance of Starting Now for 2028 and Voting for Solutions, Not Just Against Evils
We can't, you know, six weeks before 2028 go, oh, well, what exactly are we running on and what are we doing? Because if over the next two years, if the Democrats at least get control of the House and they push all of these investigations, impeachments and all of that, that may backfire on them and have more Republican turnout for 2028. But it's like again, you know, the Republicans need to run on something because I think a lot of the voters, and you would know this in polling more than me, but you know, just the, the assessment that I see, you know, across the electorate is that people want to vote for, for something we're really tired of just voting against the less, the worst of the two evils. You know, you want to actually vote for a winning team and you want to vote for the changes or the more than just the incrementalism. And you want to say, okay, this is actually going to provide solutions and if we don't start doing that now for 2028, then it's going to be really difficult to do that.
Values and Morality in Political Platforms Over Ideologies, and the Misuse of 'Socialism'
You know, come, you know, August before November of 2028 and, and say, okay, well let's maybe get it together now to try to come up with some sort of coherent messaging that it's not going to go very well.
Mark Mitchell: Yeah, so your conversation before I came on very pointed out that we have to look at actually values and morality when understanding how to build a political platform because these ideologies don't matter anymore. And just to give you an example like this, socialism is used as a crude bludgeon on the right to prevent any affront to libertarian open market like globalist economics. That's what happens. And it's like, oh, well, you want to raise corporate taxes, you're a socialist.
Republican Electorate's Desire to Tax Millionaires and the Concept of Fairness
And the problem is that that is not keeping pace with the Republican electorate. And I asked a bunch of questions, but just to give you one, we gave American people a choice for if they wanted to reduce the deficit, would you Rather cut Social Security and Medicare, cut defense spending or tax millionaires. And a majority of Republicans had tax millionaires. So we're, we're at this point where it's like, well that's, that's evil. Millionaires pay so much taxes already and how can we tax them more? Well, it's because they're still doing well. The millionaires are the people who are rising to the top of this economy. Record high wealth concentration. Right. So I think the word of the day is fairness.
Re-evaluating Capitalism's Need for Government Regulation for the Common Good
And you know, that word has a lot packed into it. And you could say, well, like not traditional leftist equity, but biblical equity. Right. Or, and this language needs to be worked out. People need to do this research. I've been reading a book by the Oren Cass at the head of American, Compass, who's really trying to get D.C. conservative economics back to where it was 100 years ago, which is that they understood for capitalism to work it needs to be regulated by the government so that it stays in the common good of everybody. Right. Otherwise like you said, if you had anarcho capitalism, then really we're just going to be ruled over by like Walmart and Amazon.
Jenna Ellis: Right.
Mark Mitchell: And Google.
Public Desire for Breaking Up Large Corporations Versus Traditional Conservative Economics
And that's not, that's not right. And the American people fundamentally know this too. I had 63% of the electorate saying that they want large corporations broken up. Not monopolies, just large corporations. It would be better for America if these companies came up. the government came in and just busted these companies up. And I think we all fundamentally know that. Well, that is again an affront to traditional conservative economics. Right. Like Reagan would not like that at all.
The Critical Need to Define Terms and Understand Conservative Principles
And you know, I think we're at the point we need that kind of thing.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Mark Mitchell, I mean we could do a three hour program just on this one topic. And I think this is so important we continue this conversation. We define our terms, we understand what we're standing for, but really appreciate it.
Sponsor Message: Preborn's Success in Rescuing Babies and Supporting Moms
Follow Mark at Honest Pollster and I'll talk to you tomorrow. PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion and every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today? Go to preborn.com afr.
Sponsor Message and Introduction to Biblical Worldview in Governance
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.
Defining Conservatism, the Right, and the Misuse of Labels in Modern Discourse
This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, September 23rd and this is 2026. Just so you know. And because we're seeing so many influencers and people on social media who claim to be conservatives and some even claim to be Christians and they really don't understand conservatism. They don't understand and I don't know if they even want to be conservatives at this point but, but they claim to at least be on the right. And the right of what is, is the question, of course, right. And of course the right meaning the political spectrum. And if you have a, ah, definition that makes sense meaningfully at all, it has to be the right in terms of conserving natural law, conserving the rights that are given to us by God our Creator, not our government. And that the purpose of government is to preserve and protect those individual rights so that we can have human flourishing, exercise libert liberty and ultimately preserve freedom. But you know, you can call yourself anything these days. I mean, you know, men can become women, you know, you can trans whatever you want and all this stuff. And so, so many people on the right are kind of using that logic to assume that they can call themselves on the right, they can call themselves Christians, they can call themselves conservatives maybe. And it doesn't mean anything anymore. It just means that maybe they're not voting Democrat, maybe they don't identify as a liberal, but they don't really have a framework and a holistic understanding and definition of what it means to be on the right.
Critique of Joel Webbin's Argument for Embracing Socialism on the Right
And one of the prominent figures, and we've talked about this guy in the context of the Rise of Christian nationalism and this whole throwback to the patriarchy and, and some of these blasphemy laws and some of these other things that some on quote unquote on the right want to impose. But Joel Webbin, who claims to be a pastor and to be on the right, has now posted this almost hour video, yesterday, or I guess two days ago that is titled the Right Must Embrace Socialism to Win. So without even going into the entire 50 minute presentation, which if you want to do a deeper dive, you know, you're welcome to listen to, but just that title right there, the Right Must Embrace Socialism to Win. That is a premise that is fundamentally flawed because really it's just about capitulating instead of actually standing firm on what our values are. And so, you know, I have a lot of questions about that title. First of all, who are we talking about when, when he says the right and when he talks about embracing socialism? I don't think this guy actually understands what socialism is, what it means. I think a lot of people actually on the right don't. And this is why a lot of the discussion and the messaging around the midterms isn't actually helpful when we're just, you know, screaming, you know, but socialists on the left, well, what exactly is it that we're fighting? I mean we have this probably general idea of socialism equals communism and communism bad, but what exactly are we talking about? And then what does he mean by winning? Because if we're embracing something, you know, we as conservatives are embracing a premise that we fundamentally disagree with, right? In order to win, what exactly are we achieving? Because I mean, this would be like saying Christians need to embrace abortion so that we can have, you know, what a bigger church. Is that how we define winning? The metrics? Right? I mean, what are your goals here exactly? I mean if we are, are claiming to stand firm on a premise and to define ourselves meaningfully as conservatives or the so called right, that must mean that we stand for something, a worldview of government. Because the right inherently means we're talking about politics, right? We're talking about political theory, we're talking about legitimacy in government, we're about talking, we're talking about what government can and cannot do, the purpose of government, all of that, right? So when we talk about the right, we're necessarily talking about politics. And that means we stand for certain things and we embrace the ideas that government is only legitimate when it carries out certain activities and is not legitimate when it tries to do other things. And if we are embracing a premise that we fundamentally disagree with, then we're no longer the right and we're redefining winning. So, I mean, there are so many things wrong with this statement.
Clarifying Socialism, Conservatism, and the Proper Role of Government
But I think if you go and listen to anything by Joel Webbin and he posted, you know, a couple of other just rants and, you know, a few other shorter videos, and, I'm not going to play any of them because, you know, it doesn't even matter. But I, I don't think that because to this conversation, but I don't think that he actually understands what socialism is, or if he does, he's purposefully trying to manipulate the definition to fit his premise. And so I think we're using on the right, if we can define that as the conservative base that opposes what the Democrats stand for, and we stand for conservatism, conserving a legitimate biblical worldview of government. If we can use that definition, were using socialism far too loosely. Because one of the laziest arguments in politics right now is that if conservatives support any government program subsidy, tax credit, benefit intervention, then how can we complain about socialism? Then we're saying, basically, yeah, we're for socialism. That misunderstands both conservatism and socialism because American conservatism has historically defended limited constitutional government, private property, free enterprise, individual liberty, the traditional family, and all of these things within the context of civil society. A current, Heritage foundation statement of conservative, first principles, for example, expressly identifies limited government and free enterprise among its commitments. And even Speaker Johnson, if you go to his website, a part of this as free enterprise and being fiscally conservative is all part of this worldview of our economic policy. And so the opposite of socialism isn't the government never does anything. The opposite of socialism is an economic and political order in which the state does not own direct or subordinate private life and private property to centralized control. Let me read that again. The opposite of socialism isn't government never does anything. The opposite of socialism is an economic and political order which the state does not own. Direct or subordinate private life and private property to centralized control. So we need to define socialism first before we say that the right should embrace it or before we suggest that, you know, we're opposed or what. Our economic theory is always the debate on anything. Especially though, when we're talking about policy debate or even theological debates. If you've been following this debate on Calvinism, between Dinesh and I and Leighton Flowers and a few others you, know versus the Calvinists, definitions matter because you Win if you define your terms that ultimately prove your theology or your policy. And in theology or policy, you shouldn't try to manipulate the definitions just to fit your preferred outcomes.
The Dangers of Redefining Terms and Misrepresenting Socialism
particularly in theology, if you have a good hermeneutic or good exegesis, then you define the terms in their plain meaning, in their context and in the original language. And then you derive your interpretation from that. you don't try to manipulate the definitions to fit your outcome. But when we're talking about definitions, one of the things that Joel Webbin is doing and some of these others who are suggesting that the right should embrace socialism is that they're actually redefining what it means to be socialist. Or so then they can pretend and insert that definition into what the left is doing, which is really false. And so socialism, broadly understood, centers on social or public ownership or control of the means of production and economic resources. Although some socialist schools disagree, substantially, kind of how that all works and ownership or control and how that should operate. But that's the basic definition. look at the example of Mamdani wanting to have government controlled grocery stores, right? that's an example of controlling, economic resources, controlling, production, and actually controlling a lot of this.
Contrasting American Conservatism with Socialism: Private Property and Free Enterprise
So by contrast, the American conservative tradition has generally treated private property as a safeguard of liberty and something that we, that is a right that comes from God our Creator, that private property is something that we inherently have a right to as human beings, made in the image of God and free enterprise as preferable to centralized economic direction. So, Russell Kirk, for example, explicitly connected private property and freedom. Modern conservative institutions continue to identify property and free enterprise as foundational principles. So if you are conservative, and traditionally if you are on the right and you have a meaningful definition, then you would be for private property and against socialism. So if we, if we extrapolate that out, government spending, just generally speaking, does not automatically equal socialism.
Government Spending, Taxation, and Social Security Are Not Necessarily Socialism
Taxation in, in certain legitimate ways, right? And we can talk about when taxation is theft, which is a fair point, and when taxation is appropriate. But taxation as an entire subject is not automatically socialism. A tax credit or also getting back, returns in your taxes does not automatically equal socialism. Because that money, technically, you know, you gave it to the government, you're getting it back. That doesn't equal socialism, Social Security in all of its problems. That doesn't equal proof that America has adopted a socialism scheme, wholesale and government, government benefits, things that the government provides, like, roads, like, first responders, you know, police, fire, all of those things. Those don't automatically equal socialism. Otherwise, virtually every government in human history becomes, quote, unquote socialist. And that term becomes meaningless because government has to exist, right? And it has to function in some meaningful way. I mean, providing the court process where you can go even in civil government, and you can file a, civil claim against someone else and have it arbitrated by a judge. You don't pay for the judge right now, you may pay for your lawyers, you may pay court fees, you know, some of those things. But, but you don't pay for a. Like you would a private arbitration, right? So the government does provide services, and we can talk about what's legitimate versus illegitimate. But the government providing some services does not equal socialism. So the conservative question always is, what is the proper role of government? Conservatism doesn't say that government has no role. And this is where you get into the debates of, okay, you're on the right and you're conservative because you want to limit government.
The Spectrum of Conservatism and the Distinction Between Limited Government and Socialism
You have traditional, principles, natural law. And you're not into the, into communism. You're not into actual, you know, socialism. You're not into big government or all of these entitlements like the left. So you're to the right on that political spectrum. But then you can get even further right to say that government has no legitimate role other than arbitrating private contract disputes. Or government has even far more limited roles in terms of regulation that even conservatives would say, no, we think that the government should step in. So, for example, this huge debate right now about, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy, you know, those are things that conservatives, if we're conserving natural law, would say, yes, the government should step in and should regulate that so that we are not abusive towards women, so that we do not commoditize children. That's something that, because it has a moral basis, the government can and should step in and intervene. And so we say that the government has a limited role, but it has a legitimate role. So the conservative framework is that government protects the conditions in which people, families, churches, businesses, communities, and also voluntary associations. Right? we have the freedom of associations. All can flourish. But a socialist framework says that economic outcomes or productive resources are subjected to substantially greater collective or government ownership to control and planning.
Fundamental Differences Between Conservative and Socialist Frameworks and the Misuse of Definitions
So there are obviously varieties within both of those viewpoints, but the starting presumptions are fundamentally completely different. So when someone like a Joel Webbin is arguing that conservatives should embrace socialism, I don't think he's actually talking about the real socialist framework. He's trying to redefine socialism into something that conservatives go, oh, yeah, you know what? I am for some government regulation. Oh, yeah, I am. I am for some, you know, tax benefits. I am for, you know, some of these, some of these government programs. Wow, I must be okay with socialism. And that's a false premise because conservatism begins with the person, the individual, the family unit, private property, and civil society, and asks what limited functions government must perform and where the limits are. This is why specific limited powers under our constitutional framework are given to government.
Redistribution, Federalism, and Government Programs Do Not Equate to Socialism
And they're also separated into three branches of government on the federal level, and they're also separated into three different powers on that vertical line between federal, state, and individual powers of government. We the people even have some powers that we can individually exercise. Socialism begins from a much more collectivist conception of, of economic organization. And so this is really important. Redistribution and socialism aren't synonyms, okay? This is really useful because people throw around the word redistribution. And, Joel Webbin did in a number of his videos. And every tax system does redistribute resources in some sense, right? So if taxpayers, you know, here in Florida pay federal taxes that help an aircraft carrier stationed in, you know, Virginia, just as a hypothetical, the government has collected resources from citizens here like me, and spent them elsewhere. But that doesn't make the Navy socialist. That makes us part of a federalist system where. And we can talk about, you know, whether the taxing and the spending ultimately, is. Is valid and legitimate. And a lot of these programs under doge that came to light aren't in a conservative framework. But ultimately it doesn't mean that every single government program means then that we have some elements of socialism.
Defining the Meaningful Questions for Government Action and the Limits of Conservatism
So the, the actual meaningful questions are, what is the government doing? Why, under what constitutional authority? That's the big one, right? And how large is the intervention? Does it preserve private ownership and individual choice or replace it? So government spent money. That doesn't mean socialism. That, that is a ridiculous and unserious intellectual analysis. Conservatism can support government policy without becoming socialist. So take, just for example, school choice, right? And that's been a big debate right now. So the government already taxes citizens to fund education. And when we say, okay, government collects the money, government operates an institution, but government then gives money back to the individual child, that the debate is whether the policy is wise. But this isn't an argument that we're. That this decision is moving toward a centralized government, right? So it's the Same thing with tax policy. I mean, we can, we could give you a lot of hypotheticals, but you know, we're in a constrained, ah, time frame here, so there are tons of examples of that. That doesn't automatically equal socialism. And why conservatism also isn't pure libertarianism. Right.
Historical Conservative Principles and Moral Obligations Versus Political Administration
So this is important because otherwise the argument accidentally defines conservatism as basically, anarcho capitalism. So historically, American conservatives have recognized legitimate governmental responsibilities. National defense, like the Navy in that example, courts, like I mentioned, law enforcement, protection of property rights, enforcement of contracts, and other constitutional authorized functions. So modern American conservatism has generally emphasized that the government should be limited in scope, not non existent. And some of those authorized functions aren't constitutional. They go well beyond those boundaries, which is why we're having that debate. But this doesn't mean that government is socialist. So from a Christian conservative perspective, Scripture recognizes obligations toward the poor, widows, orphans, neighbors and families. But a moral obligation to care for someone does not automatically answer the political question of who should administer that care. Right.
The True Dividing Lines Between Conservatism and Socialism: Limited Government vs. Centralized Control
So that's a big question. But, the important issue, and we'll close on this, is that conservatism isn't socialism simply because conservatives acknowledge a legitimate role for government or because they provide some government services. The dividing line isn't government versus no government. It's limited government versus centralized control, private property versus collective ownership, individual and family agency versus bureaucratic direction, and a vibrant civil society versus a state that increasingly assumes the functions of every other institution. So conservatives can and should argue about where exactly those lines belong.
The Importance of Defining Terms and Understanding the Conservative Question of Government Legitimacy
But if every tax credit is socialism, like in this Joel Webman guy's view, every public road is socialism, every government expenditure is socialism, then the word socialism doesn't even describe an economic philosophy anymore. It's basically just a political policy that everybody has to agree on. The conservative question has never been, does government exist? The question is, what is government legitimately authorized to do? And where must its power end? So we've got to take a break here, but this is why it's so important to define our terms first and to understand that when you see people who post these lengthy videos and they say the right must embrace socialism and ask them to define their terms first. If you can't reach them and they don't want to actually have that conversation directly with you, listen for those definitions. Listen to how they're actually defining the right, what it means to be socialist, what it means to win. I mean, those definitions are all incredibly different, depending now on who you talk to and make sure that you contrast that first and foremost with a biblical worldview of government and also what the conservative policy premise is when we work up from there. So we'll be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Listener Support and Introduction to Government Overreach in Healthcare
Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis. Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net forward slg that's afr.net give. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of things, that are not conservative and, what the government is not constitutionally authorized to do, this is a really wild clip from a discussion with Massachusetts, Governor Maura Healy, who says that everyone who has a baby will be visited in their home by a government appointed health care provider, quote, to make an assessment. Listen to this.
Massachusetts Governor's Proposed Home Visits for New Parents and Republican Messaging Failures
Cut one. Everybody in the state, when you have a baby, you're going to have a home visit. You're going to have a home visit, within days, weeks. And that will be an opportunity for a health care provider to make an assessment. Yeah. No, absolutely not. If that is not the best advertisement for Republicans this midterm election, I don't know what is. And I don't know why their messaging is so bad. But someone who may be able to help us out with this is Mark Mitchell, who is the CEO of Honest Polls. And Mark, you know, this just shows and is just one clear example of how the left and the Democrats want more government and absolute government control.
Analyzing Political Shifts, Democratic Statism, and the Impact of Perceived Economic Conditions
Even when it comes to coming in and invading your own home and giving an assessment. I mean, for what to say that you can keep your child. I mean, this is just so insane. And yet somehow Republicans aren't dominating the midterms. I mean, what is going on?
Mark Mitchell: well, they do trust the government more than people on the right. That is true. I think first off, one of the best charts I've ever seen. I just came across it last week and I think it really explains everything that's going on because politics changed a lot in the Trump era. And part of that is that Democrats became more statist, they became scarier, and some of them became more violent because they honestly do believe a lot of the propaganda. you know, I'm painting with really broad brushes here, but they are very consensus oriented people. They like to win, they like to be in power. They like everybody to, you know, agree on everything. And Covid really sort of broke them. Like, a lot of them wanted to throw unvaccinated into prison camps and take unvaccinated children away from their parents and all of these absolutely crazy things. And then they thought that Trump was a threat to democracy and that he was trying to take the country away. A lot of them really believe that. Almost 50% of people who watched MSNBC and CNN thought that threats to democracy were the number one issue in 20. so that's just crazy stuff. And, you know, Republicans don't really have much in the way of an answer for that. But then the other thing too is, I'm glad I caught the tail end of your previous discussion because I've come on your show a lot. We've been talking about the future and what's going to change. And this is exactly the conversation that was super predictable that was going to happen, which is that Republicans were going to eventually figure out that they need to run on something new and actually like, sort of provide something for the electorate, because elections are becoming increasingly transactional. And the reason, you know, the final reason in that chart, it's a chart that YouGov has that shows monthly results for the question is the economy getting better or worse? And going into Covid, you had about equal in the 30s, economy getting better versus economy getting worse.
The Influence of Hope and Perception on Economic Sentiment, Independent of Hard Data
Then all of a sudden, economy getting worse shot up to 60. And it stayed there for quite a while. But what actually brought it down, it brought it right back down into the 30s was Biden getting elected. And so it wasn't economic numbers. It wasn't, you know, the employment rate or GDP or anything that they put on cnbc. It was hoped that they elected somebody new that was going to come in and fix the economic situation. Now, obviously, Biden made everything worse, right? So the number shot back up to 65. And you're never going to get to 100% of people who say the economy is getting worse. There are a lot of retired people, there are a lot of wealthy people and people that just really don't care. But that's the highest that it's been until recently. So it stayed in the 60s until Trump got elected, and the number plunged right back down into the 30s. So again, here's everybody saying, well, things are terrible. I can't afford stuff. It's not egg prices, it's the fact that health care cost an entire rent check. It's the fact that I can't get a Job and wages have been suppressed, all the things that we've been talking about. And so they gave Trump the benefit of the doubt as well. And then about, you know, seven, eight months after his election, about June of 2025, the number plunged right back up into the six or, skyrocketed right back up into the 60s because people looked at the presidential election and said, no, I'm not going to get these core economic fixes that I thought. And again, it was entirely not driven by any of the financial news, any of the metrics coming out of the BLS or, anything, even the stock market. In fact, the stock market had no impact on what people feel about the economic situation.
The Broken Economic System and the Failure of Republicans to Offer Solutions
And the reason that that's important as well is because that number skyrocketing happened really before Trump's approval rating got bad, really before the generic ballot polling flipped to show that the Republicans were going to lose the House. And it's because it's the economy, and the economy is in post Covid situation, just not serving the people. The economic system is broken and it's all these things again, we've talked about the K shaped recovery, the focus of corporate power, the inability of the government to actually serve the economic common good of the people. And what you have now is that that economy getting worse number is just as high as it was at the height of COVID right after Biden, when inflation was skyrocketing. And some of it is because of the Iran situation, obviously, but really it's because they don't look at the Republicans led by Trump and say, you know what, I'm going to get this golden age, I'm going to get these economic fixes.
The Political Kabuki: Democrats Offer Promises, Republicans Lack a Coherent Plan
And it's because the Republicans don't really have a coherent plan to fix any of this. And the entire political fight for my life has been this like red team, blue team Kabuki, where Democrats run on progress and Republicans run on basically not progress, because reasons, right? And the reasons have been like conservatism and Constitution and they beat you over the head with these principles that essentially mean nothing. It's just their excuse for not doing anything. And so what Joel Webbin is saying is that, listen, it's gotten so bad that people are going to vote for folks who promise them things and no amount of moralizing is going to change that.
Critique of Republican Inaction and the Transactional Nature of Modern Politics
And there's got to be a lot of nuance here because, like, again, everything is socialist really right now, everything's a huge giant transfer payment. Even if you think about it, like the idea that Republicans Cut corporate taxes is a transfer payment from income earners to people who own shares of corporations. Right. Like, it's really, it's really kind of perverse if you put it that way, but it is true because I think objectively, you know, trickle down economics, we've given it enough time. It isn't, it isn't really working. We've had decades of wage.
Jenna Ellis: Oh, yeah. And this, the whole point here, of course, is that it's not like, you know, anyone on the right or conservatives are suggesting that the current government is actually limited and is actually genuinely conservative. I mean, this is why we were such staunch, advocates of what Doge was supposed to do. Right? Because we wanted to make the government, smaller. And we've been saying we want to do that on the right for decades. But Republicans, ah, at least those in office, and especially those in Washington, don't actually want to do that.
Mark Mitchell: Yeah, oh, 100%. It got away, got in the way of the one big beautiful bill, which was their paycheck for being out of office for four years.
Voter Desires for Economic Relief and the Perceived Failures of Both Parties
They didn't really want to attach any MAGA stuff to that, and I guess they did a little bit. Right. And that was the one bill they passed, essentially Trump's legislative, signature achievement. So when, you know, you look at the socialists and the people on the left who are voting for dsa, it's easy to conflate what the candidates believe with what the actual voters believe. And yes, I do think that some of these DSA candidates are actually socialists, but I think you're, you know, based on the polling and how these people respond, they just want, like, economic relief, they want jobs, they want to be able to buy houses. They think health care is a major issue, it costs way too much. And when they say socialist, they're really looking at, like, these countries over in Europe where they think that the health care system works and why can't we have health care like Japan and where everything is cheap and I don't have to worry about a $2,000 a month payment and still have a $12,000 deductible. So really the signal is that younger people especially are getting just completely shut out of the economic, you know, system that we have. And that's like, obviously true by every metric, just not the metrics that the people in Washington D.C. track. They like to track GDP and they like to track, you know, you know, the unemployment rate.
The Need for Conservative Solutions Beyond Simply Stating Socialism Is Bad
But, you know, they're not tracking wages, they're not tracking, like, household growth, they're not so Then the Democrats are going to offer people things, and the Democrats. And people say, oh, they're not going to deliver. Yeah, they're going to deliver. They're going to give you a housing bailout bill. And people will get stuff, Right. And obviously over the long term, that'll probably have massive financial repercussions. And it's like, okay, as the, you know, the conservative, the right, the people who are supposed to have the moral authority and the high ground on the intellectual high ground on this, it's like you have to have a solution. You can't just say it's wrong. And people say, oh, well, you know, we've never been transactional. 2024 was a transactional election.
Republican Failures in Transactional Elections and the Frustration of Independent Voters
And I think we can step back and look and explain to people. last, time I was on, we talked about the generic ballot. I had come out with a D plus 11. Now, a whole bunch of pollsters confirmed that the betting market seems to confirm a pretty big Democrat pickup. Republicans are probably going to lose, and it's because they weren't able to basically fulfill the promises they made on a transactional basis. And the people who aren't going to turn out to vote is mostly independents who voted for Republicans out of desperation and have no loyalty to the party. So, again, this idea that, like, oh, Democrats are evil and you can't vote them in. Well, it's like the person that's deciding this election is the independent who voted for Republicans and Trump because of Trump's platform and is now just sitting out because they are frustrated they didn't get it what they want because.
Jenna Ellis: Because Trump is inherently transactional. I mean, that was his entire.
The Transactional Nature of Politics and Trump's Failure to Deliver on Promises
I mean, even going back to 2015, that was his entire. Yeah, I mean, that was like, vote for me. Not because of any, you know, I'm not this, this beacon of morality and, you know, your conservative overall principles and, you know, he wasn't framing himself to be that type of leader. And conservatives overall said, okay, we're okay with that because we want you to do the things that you're actually campaigning on, because Republicans haven't done that in the last, you know, several decades and news cycles. And by the way, that's not actually a necessarily a bad thing. I mean, politics is, in some kind of crude sense, just transactional. And that's okay with me. If Trump had actually fulfilled on all of the promises he said, then fine. You know, that actually would be, I mean, I would, I would continue to staunchly support everybody that, you know, that he's endorsing and say the Republican Party is doing excellent if they actually delivered on their promises.
Mark Mitchell: Yeah.
Trump's Promises Focused on Non-Monetary Issues and Long-Term Investments
And it's important to point out that most of the things he promised didn't actually have a dollar signal attached to them. We're not talking about spending more money and indebted m further indebted the country. We're talking about arresting people. You know what I mean? We're talking about draining the swamp, reforming the government agencies, accountability for things that happened under Covid. These are all things that, you know, didn't cost really anything other than effort and, you know, risk. Right. There's an aspect of risk with Trump's platform, for sure. 100% deportation. You know, that kind of costs money, but it is a long term investment in the future of the country. Right. Like, definitely that pays off. Right. It'll be increased wages and you know, and the Republicans in power more. Right.
The Shift in American Sentiment and the Impact of Economic Concerns on Elections
Like, and people say, oh, it's always the party in power that loses the House. And this was destiny. And it really, really wasn't like May of 2025. The polling said that a majority of Americans thought the country was headed in the right direction for the very first time. And it was really after, I m hate to say it, the 12 Day War kicked off really the first time. Everybody thought, well, maybe we're not getting what we voted for here. And then one big beautiful bill was a letdown. Doge. By then people realized that Doge had kind of disappeared. And that's when people's concern about the economic future spiked right back up.
Catastrophic Events and the Predictable Political Landscape
And then, since then, it's just like, as we've talked about at length, just a comical string of completely, I mean, the Epstein thing, the government shut down, Trump's remarks on the labor market, like they have all just really been catastrophic. So, I mean, we're in a relatively predictable place if you've been following politics for a year, year and a half. And of course I've been attacked for warning about all these things. And it was so predictable we'd be here that everybody shows up a month and a half from the election, like Newt Gingrich coming out and saying, here's how he can win.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I listened to that a year
The Need for Proactive Planning and Honest Assessment of Political Standing
Mark Mitchell: and a half ago, buddy.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And maybe. And we got to take a break here, but Mark Mitchell, is going to follow through on into the next segment. We're going to continue to talk about this. But yeah, I mean, we should have been thinking about this when there was such momentum after the 2024 election. And then maybe we'd be in a totally different spot. But we've got to be honest about where we're at right now. That's what we'll continue to talk about, when we come back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Sponsor Message: Preborn's Mission to Save Babies and Support Mothers
We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At, PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250, baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
The Failure of the Republican Party to Deliver Solutions and the Confusion Caused by Redefining Socialism
welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And I'm here with my special guest, Mark Mitchell, who is the CEO of Honest Polls. And we're talking about the midterms, and, you know, where we're at in this moment in time in terms of what conservatives should actually be looking for. And, frankly, some of the, failures of the Republican Party to actually perform on and deliver on their promises. And so, Mark, I think you encapsulated kind of this whole problem with the DSA and socialism in a recent post where you say people are increasingly supporting, DSA not because they're real socialists, but it's because they want things like financial relief, higher wages, and a government that works. If you're losing ground to dsa, it's because the marginal voter doesn't think you have solutions. And I think that really gets to the heart of the problem here and where people, you know, like Joel Webbin enter in and confuse the issue by redefining socialism saying, yeah, it's, it's okay and we should embrace it. then people end up advocating conservatives end up advocating for a bigger government and something that ultimately is going to not work and not actually give them what they want. And so they're betraying the only possibility for a conservative form of government, because historically, I mean, Republicans just simply haven't delivered on it, especially in the last two years and maybe since the first term of Trump.
Voters' Need for Systemic Fixes and the Republican Party's Failure to Provide Them
But they're going down this road thinking it's going to give them a government that works, and it's not. And so, I think Republicans need to be able to message this and have a really serious conversation, not just say, well, socialism bad. But as we've been talking about, they're not actually providing the solutions and saying, okay, socialism is bad, but here is what works and here is what we are delivering. They can't message that. And I think that's part of the problem.
Desperation for Systemic Fixes and Trump's Initial Success with Retribution Messaging
Mark Mitchell: Well, they're still stuck in the same establishment paradigm, and voters really needed us to break out of that because the polling under the Biden administration was just absolutely horrifying. And I was out there, really one of the only people giving Trump the polling cover. He needed to really come in and do whatever the heck he wanted. I mean, I had 60% of Americans thinking the media was the enemy of the people, 53% saying Joe Biden, FBI, was Joe Biden's personal gestapo. 72% of America concerned we were living in police, state. 66%, I think, of Americans wanting, an investigation into the origins of Cove I mean, I could go on and on, but people were desperate for systemic fixes. And Trump, remember, ran on retribution. Like, those were the right kind of words to say. And then ever since he got into office, we had two months of doge, and everybody loved it. He had a massive youth approval rating of 60%, unprecedented for a Republican president.
Trump's Incremental Accomplishments and the Missed Opportunity for Radical Change
And, you know, there were a lot of tears on msnbc. But, in the grand scheme of things, that's when Trump got to 50% right direction polling. So, again, a first in the 25 years of Rasmussen polling history. So, they were going in the right direction and then sort of everything got shut down and then really everything Trumps done. And again, he has accomplished a lot of things, but in my opinion, it's all been incremental and within the.
Sidestepping the Constitution and Affronts to It Under the Biden Administration
And so what could he have done? Understanding that it's like, although a lot of Americans would have appreciated, not all, but a lot would have appreciated him sort of sidestepping the Constitution or doing things like just firing judges without legal cover, I mean, we really are there, a pretty big Majority of people agreed with his quote, that he who saved the country violates no laws. But it's like, okay, if we weren't willing to do that, even though objectively the Biden administration crossed the Rubicon in many ways. I mean, there was a lot of just appalling, affronts, to the Constitution under the Biden administration. Imagine if back in March, well, first off, we had continued doge, but imagine if they had done just three things.
Proposed Republican Strategies: Popular Bills, Agency Cleanups, and Arrests
So imagine if every legislative calendar day, the Republicans brought one popular single page bill to the floor for a vote. Things like English as an official language, or things like repealing Hart Celler, or things like, IDs to vote, or things like paper ballots just every day and make Democrats vote no on them. And there's like, maybe your legislative fix. What if you had a firing cam set up across the street from the FBI and the CIA and every other agency and you just frog marched 10 people out every day, you did the investigations, you actually did the effort to figure out who the scumbags were and just fired them and showed America these people getting cleaned up, right? And then the third one is just every week you just arrested somebody. You know, all these people, there's a huge list of the people that we know that need to be arrested. And you just arrest these people. And it's like, okay, a conservative would say, well, you know, they'll never face justice, no court is going to convict them, and blah, blah, blah. It's like, yeah, but then you're showing that the Democrats are the barrier to justice and not the Republicans. Right?
Republican Failure to Act on Promises and Internal Project Shutdowns
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, you're at least doing what you can.
Mark Mitchell: Yeah, right, exactly. So the very idea that they're doing what they can is just false. And quite frankly, they, they did have a lot of cards to play that they didn't. My understanding is that that wave of really good executive orders in the beginning of Trump's term was sort of part of what was supposed to happen under Project 2025. And that Project 2025 got shut down internally. So, I mean, just to summarize, right, People were expecting, a massive fix for a run amok government and an economic system that has failed the American people. And under Republican governance, with the strongest Republican mandate that they're probably ever going to get, they just completely, like, failed on the homework assignment. Like, they just forgot the homework assignment. And not only that, they did what they do with the momentum, you know, the institutional inertia, which is attack something in the Middle east again.
Independent Voters' Punishment of Republicans and the Need for a Future Plan
And so now, I mean, unfortunately, the independent voters are going to punish the Republican Party and they'll probably punish the Democrats again in the future. And I'm not trying to be doomer here. Like, I'm very optimistic that 2028 is absolutely winnable just looking at the state of the Democrat slate. So the problem is that Republicans have to have a plan about how they're actually going to convince America that there are systemic fixes coming.
Jenna Ellis: Literally what I was about to say is that we, we've got to start now.
The Importance of Starting Now for 2028 and Voting for Solutions, Not Just Against Evils
We can't, you know, six weeks before 2028 go, oh, well, what exactly are we running on and what are we doing? Because if over the next two years, if the Democrats at least get control of the House and they push all of these investigations, impeachments and all of that, that may backfire on them and have more Republican turnout for 2028. But it's like again, you know, the Republicans need to run on something because I think a lot of the voters, and you would know this in polling more than me, but you know, just the, the assessment that I see, you know, across the electorate is that people want to vote for, for something we're really tired of just voting against the less, the worst of the two evils. You know, you want to actually vote for a winning team and you want to vote for the changes or the more than just the incrementalism. And you want to say, okay, this is actually going to provide solutions and if we don't start doing that now for 2028, then it's going to be really difficult to do that.
Values and Morality in Political Platforms Over Ideologies, and the Misuse of 'Socialism'
You know, come, you know, August before November of 2028 and, and say, okay, well let's maybe get it together now to try to come up with some sort of coherent messaging that it's not going to go very well.
Mark Mitchell: Yeah, so your conversation before I came on very pointed out that we have to look at actually values and morality when understanding how to build a political platform because these ideologies don't matter anymore. And just to give you an example like this, socialism is used as a crude bludgeon on the right to prevent any affront to libertarian open market like globalist economics. That's what happens. And it's like, oh, well, you want to raise corporate taxes, you're a socialist.
Republican Electorate's Desire to Tax Millionaires and the Concept of Fairness
And the problem is that that is not keeping pace with the Republican electorate. And I asked a bunch of questions, but just to give you one, we gave American people a choice for if they wanted to reduce the deficit, would you Rather cut Social Security and Medicare, cut defense spending or tax millionaires. And a majority of Republicans had tax millionaires. So we're, we're at this point where it's like, well that's, that's evil. Millionaires pay so much taxes already and how can we tax them more? Well, it's because they're still doing well. The millionaires are the people who are rising to the top of this economy. Record high wealth concentration. Right. So I think the word of the day is fairness.
Re-evaluating Capitalism's Need for Government Regulation for the Common Good
And you know, that word has a lot packed into it. And you could say, well, like not traditional leftist equity, but biblical equity. Right. Or, and this language needs to be worked out. People need to do this research. I've been reading a book by the Oren Cass at the head of American, Compass, who's really trying to get D.C. conservative economics back to where it was 100 years ago, which is that they understood for capitalism to work it needs to be regulated by the government so that it stays in the common good of everybody. Right. Otherwise like you said, if you had anarcho capitalism, then really we're just going to be ruled over by like Walmart and Amazon.
Jenna Ellis: Right.
Mark Mitchell: And Google.
Public Desire for Breaking Up Large Corporations Versus Traditional Conservative Economics
And that's not, that's not right. And the American people fundamentally know this too. I had 63% of the electorate saying that they want large corporations broken up. Not monopolies, just large corporations. It would be better for America if these companies came up. the government came in and just busted these companies up. And I think we all fundamentally know that. Well, that is again an affront to traditional conservative economics. Right. Like Reagan would not like that at all.
The Critical Need to Define Terms and Understand Conservative Principles
And you know, I think we're at the point we need that kind of thing.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Mark Mitchell, I mean we could do a three hour program just on this one topic. And I think this is so important we continue this conversation. We define our terms, we understand what we're standing for, but really appreciate it.
Sponsor Message: Preborn's Success in Rescuing Babies and Supporting Moms
Follow Mark at Honest Pollster and I'll talk to you tomorrow. PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion and every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today? Go to preborn.com afr.
Jenna Ellis tackles the complexities of conservatism and the rising call for socialism within the political right. Joined by Mark Mitchell, they dissect the definitions and implications of socialism, questioning what it truly means for conservatives to embrace such ideologies. With a focus on the biblical worldview and the role of government, Jenna and Mark explore the importance of clear definitions in political discourse and the need for conservatives to articulate a coherent vision for the future.
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
