Putting The United Back Into The United States: Jeff Webb of Varsity Spirit On The 5 Things That Each Of Us Can Do To Help Unite Our Polarized Society
Tyler Gallagher | Authority Magazine
As part of our series about 5 Things That Each Of Us Can Do To Help Unite Our Polarized Society, I had the pleasure of interviewing Jeff Webb.
Jeff Webb is an acclaimed business entrepreneur, founder of Varsity Spirit, and President of the International Cheer Union. He is the author of the Amazon bestselling book American Restoration: How to Unshackle the Great Middle Class and co-publisher and executive news director for Human Events — a longtime Washington, D.C.-based conservative website.
Thank you so much for joining us in this interview series! Before we dive into the main focus of our interview, our readers would love to “get to know you” a bit better. Can you tell us a bit about your childhood backstory?
My childhood was just about as blessed and what you might call “traditionally American” as you can imagine. I grew up in Dallas, Texas in a middle-class family with my parents and brother and sister. My father was in the oil business and eventually became an entrepreneur. Despite being a Texan, I attended the University of Oklahoma where I was involved with the cheer squad. That’s where I had the seeds sown of the idea that would eventually become Varsity. After college, at the age of 24, I decided to start what would eventually become that company. I raised a little bit of money from friends and family and ran the business out of my apartment for the first two years. Those very sound and very humble beginnings led me to this conversation with you today.
What or who inspired you to pursue your career? We’d love to hear the story.
There wasn’t a light bulb moment or single sort of mentor. The idea started to take shape within me during college and ultimately that idea evolved into action with a little courage and a lot of commitment. I was fortunate to have both my parents support my decision and that is rare for a young entrepreneur, especially back then when the typical path was for someone to look for a good job out of college. To be perfectly honest, both of my parents were very supportive of me. I do remember that my mother, who had been a Dallas tennis champion, said to me when I was deciding whether or not to take the entrepreneurial plunge, “so what if it doesn’t work. So what? You tried it. You want to do it. Just go for it.” If I had an inspiring inflection point that might have been it. Her words have stuck with me my entire life.
What are some of the most interesting or exciting projects you are working on now? How do you think that might help people?
I am currently the president of the International Cheer Union, which is an international sports federation who are in the process of working to get cheerleading accepted into the Olympic games. If we succeed, it will create an incredible expansion of the sport all over the world. I believe it offers young people the opportunity to get involved in something greater than themselves, and being a part of making that happen would be a crowning achievement of my career.
I have also entered the world of politics in a couple of different ways. I’ve partnered with a rising star in the opinion world by the name of Will Chamberlain by joining Human Events, a respected political publication that has roots all the way back to 1944. In my role there as Co-Publisher and Sr. news Editor my team and I have a news division to compliment the opinion side that Will had already well established. I also founded an organization called Middle Class Warriors for the purpose of working on political and economic policy issues that can help support the middle class.
Finally, I recently wrote and published my first book, American Restoration-How to Unshackle the Great Middle Class, which sets out the ideas that Middle Class Warriors will attempt to promote. I was fortunate to have the book become an Amazon number one bestseller in six different categories.
None of us can achieve success without some help along the way. Was there a particular person who you feel gave you the most help or encouragement to be who you are today? Can you share a story about that?
If I try to give credit to any one person, I will most certainly miss hundreds. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is able to attain the level of success that I have been so fortunate to experience without the help and support of so many people along the way. When it comes to the characters in my life’s story, I’m a debtor, not a creditor. That said, I do have to give very special thanks to my family. I have always had their full support and that has been critical to me as it allowed me to focus on building the organization and helping thousands of student athletes achieve their dreams.
Is there a particular book that made a significant impact on you? Can you share a story or explain why it resonated with you so much?
Books are like people in that the impact they have on you is cumulative, so it is hard to pick just one. I can say that as far as getting me interested in being involved in the political sphere there is one that really hit home. It is a book called The Revolt of the Elites: And The Betrayal of Democracy, authored by Christopher Lasch. His thoughts on how we have abandoned both the American middle class and the poor drove me to become more active and focus my attention to make a difference.
Can you share your favorite “Life Lesson Quote”? Why does that resonate with you so much? Do you have a story about how that was relevant in your life or your work?
I don’t have one life lesson that stands out above the rest. At my company however, we have about 15 sayings that I’ve used so many times throughout the years that my team knows them by heart. Most of them center around practical steps in building a high-quality organization while at the same time helping those in need and helping people achieve their dreams. I do find myself quite often quoting Stephen Covey and his line “begin with the end in mind.” Wouldn’t it be nice if our leaders and politicians followed that simple rule more often?
How do you define “Leadership”? Can you explain what you mean or give an example?
For me leadership has always been having a vision, being able to communicate what that vision is, attracting people who believe in your vision as articulated, and then being able to create a sort of egalitarian type of culture where people support each other and will do whatever it takes to support the vision that they each come to see, understand, and embrace. That is real leadership. Real life leadership, the type that sustains an organization over time, cannot really be described by one word or phrase. It takes a deep commitment to what you believe in and a relentless effort to achieve your goal.
Ok, thank you for all that. Now let’s move to the main focus of our interview. The polarization in our country has become so extreme that families have been torn apart. Erstwhile close friends have not spoken to each other because of strong partisan differences. This is likely a huge topic, but briefly, can you share your view on how this evolved to the boiling point that it’s at now?
This did not just happen overnight; it only seems like it has because of the intensity of the past four to five years. The fundamental problem is that political differences have become so intensely personal. People tend to personally demonize those who have a different political viewpoint. We are no longer able to “agree to disagree” or to say that “reasonable people can differ.” Now it is more along the lines of “I’m good. You’re bad. Let me use my social media account to tell everyone just how bad you are.” The media has been complicit in the increased polarization which has been driven largely by money, but also by wanting to promote a different more collectivist ideology. The media’s actions are a sort of political corruption, and something from which our entire society is suffering.
I have no pretensions about bridging the divide between politicians, or between partisan media outlets. But I’d love to discuss the divide that is occurring between families, coworkers, and friends. Do you feel comfortable sharing a story from your experience about how family or friends have become a bit alienated because of the partisan atmosphere?
Fortunately, my own family and close friends have handled our differences, and we do have political differences, with a combination of love and respect. Sadly, I know that is not the case for many. I know one story of a family that cancelled Thanksgiving dinner in November of 2016! That’s just a few weeks after the election! They were already unable to sit at a table with one another! With some friends, it has put a new level of cautiousness and tension into the relationship. That is unfortunate as you want to be able to be open and say what you think with your friends and family. People are more reluctant to open up and share their thoughts with others which is problematic because substantive discussions are what lead to success.
Civil conversation has gotten so complicated. There are some people who look for ways to insult others, and there are those who are afraid to speak because they might insult others, and finally there are those people looking for an opportunity to say they were insulted so they can insult someone back. We have turned what used to be political debates into something akin to a bar fight in an old western movie. America needs to find a way to have someone step up onto the table in the middle of the room and yell “stop”!
In your opinion, what can be done to bridge the divide that has occurred in families? Can you please share a story or example?
Well, it has to start with our leaders on both sides of the political aisle, who we see on cable television 24/7, toning down the rhetoric and de-personalizing the political conversation. We watch them behave badly and then we think it is ok for us to behave badly. We need to make our conversations be about ideas, policies, and trying to find common ground. Most importantly, we need to try to replace emotion with reason; easier said than done, I know. Until we do, we won’t be able to break this stalemate that many families find themselves in as does much of the country. Neither side wants to work with the other. It’s going to take compromise, and it’s going to require that each of us get back to communicating with others in ways that are not hurtful.
How about the workplace, what can be done to bridge the partisan divide that has fractured relationships there? Can you please share a story or example?
In the workplace, companies themselves and especially company leadership have become too political. They are getting too involved with taking sides on issues and cancelling their own vendors and customers. It’s a huge mistake for them to do so. The companies should stick to their basic mission which is to provide the best possible goods or services at a fair price and to make a reasonable profit to sustain their business. Now that won’t be a popular statement in today’s culture of corporate “workism”, but at Varsity we tried to create an environment where all employees were welcome, no matter their differing views, so long as they were respectful of others and dedicated to the company’s mission and vision.
Today, companies that have weighed into politics have in part been doing it because they feel it may position them as trendy or cool, but what they don’t realize is that they are potentially alienating half of their employees and their customers. It’s getting worse and the best thing to do is to just leave politics out of the workplace. Employees… even company leaders… should be free to get involved in politics on a personal level, but they should make it clear they are acting on their own behalf, not representing the company.
I think one of the causes of our divide comes from the fact that many of us see a political affiliation as the primary way to self identify. But of course there are many other ways to self identify. What do you think can be done to address this?
The divide isn’t being caused by party affiliation. That is a byproduct. The real division comes from what people are experiencing inside of our institutions. Everything from our schools, to our healthcare system, to our large corporate boardroom, to our media, to our entertainment industry, all of it has become highly politicized. This has a very negative and divisive impact.
Party affiliation then develops based on how people feel they come down on one side or the other of all this division, and especially how any aspect of the division might impact their immediate family. Most People are not hyper-political, but they are hyper-real life. They are interested in what affects their daily lives and that of their family. Amidst all the chaos and arguing, much of which is not what they are really interested in, they choose a side they think is best for them and they join the fight.
It’s a misinterpretation that their political affiliation is the main driver behind who they are and how they identify themselves personally. Political affiliation is more derivative than causative for most people. It’s just one aspect of their life but it’s becoming more and more important to them because they have seen many of the institutions that have served their families so well over the years being attacked and torn down. They believe their future is at stake, and it is.
Much ink has been spilled about how social media companies and partisan media companies continue to make money off creating a split in our society. Sadly the cat is out of the bag and at least in the near term there is no turning back. Social media and partisan media have a vested interest in maintaining the divide, but as individuals none of us benefit by continuing this conflict. What can we do moving forward to not let social media divide us?
The power that’s been accumulated by big tech and in particular the major social media platforms, has probably become one of the gravest threats to our republic and our civilized society today. The ability for any one or even a few companies to determine how our citizens can communicate with each other, in addition to being able to decide unilaterally what speech to suppress and who to demonize, is absolutely terrifying. It is tyranny of the highest order. This is something that people on both sides need to understand and address. Right now, those on team left have Facebook, Twitter, and Google in their corner and they’re cancelling out and suppressing speech of the folks on team right. While that makes one side happy right now, they should be mindful that things can change.
Everyone needs to be smart enough to know there are some basic rights, in particular those First Amendment rights, that are essential to preserving a free country. Freedom of expression has been at the core of our nation’s two hundred-plus year run of success and prosperity never before seen in all of human history. If we allow fundamental rights to be chipped away at for political expediency or political gain, we do so at our own peril as a society.
What can we do moving forward to not let partisan media pundits divide us?
Well, it is going to require a whole lot of people with the inclination and willingness to push back the other way. The media has never really been apolitical. For a long time we might have thought it was, but that was because it was so limited with so few outlets. We all listened to almost the same thing since the evening news was on one of three possible networks and their reporting was remarkably similar. Today, however, there is a proliferation of media, so we get a chance to get more looks at the partisanship.
Also, with more media there seems to come a need to be more partisan, more outrageous, in order to attract followers. There is a game of one upmanship taking place to see who can gain people’s attention. Many of the people in the media have become such demagogues and are so arrogant that they actually likely now believe that what they are telling is the truth. Hopefully, we will begin to see some media platforms try to be objective and as balanced as possible making sure to show both sides.
Sadly we have reached a fevered pitch where it seems that the greatest existential catastrophe that can happen to our country is that “the other side” seizes power. We tend to lose sight of the fact that as a society and as a planet we face more immediate dangers. What can we do to lower the ante a bit and not make every small election cycle a battle for the “very existence of our country”?
It starts with dialing back the rhetoric. We need to make it unacceptable to have people attack those who disagree with them personally and force them to focus on differences in policy. When you talk to people who are not involved in politics and you lay out the policies, without mentioning a political party, you find out a lot of them are on the other side of where they thought they were. That is where we need to focus. People have become too wrapped up in the personality and the demonization of individuals. This has happened at the highest levels of our trusted institutions. When you have the government trying to demonize certain people and using its power, especially the Justice Department, to pursue political “enemies’’ what are regular citizens supposed to think? We need a group of people to come together from both sides and talk about saving the country. They need to do it by talking about policy. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they are the devil.
Ok wonderful. Here is the main question of our interview. Can you please share your “5 Steps That Each Of Us Can Take To Proactively Help Heal Our Country”. Kindly share a story or example for each.
People must make a conscious effort not to personalize their political position and have respect for the positions of others. This means controlling your initial reflexive response to ideas and positions that are uncomfortable or disagreeable to you. Tell someone out loud before you begin to talk to them that you are going to be open-minded and listen. Not only will they hear you say it, you will hear you say it. This can change the entire tone of the conversation.
When discussing an issue with someone, ask them these three questions: What do you believe? Why do you believe it? Why does this matter to you personally? If you make a real attempt to ask those questions and listen to the answers, and if you can get them to do the same, you can solve most any problem, political or otherwise.
Simply put, is there anything else we can do to ‘just be nicer to each other’?
It will take people making a conscious effort and coming to the realization that if they don’t depersonalize politics and return to a focus on policy, then bad things are going to continue to happen to this country. We will lose the opportunity we have been given to have our children and grandchildren to live in the greatest country on Earth. It is a fundamental part of human nature to be concerned about legacy. What on earth are we leaving to our children? We need to realize we have to make the effort to be respectful and understand people and positions that are different than our own. The nature and substance of our legacy is in real jeopardy.
We are going through a rough period now. Are you optimistic that this issue can eventually be resolved? Can you explain?
It’s a tall order that will take time. I’m worried that there might have to be something very dramatic happen to our entire society in order to get people to realize that not trying to work together isn’t the answer for any of us.
If you could tell young people one thing about why they should consider making a positive impact on our society, like you, what would you tell them?
Young people need to be reminded that they will get more out of making a positive impact on society than they will by choosing a negative approach. More people will listen to you more people will follow you, and more people will likely be inspired by you and remember you. If you set your sights high, are willing to exert the effort, and provide the leadership to overcome the obstacles you can make a difference. This isn’t to say there won’t be setbacks or challenges along the way, but you can make a difference. Having that feeling, knowing you made a positive difference in the world or in one individual’s life, is just about as good as it gets.
Is there a person in the world, or in the US, with whom you would like to have a private breakfast or lunch, and why? He or she might just see this, especially if we tag them. 🙂
Nigel Farage, with whom I have had the opportunity to dine but would like to again, as I think he is one of the most incredible leaders I have ever seen. People don’t realize that he started working on Brexit over 20 years ago as a voice in the darkness. His courage and perseverance in first launching the idea that the UK can become freer and in charge of its own destiny, and then seeing that idea through to its realization, is simply unbelievable. Certainly, Donald Trump has had a lasting impact on what is being a called a conservative populist movement, but if you go back to where it all started, I think it’s with Nigel Farage.
Delta flies in stormy skies by criticizing Georgia voting law
by Quin Hillyer | Washington Examiner
With Delta acting all alpha against the state of Georgia and Coke going woke, it’s time to slap back at companies that politicize themselves — especially when they do so in service of a horrid lie.
Delta and Coke are two of Georgia’s biggest corporations. The chief executives of both have slammed Georgia’s new voting law, spreading the pernicious falsehood that the law is a form of voter suppression. Both chief executives should stick to business, and otherwise, shut up.
Yes, shut up.
The truth is that in some ways, Georgia’s law actually expands the opportunities for people to vote. In others it merely adopts ballot-security measures that have been prevalent for decades, without controversy, in many states across the nation, including heavily Democratic states such as President Joe Biden’s own Delaware. Despite the entire establishment media hyping the lie that the law “restricts” legitimate voting, or that it somehow has racist implications, the reality is that it contains a rather standard-issue set of reforms aimed at improving efficiency, security, and reliability in the electoral process.
But this isn’t a column about the rank dishonesty of the media and Democrats in racializing a reasonable, non-racial law. It’s about the asininity of corporations and their chief executives trying to out-do each other in political correctness even when, first, they don’t know what they are talking about and, second, their customers, clients, and employees may well not agree.
Jeff Webb, an entrepreneur who used $85,000 of investments from friends and family in 1974 to build Varsity Spirit, a $1.8 billion business with more than 6,000 employees (from which he retired in December), wrote perspicaciously last July that business should not openly politicize. When they do, he explained, they risk driving away customers, violating fiduciary responsibility to investors, and creating an uncomfortable work environment for employees who disagree.
“Many corporate leaders have decided that this whole, quote, ‘social justice’ concept should be part of their whole mission,” Webb told me by phone on Thursday. “But I think as things play out and they get farther down that road, they will see serious pushback.”
He said most of his evidence is anecdotal and experiential, but he said it is also copious.
“I was talking to a buddy of mine just this morning who does a lot of business with Coca-Cola,” Webb said. “He said ‘I am flying to a conference and now feel I have to hold my nose to go on a Delta flight.’”
Data and business analysts’ opinions are mixed as to whether or not over-politicization hurts businesses financially, although there is some evidence that misgauging political stances can indeed hurt the bottom line. Either way, polls consistently show that more Americans want companies to stay out of politics than to get in, and a poll last month showed that 65% of Americans think corporations have taken political correctness too far.
Meanwhile, if businesses play rough with states, states have every right to push back. That’s what the Georgia legislature may do, as its House voted to eliminate a jet-fuel tax break from which Delta benefits to the tune of nearly $40 million annually. Good. Let’s hope the state Senate follows suit next year. Delta isn’t standing up for democracy; it’s spreading a lie that exacerbates racial tensions and undermines trust in the electoral system.
The airline has gone off course into politics, so maybe hardball politics in return can make it, well, “straighten up and fly right.”
From the News Editor’s Desk: Joe Biden Clearly Isn’t Running the Show.
By Jeff Webb | Human Events
After Thursday’s presser, Biden’s staff owes American citizens some real answers.
This past Thursday, President Joe Biden held the first press conference of his young presidency. There was a good deal of anticipation surrounding the presser since he had waited longer than any of his predecessors who held the office during the past 100 years to hold a formal, solo news conference. While I’m not always a fan of these events, I stopped my day to see what he would say and how he would say it.
My observations? Clearly, he was scripted. Clearly, he was struggling to hold his place and his thoughts. Clearly, the event was designed to minimize any sort of spontaneous interactions, follow-up questions, and the extemporaneous give-and-take exchanges that Americans are accustomed to between the press and presidents—a tradition dating back to those famous encounters between President Ronald Reagan and ABC News’ Sam Donaldson.
By the end of the event, there could be no doubt we were watching something that was more akin to a staged theatrical production than Thursday Afternoon at the Improv.
That much was clear to me. Here is what wasn’t: Are the White House staff members and advisors handling President Biden cowards or manipulators? If they are cowards, they are afraid of what will happen if they let the President stand up and face an adversarial press and the American citizens without providing him protection. If they are manipulative, it means they know what will happen if they leave him out there on his own, and they are trying to make sure the American citizens don’t find out for themselves.
Either way, we have a serious problem. Joe Biden has been elected to lead one of the two most powerful nations on earth (as we no longer get to say “most powerful”—China has created a strong argument as to ranking). This doesn’t just mean he has been given control over our nuclear arsenal. In a time where we have sadly permitted the existence of a sort of imperial presidency, where those who hold that office exercise a great deal of authority through the use of non-legislative executive orders, the President has now taken control over almost every aspect of our daily lives.
In the short time he has occupied the Oval Office, President Biden has signed executive orders that range from limiting our nation’s energy supply, to allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports, to changing the way we approach people attempting to enter our country illegally. That is just a partial list of “his” agenda, an agenda being given the force of law through simple decree. (I put the word his in quotations because I am wondering, after watching Biden perform on Thursday, is there actually a “his” or is it a “theirs” when it comes to who is running the country and setting policy?)
The American people deserve a direct relationship with their president. We all know the stories, dating back to our early years as a nation when citizens were actually able to engage the Commander-in-Chief in our nation’s streets. While I recognize, sadly, that the times in which we live no longer permit close contact with the chief executive (I recall another Ronald Reagan memory that is not as pleasant as the Donaldson exchanges), they ought to at least be able to see him interact with members of the fourth estate, unrestricted and unprotected, and taking questions from both sides.
If the President of the United States cannot stand in front of an audience and enter into a free conversational exchange with any reporter before him, or if he can’t hold his own and debate Vladimir Putin when openly challenged to, then he is not fit to be representing the citizens of our country. Period.
The President took only ten questions during Thursday’s press conference, and based upon the nifty picture notes his staff had given him, those ten he took were from people that were handpicked. Much in the same way a manager of an aging prizefighter might protect them late in their career by choosing easy opponents, Biden’s handlers were not going to let him get knocked out in an early round of his presidency by some cocky upstart.
Only 25-30 reporters were in the room. Ten were chosen, seemingly in advance, to ask questions. The room was physically distanced under the convenient guise of COVID-19. Biden refused to engage in spontaneous questions after leaving the podium. Who set all this up? Why did they set it up this way? Were they afraid of what he might do—or were they certain?
The only time Biden was tested at all was when he was asked about the crisis at the border. That is, the crisis that the administration has solved simply by saying it isn’t actually a crisis—a sort of Mel Brooks approach to governance, if you will. Biden got testy and seemed overly rattled in handling the follow-up from ABC News’ Cecilia Vega. During that brief exchange, I think we were given a glimpse into what worries those who are either protecting, propping-up, or puppeteering his presidency.
Recently, the well-known feminist/activist/politiva operative Naomi Wolf raised concerns about Biden’s mental well-being. “As Americans, we would be remiss not to notice that this is a man who is struggling physically, and our national security kind of depends on our being grown-ups… when a very elderly president is struggling physically, it’s an important national security concern,” one she feels all should be able to discuss “without partisanship.”
It is going to be hard to discuss if we are prevented from seeing it. Based on what we saw Thursday, it appears clear that those surrounding President Biden are determined to not let us have a very close look. There is going to be a lack of our now most treasured word in the American English language: transparency.
If they are not going to be transparent with the man at the top of the organizational chart, then there is no limit to what they will keep from the American people. Can we trust them to share the truth about the border? Of course not. Can we trust them to share the truth about voting? Of course not.
The fact that we can’t trust the people inside this administration is clear. What isn’t clear is in the case of shielding Joe Biden, are they trying to hide what they think, or are they trying to hide what they know?
What Gives Representative Khanna the Right To Decide What Businesses Succeed or Fail?
By Jeff Webb | Human Events
Meet a Stanford economics professor who would fail his own course.
It is a bad sign for Americans who believe in free-market capitalism, and in their natural right to experience the American dream through being able to start their own business, when their opponents—those who favor a command economy—are so confident in their ability to destroy our system that they do not even try to hide their intentions.
Appearing Sunday on CNN’s Inside Politics, Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) made it clear that he does not want small businesses to be able to survive if they are not able to pay a $15 minimum wage. That is to be the position of the new $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill coming out of the U.S. House of Representatives, something we wrote about yesterday on Human Events: “Progressives Push to Keep $15 Minimum Wage Hike in Stimulus Package.” This more than doubles the current federal minimum wage, $7.25, and will undoubtedly have an impact on small businesses’ ability to hire entry-level workers.
Rep Khanna was asked by show host Abby Phillip, “What is your plan for smaller businesses? How does this, in your view, affect mom and pop businesses who are just struggling to keep their doors open, keep workers on the payroll right now?” His reply was, “Well, they shouldn’t be doing it by paying people low wages. We don’t want low-wage businesses. I think most successful small businesses can pay a fair wage.”
The Congressman, who, according to his website bio at least, has never actually run a business, just something he’s read about, continued by saying “I love small businesses. I’m all for it. But I don’t want small businesses that are underpaying employees… It’s fair for people to make what they’re producing, and I think $15 is very reasonable in this country.”
While I recognize that Khanna has a degree in economics from the University of Chicago, and was a professor at Stanford University, that is not the same as having experience in starting and running a business. And while I might not have the Congressman’s academic pedigree, I am somewhat qualified to address this subject. That’s because in my apartment over 40 years ago, I, and a small group of committed and enthusiastic young people, started a little enterprise that grew into Varsity Brands, a billion-dollar-plus operation that has provided hundreds of thousands of jobs over the decades—including entry-level jobs for college students.
I can assure Professor Khanna that if he had been in charge of the state’s central-planning during Varsity’s incipiency, the total number of jobs we would have created would have probably been zero. According to Khanna, however, the world would have been a better place without those jobs.
This is not about whether or not there should be some set-level of a minimum wage. That is its own topic for another time. This is about asking the questions: By what right does Representative Khanna think it is up to him to choose who are the winners and losers in the world of business? By what right does he think he should have the power to decide who gets what job and for what wages? Does he believe that just because he won an election in some California district, he is now a qualified central planner?
For an elected Representative to go on national television and show the boldness, arrogance, and condescension, and to make the statement he made, should not cause serious, freedom-loving Americans to chuckle or shake their head. It should make them frightened. They should be frightened because it means that politicians like Khanna, men and women more filled with education than experience, are so confident in their ability to move forward with a socialist agenda that they do not even have to try to disguise it from the voters.
That means they are certain they are going to win.
THE UNHOLY (DEMOCRAT) ALLIANCE BETWEEN BIG BUSINESS AND BIG GOVERNMENT
In my recent Amazon number one bestseller American Restoration: How to Unshackle the Great Middle Class, I make it clear that the key to having a strong and prosperous America is having a strong and prosperous middle class. This idea isn’t mine, originally; it goes all the way back to Aristotle. In fact, Rep. Khanna might even agree with me that he wants to help the middle class (most politicians say they want to help the middle class).
The problem is, since Representative Khanna has only read books about creating jobs, he is missing a key element about being middle class: In order to be middle class, you have to get to the middle class.
That’s where small companies and entry-level jobs come into play. They are an alpha in the world of income, not an omega; a beginning, not an end. Take away the first ten rungs on any ladder and the remaining rungs become irrelevant. You can’t get to them.
Khanna wants to take those rungs away.
That’s because the professor either doesn’t care or doesn’t understand how the market economy actually works. Khanna thinks he can legislate upward mobility. He can’t. If made into law, all his intentions will succeed in doing is to confine vast numbers of Americans to a life of poverty and government dependency (admittedly, a possible goal for politicians who favor socialist policies).
This is one area where numbers do not lie. It is almost a cliché thing to say by now: Small businesses employ the greatest number of Americans. It might be cliché, but it is true. It is also a reality in jeopardy because of the structural changes that have taken place since the onset of COVID-19 in early 2020. According to the SBA, if we go back halfway through the last decade, small businesses employed 56.8 million people, an astounding 48% of the civilian workforce.
According to the same SBA, since COVID-19, businesses with 20-49 employees have experienced a 21.9% decline in jobs, making them the hardest hit segment of the economy in terms of employment. Pandemic policies have been designed to favor big businesses and consolidate corporate power.
Now, Representative Khanna and his colleagues in the House want to apply the coup de grace to those small businesses that are still open, but whose breathing is labored after having sustained a brutal assault from both the virus and governmental units all around the country that have imposed draconian restrictions upon them for almost a year.
What socialists like Khanna don’t want to tell you is that despite saying that they are champions of the poor, they are really champions of the unholy alliance between big business and big government. They know that a large number of small private employers are difficult, if not impossible, to control. If they can reduce the number of employers in each sector of the economy to just a small number of large size units, then big government can join with big business to carry out centrally designed “objectives” intended to serve what they deem to be the “greater good.”
This is the early to mid 20th century model of socialism deployed in places like Italy, Germany, and Spain. It didn’t work in those countries, and it will not work here. But people like Khanna think that those countries simply did it wrong. They believe that if only those leaders had attended the University of Chicago, or taught at Stanford, then their central planning policies would have actually worked.
Here is what I know: if Khanna and his colleagues had been in charge when I was starting Varsity, we would have had a difficult, if not impossible, time in getting our company launched. The entry-level jobs our college students held gave them the skills they needed to progress within our own company and wherever their careers led them. None of these entry positions were considered to be permanent points of rest. They were a place to start.
Today, Varsity has a workforce “alumni” base of successful middle class families who got their start inside our company. I am humbled by the entry-level opportunities we were able to give to so many. Rep. Khanna, to the best of my knowledge, has never been involved in job creation. Now, however, he and his cronies want to take opportunities away before they can even be offered.
There are plenty of people like me out there right now warning about the dangers of the Democrats’ proposed $15 an hour minimum wage. Americans have to make a decision. To whom are they going to listen? Will it be to politicians like Khanna who know nothing about the real world of business, or will it be to people like myself—entrepreneurs who have invested real time and money into creating real opportunities for millions of Americans for generations.
The choice is clear. The answer is to be determined.
Jeff Webb Appears on ‘The Charlie Kirk Show’ to Discuss the Middle Class, Big Tech, Healthcare and National Debt
Human Events Staff | Human Events
On Monday’s episode of the Charlie Kirk Show, host Charlie Kirk is joined by entrepreneur and Human Events Senior news editor and co-publisher Jeff Webb to discuss several topics: the middle class, healthcare, national debt and how to build a successful business.
“One of the things that has separated our country from the rest of the world, frankly, for the last 60 years has been the fact that we have this large and relatively affluent middle class,” Webb said. “Most countries are much more segmented, they have the great majority of the wealth at the top end, then kind of everybody else. Our middle class has been a key to our robust economic performance over all these years.”
Webb added that the middle class, which has been hurt the worst by the coronavirus pandemic, is the key to our country.
“The middle class is so important to our country and making sure that people have an opportunity to do well and provide for their families and have a hopeful future, we all need to be committed to this if we’re going to have the kind of country we want to have,” he said.
Webb, an entrepreneur, tipped his hat to the large corporations from a business standpoint, but urged that this cannot continue.
“Their companies have almost become countries to them. They’re more important than their country, it seems to me, and we’re seeing the result of that,” he said. “You take people like Mark Zuckerberg, all the Apple executives, Microsoft, my hat is off to them from a business standpoint. They built an incredible business and many of them from pretty meager means…however, what nobody expected was that through technology, these companies would become so powerful and have such a direct impact on our daily lives…it can’t go on like this, it has to be addressed.”
In terms of the Big Tech censorship we have seen over the last month, Webb urged that states need to follow Florida in creating legislation to combat it.
Towards the end of the episode, Kirk and Webb discussed healthcare.
“I think that the republicans have been late to the switch, you can’t just be against something. You have to offer alternatives. Finding ways to get the relationship between the actual physician and the patient back into the picture is absolutely critical,” he said
“There are so many physicians now that work for a hospital system, work for a big company, that more and more the patient’s right to know what is happening, not only what treatment they’re getting but how much it’s costing as they go along, what their alternatives are, a lot of times these are not even presented to the patient and people need to be able to be in control of their own decisions about their health and make those decisions,” he added.
“There has to be so much more transparency, which we just don’t have.”
From the News Editor’s Desk: What’s Needed in the Fight Against Big Tech Are Random Acts of Federalism.
Governor DeSantis takes the state’s rights approach to combat Silicon Valley.
By Jeff Webb | Human Events
On February 4th, Rachel Bovard, writing for The Federalist, did a very thorough job of laying out the case against Big Tech and explaining why it is time for something to be done. The piece is required reading for anyone concerned about the power that these titans of industry now wield, seemingly in unison, against anyone whose messages and ideas do not conform to those of the Silicon Valley masters of the universe.
The problem with Bovard’s approach, if I can really call anything in her otherwise brilliant piece a “problem,” is that she focuses on what can be done at the federal level, in particular, the application of existing anti-trust law, restricting federal contracts awarded to Big Tech members, and enacting revisions to existing Section 230 protections. I agree that each of these steps would be desirable, having explored many of these ideas in my new book, American Restoration.
While federal action would be desirable, especially that which would immediately be applicable to Big Tech misadventures nationwide, given the Democrats’ control of all branches of government, that is simply not going to happen—at least, not for another four years. There is no way that Democrats are going to aggressively attempt to disassemble the very machinery that helped them acquire so much power in the 2020 elections.
A day before Bovard’s piece, we ran a story here at Human Events News that highlighted legislation being proposed in Florida by a Governor who is increasingly attracting national attention as being a strong and decisive leader. Governor Ron DeSantis has proposed legislation that, if passed, will severely curtail the ability of Big Tech platforms to capriciously and with malice aforethought punish Florida citizens and politicians.
The Governor’s plan would put the following changes into effect:
- Replace Big Tech’s content filters, which they use to decide what viewers can and can’t see, with voluntary “opt-outs” for viewers so they can choose for themselves what they see. This was first proposed by Allum Bokhari writing for Breitbart News in 2018.
- Allow citizens to sue companies that violate the above provision.
- Grant state regulators the ability to levy fines of up to $100,000 per day on tech companies that suspend candidates for elected office in Florida from their platforms.
- Impose daily fines for any tech company “that uses their content and user-related algorithms to suppress or prioritize the access of any content related to a political candidate or cause on the ballot.”
- Impose greater transparency requirements as to why any content-related actions are undertaken.
- Demand disclosure requirements enforced by Florida’s election authorities for tech companies that favor one candidate over another.
- Grant power to the Florida Attorney General to bring cases against tech companies that violate these conditions under the state’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act.
Since the Great Depression, we have placed an ever-increasing emphasis on policy action that originates from the federal level, and, in doing so, we have forgotten that the United States was originally formed as a federal republic wherein each state was intended to hold the true power of government. For anyone who has lost track of the Bill of Rights, permit me to remind you of the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
What Governor DeSantis is doing is exactly what the founding fathers wanted governors to do; he is doing what he can! Right now, there are 27 out of 50 states that have Republican governors. Each one of those governors has the ability to take on Big Tech through legislation similar to what Governor DeSantis is proposing. Some of these state leaders have more capability than DeSantis since 23 of those states also have a Repubican controlled House and Senate. Acting independently, but acting together, these 27 governors have the ability to take down Big Tech’s dominant position, one piece (and one state) at a time.
SETTING SIMPLE AND ACHIEVABLE GOALS, STATE BY STATE
As an entrepreneur who is used to building coalitions and growing businesses, I learned a long time ago that if you want to get people to buy into a vision, you need to keep it simple and achievable. In that spirit, here is what I would propose that all the Republican governors (and Democrats, too, if they are bold enough) try to enact in each of their respective states:
- Make it illegal for the Big Tech platforms to filter content without an individual user’s explicit approval.
- Make it illegal for Big Tech platforms to censor the content of any individual citizen or business, as well as that of any political candidate or political issue organization.
- Allow for both criminal investigations and for civil lawsuits to take place against Big Tech platforms for violating either of the above.
Of course, each state will have to put its own particular legislative “spin” on these three ideas in order to get them through their legislatures. That’s ok. As long as they focus on these three basic objectives and can achieve them substantively through legislation, the Big Tech giants will begin to feel the pain. After all, if 27 different states can all pass laws that limit their influence, even those masters of the universe in Silicon Valley will have to take notice.
Many people know the term “death by a thousand cuts.” What they might not know is that the colloquialism refers to a real punishment called lingchi that was used from the seventh-century right up until 1905. While the specifics are too gruesome for me to share, the idea works as a metaphor for what state governments have the power to do to Big Tech interests if each can bring itself to take action.
Some have suggested that we go so far as to amend the Civil Rights Act in order to fully protect the free speech of individuals from Big Tech censorship. While it would be an effective solution in theory, it again relies on Washington-passed legislation. That is simply not going to happen any time soon, and there’s too much at stake in the meantime.
Others have suggested amending the Constitution itself, prohibiting Big Tech, an invention of the 21st century, from restricting freedom. This might actually be more plausible than is an amendment to the Civil Rights Act. While it has never actually happened, if two-thirds of the states petition Congress for a Constitutional Convention, one must be called. This is yet another forgotten tool available to our constitutional republic. Such a convention would give those same two-thirds of the states a chance to amend the Constitution and remove the First Amendment vagueness behind which the Big Tech censors currently hide.
While those are both good and bold ideas, as are the ideas offered by Bovard, they are only visible and attainable over the horizon. Right now, right in front of us, is the opportunity for governors across the country to show the courage and the initiative of Governor DeSantis. I urge each of them to embrace the three basic concepts I’ve offered above and get to work.
I’d also suggest they don’t try to use social media to promote the mission.
Jeff Webb is an internationally renowned entrepreneur, founder and former Chairman and CEO of Varsity Brands, president of the International Cheer Union, and a business, politics and cultural commentator. His commentary has been featured in Newsweek, The Washington Times, Forbes, ESPN, and more. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
From the News Editor’s Desk: Stepping Into a New Role in the Most Challenging of Times.
By Jeff Webb | Human Events
I have chosen a very interesting moment in history to leave the corporate world and enter that of the fourth estate. The events in Washington D.C. on January 6th demonstrated just how serious the divisions in our country are and how deeply they run. Anyone who was concerned while watching should be. Anyone who thinks we have seen the last of this sort of thing is mistaken.
Now, with Joe Biden having assumed the office of President in this very divided nation, the question is: What will happen going forward to the American-centered policies and overall vision that have taken hold in America over the past five years?
Both political parties have problems. For Democrats, their party leadership has been taken over by extremists who no longer feel it is enough to help give those who are struggling a “leg-up” in life. Instead, they need to find a way to take a “leg-off” of anyone they deem privileged and hand it over to one of their constituents. This approach has stirred a strong counter-movement that is at least partially responsible for the unfortunate events of January 6th.
For Republicans, part of the challenge of moving forward lies with the division inside the Party. Today, that Party stands at a crossroads. As they decide which fork to take at this critical juncture, they need to recognize that the Party has an issue entirely of their own making: the brand is damaged and confused, and far too few Americans are interested in buying what the GOP has traditionally sold.
Is the Republican Party the party of Wall Street or Main Street? Is it the party of special interests, or is it the party of middle-class America? Is it the party of the globalist ideas of Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney, or is it the party of ideas that have become popular over the past several years? It can and should be a big tent party, but the party must establish a policy identity—a brand—that is easily recognizable and appealing to voters.
REBRANDING AMERICA FIRST
This issue of branding is something with which I have a firsthand understanding. At Varsity Brands, we turned the company I started in my apartment into a $2 billion-plus operation. We experienced 44 years out of 45 of growth in both sales and profits. That sort of performance is almost unheard of in business. We didn’t just step into the cheerleading space; we helped create previously unimagined opportunities and experiences for every participant.
Something had been missing from cheerleading. We found it, identified it, and built it. In the process, we were helping generations of young people come to understand that there was something more, something better. We took a traditional student leadership activity, cheerleading, and expanded it into an Olympic sport.
This is what needs to be done with American-centered and liberty-centered ideas. They need to be turned into a destination for millions of Americans who are currently driving right past them and either taking them for granted or not understanding they are a worthwhile place to stop.
I am migrating from the business world and into my new role here as Co-Publisher and Senior News Editor at Human Events to help facilitate the reporting on those kinds of ideas. In the process, it will be our job here to hold all of our elected leaders accountable to the American people and their oath of office. That means both Republicans and Democrats. Holding them accountable will help up their level of performance and get them to act in the best interests of American citizens and American ideals.
That accountability will hopefully force Republicans to address their branding problem. Ask most young people today what they think of “Republicans.” Ask them what they think of the term “conservative.” You’ll find these labels have serious brand image problems, and many of them are well deserved.
The Republican Party has routinely ignored the will of the very people who put them into office, leading to a situation where today, many people think that the Republican Party and conservatives are the cause of their problems and are tied to solutions that are stuck in the past. The last four years have been like market-tested research for strong pro-America policies. Everyone benefitted, not everyone understood. That reflects a bad job of selling. Republicans need to do better.
CHANGING MINDS TO CHANGE AMERICA
My business approach has been to have both the heart and the fist available for every situation. I think it is time that we unclench the fist. Americans have been fighting long enough. We need to re-learn how to discuss differences and work together to solve problems in a civil way. A recent poll showed that 73% of Americans disapprove of how Congress does its job. That means Republicans and Democrats alike don’t like what is going on. If that many people are dissatisfied, I’m convinced there’s a way to find common ground.
The biggest single mistake Americans make on both political teams is in thinking that nothing can ever really happen to America. They think that America can’t go out of business. It can. If America can’t sell enough of the ideas that make it America to enough customers (same as citizens), then it will fail just as certainly as would any business enterprise.
It is time to reach inside ourselves and identify the positive things in which we believe—not just the negative things about the other side. We need to find them; then we need to sell them.
We have been going about this all wrong for too long. Telling people why they are wrong and why you aren’t might feel cathartic, but it isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. We don’t need more confrontation. We need converts.
It is time for us who believe in a strong and prosperous America to join together, not as parties of introverts, but as American extroverts.
I look forward to bringing you the news at Human Events in a way that hopefully opens eyes and stimulates thought, discussion, and debate. We won’t be serving any raw red meat to readers, just a well-balanced presentation of information. Each week, I will post a piece that lets you know where I’m coming from on some current issue of the day. I hope you will find each column positive and thought-worthy.
Let’s get started. Please don’t hesitate to let me know what is on your mind. You can find me at [email protected].
To America’s CEOs: It’s Time To Cancel ‘Cancel Culture’
By Jeff Webb | Townhall
We’re used to athletes and celebrities sharing their opinions on political issues. But now we’re seeing waves of businesses, Fortune 100 companies even, wading into politics, caught in political crossfire, dealing with dueling boycotts, and embracing “cancel culture.”
I have a simple message for CEOs and board members when acting in their official capacities: Stay out of politics.
Don’t get me wrong. In their personal lives, business leaders have the same right to free speech as everyone else. Unfortunately, even making personal statements in today’s overly sensitive political environment can be risky.
For example, Goya CEO Robert Unanue recently expressed his personal opinion that the nation was blessed to have a leader like President Trump. But for saying nice things about the current President, the Goya CEO faces a boycott of his company.
That does not mean leaders should avoid exercising their rights, but they should not let those political opinions, or even the opinions of some group within the company, drive company policy or presume to speak for everyone employed in the company.
When they do so, they are no longer exercising their fiduciary duty to the company and its stakeholders. Likewise, when other companies act as if every business leader’s private speech does represent the company, they make decisions to “cancel” one another’s businesses. Reebok and others did this, for example, cutting off business ties with CrossFit after a tweet by the CEO.
I fear many business leaders, CEOs, and board members alike are trampling boundaries intended to keep them from becoming political entities. Those boundaries between politics and business have existed for centuries for good reasons. To paraphrase G.K Chesterton’s famous fence analogy, if you don’t see the use of these boundaries, go away and think before you attempt to destroy them.
In doing so, they risk at least three negative consequences.
First, they’re likely to lose customers. By becoming political entities in a divided nation, they alienate at least half of the population. I ask business leaders, How is that fulfilling your fiduciary responsibility?
As someone who founded and built a company from start-up to revenues in excess of $1.8 billion over four decades, let me remind you that companies exist for the purpose of delivering a product or service to customers. Companies lose their way when they lose their focus on why they exist.
A second negative consequence when companies insert themselves into politics is that they become less diverse. When open debate and dialogue are replaced by group-think dictated by the whims of a political mob (either inside or outside of the company), people who disagree with those views won’t feel comfortable working there.
Building the enterprise value of the company requires providing a work environment that allows all of your employees to grow and feel safe in order to deliver their highest potential. Without those protections, leaders simply cannot maximize the value of the company.
When companies lose diversity of opinions and perspectives inside your company, they create a bubble effect that disconnects them from half the talent pool and innovators. I ask business leaders, How does that make your organization healthier?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, when companies engage in cancel culture against other businesses based on perceived imperfections in another company’s leaders, they set a self-destructive precedent. The same cancellation forces they seek to satisfy today may just as easily come for them tomorrow.
And once they support an economic boycott of another company, why wouldn’t they expect that same action to be taken against them? I ask business leaders, How does that fulfill your duty to your stakeholders to strategically protect the value of your company?
Lest you think business leaders need not fear these consequences, consider what has happened of late to Facebook when it was deemed to have not gone far enough in policing content according to the Left’s cancel culture. Based on what appears to me to be a progressive track record, you might think that Facebook would be immune to such pressures. Yet, their past political bona fides didn’t matter when a litany of companies pushed their political views onto them by pulling ad money if they did not up their game in terms of censorship.
Clearly, these times will test the resolve of corporate leaders to put their companies’ best interests above their own personal opinions.
As one business leader to another, my advice is simple: Keep your company neutral in politics. Focus on delivering the highest value product or service. Have the backbone to stand up to the forces clamoring for your company to participate. Your stakeholders, customers and the entire nation will thank you for it.
Jeff Webb is an internationally renowned entrepreneur, founder and former Chairman and CEO of Varsity Brands, president of the International Cheer Union, and a business, politics and cultural commentator. His commentary has been featured in Newsweek, The Washington Times, Forbes, ESPN, and more. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.