Because of listeners like you, Preborn has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies
Jenna Ellis: Because of listeners like you, PreBorn has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies. Your $28 to sponsor one ultrasound doubled a baby's chance at life. Your tax deductible gift saves lives. Please join us in this mission. To donate, go to preborn.com afr if we lose this cultural war, we're going. To have a hedonistic, humanistic society. Discover the story of the culture warrior Don Wildmon and how he went head to head with Hollywood playboy, the homosexual agenda, and the Disney empire. The movement Don started paved the way for Christians to boldly stand for truth and righteousness in a hostile culture. Watch Culture Warrior today for free. Visit culturewarrior movie 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.
This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
David Frum: What is conservatism for? What defines conservatism
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, January 5th. Happy NewSong Year 2026, and what a new year it has already been. And closing out, the old year or the conclusion of the year of 2025. And so I've been off for the holidays for two weeks, which was a great and necessary break, like I'm sure a lot of you, but it's so fantastic to be back here talking about the things that matter, from a biblical worldview perspective. And if you are new to the show this morning, that's, what we get to do every every weekday, Monday through Friday, we talk about, culture, politics, and, the news of the day from a biblical worldview, which, also means that occasionally we do deep dives into theological principles, questions, about God and truth, and those are the things ultimately that matter. And I wanted to take the show today. I know that there's a lot of headlines going on, and we're going to get to those this week, I promise. But I wanted to take this morning kind of to reset and reframe because a lot of us, kind of do that, I think every year with NewSong Year's. We all have resolutions or we all have ways that we think, okay, what worked, last year, what didn't work last year? What are we going to change in, the days, weeks and months ahead that will, reorient ourselves toward our goal and that is the same thing that's going on right now in America for conservatism. And we saw that in the conclusion in 2025, with this whole debate of what a conservative actually is. should there be guardrails, should there be standards, should there be definitions, should there be gatekeepers to who speaks on behalf of conservatism, at least insofar as who, we platform. And we're going to get into, one of the conversations that Ben Shapiro had with the Heritage foundation that I found really fascinating and I encapsulated incredibly well this kind of crossroads. But I think it's really good at the outset of the year, especially heading into 2026, which is going to be a pivotal year politically, with the midterms and then gearing up for the 2028 presidential election, which will be the first time since 2016. So it will be over 10 years by the time we get to 2028, when Donald Trump's name will not be on the ballot. So there will need to be, even though I'm sure that he will continue to be involved, have endorsements. He loves to be the man in the arena, everybody knows that. But he's not going to be the candidate, anymore. And so like the era of Reaganism, that, that came to a conclusion. And like many eras before now, this is a pivotal moment where we have to ask ourselves the question, what is conservatism for? What actually defines conservatism? And this matters because we have to define things accurately if we are going to have a correct strategy to then define and articulate what our goals are. And this is why truth matters. truth is ultimately foundational to everything that we do. And we, when we have this question of what conservatism is for, we actually should go back and look at the landscape and the full scope of American history and see if we can learn anything, which we can, of course, from past, pivotal moments in conservatism throughout American history, and then decide what is our goal. And it should still hopefully be the same goal. But. But does the strategy shift? Potentially. But the goal itself and the definitions and the meaning of truth is always foundational. And it's always the same because we know from God, our Creator, that God does not change. He's the same yesterday, today and forever, his foundational truth. And he is the person of truth. He doesn't change. And how he has ordained and created, that also doesn't change the narrative and the story and the truth of the gospel. does not change. And how we enter into a right relationship with God and salvation doesn't change. And how we then live out our Christian life, can look differently. But ultimately is the same in any given era. Because God has established three spheres of government. The church government, the family government, and the civil government under his authority, ultimately for our good, for human flourishing, for prosperity, and to understand and know Him. And ultimately the purpose of man is to know God and to come into a saving knowledge of him, worship him, and then share the truth of the gospel of Christ with as many people as we can. And the family government is ordained for the specific purpose of providing the best possible setting and opportunity for children, for new humans to then grow up and be able to understand the truth of the reality to which they're presented. And having one father, one mother in marriage within the context of what society now calls, quote, unquote, traditional family. But it's really a function of natural law. The laws of nature and of nature's God dictate that children can only, come into the world through one man and one woman. So every child has exclusively and only one father and one mother. And the best case scenario is for those, for those two individuals, the mother and father, to be united in marriage in this context and raise children. That has been true since the very beginning. In the beginning, God created, that is Genesis 1:1. That's the first verse of the Bible. And then we have the full revelation of God. And in Genesis, God ordains the family and he gives the family government specific and delegated authority from his own power and his own authority. And we see the same, parallels with the church government and how God has given, parameters, guidelines, definitions, to the church government. And every individual, every family unit should be part of a church, be accountable to, to that authority with respect to church discipline. And then also God has given specific limited authority under his truth to the civil government where churches and families function and thrive and go about our, ministry and our opportunity of living out our humanity, which is ultimately the purpose of man, is to know God and to worship Him. So the context here is really important because if we look at it as God overall. And then these three spheres that are, co equal in the sense that they directly derive their authority from God Himself when they act legitimately. And they are co. Equal in the sense that the church government is not under the civil government in the sense that the civil government can tell the church government how to exercise their authority. The civil government has no jurisdiction to tell the church, how to operate church discipline. Likewise, the church government has no jurisdiction to tell the civil government how to run elections, how to, you know, create policy. They can have opinions on it, and pastors absolutely should, but there's no actual jurisdiction like what we saw in in past, in, in world history that the church was over the state. And this is what our founders understood to be the separation and the jurisdictional separation of church and state. Similarly, there's a separation of powers between the family, government, the church and the state. So if you think of them as kind of these co. Equal, branches, if you will, of these, these institutions that God has ordained, but they're under his authority, then we understand how we get to discussing conservatism. Because conservatism is not just this kind of nebulous concept out here in a vacuum that has nothing to do whatsoever with the church or the family. And we only have opinions as Christians and as human beings on conservatism and policy because we happen to be interested in civil government and policy. If you are a Christian, if you are a human being, then you should have opinions on the government. Why? Because God has opinions on the government and he dictates what is morally righteous, right and what is morally wrong or illegitimate for a civil government's functionality. operationally, can governments look differently? Do we have to live in a constitutional republic? No, God has not prescribed that. and yet, as our founders understood, coming from a lot of the world history, that where the church and the state had blurred lines and that ultimately impacted the family. They understood that the best scenario for thriving and human flourishing for a government was to have limited, separate authority between the three, the three branches. And not just vested one person who was either appointed through heritage or conquest, but who was representative of the will, ultimately of the people. And thus, when we come to the founding era, the 1760s, the 1790s, approximately ordered liberty is born in the sense that our founders specifically articulated for the first time in world history what it means to directly appeal to God as the source ultimately of authority for a civil government. They went above the current government structure that they were accountable to and said, you're not acting legitimately, so we are going to go above you and appeal directly to God, our authority. And so American conservatism, and that term means something, not just conservatism, but we're talking in this country about American conservatism. It begins with the conviction that rights are pre political. They're endowed by God, not the government. And when we have rights that are pre political, that means something. It means that our government is ultimately accountable to God and that every human being that has ever existed across any time, or era of world history has been endowed with the very same rights. Whether or not their government system in their day protected it, abused it, infringed upon it, they still had the same exact rights that you and I do today. Now those rights in terms of the way that we exercise them can shift with technology, with the advancements of human society. I can speak with you over radio and podcast, because of advancements in technology from 1776. However, my fundamental God given right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, free exercise of religion, my first freedoms, speaking together about truth and freedom of the press, all of those things still existed pre, politically at the time of the founding. Just the way that I'm exercising them may look a little bit differently today. But the point is those rights are endowed by God, not the government. And so when we understand the role of government as being under God's authority, that means that government can't just do whatever it sees fit to do. And we don't even have to approach under American conservatism any conversations that are outside of the guardrails and the standards that God himself provides. And so when we talk about headlines of the day, like Zoran Mamdani, who has just been sworn in as the NewSong York City, mayor, thankfully not Governor, the mayor. And he's talking about collectivism and he's talking about, some of his appointees are talking about, saying that we're going to retreat from individualism for the good of the whole and that will impact private, private property.
American conservatism believes that government derives its legitimacy from God, not government
those are conversations that are so far outside of the moral contours and legitimacy of government that God himself establishes that those conversations are not even debatable under the banner of American conservatism. Now in a socialist framework, sure they're talking about that, they're debating it. But when we define what being a conservative means, it must mean distinctly that we yield to and recognize that the source of all government, civil government, authority and power and legitimacy comes from God Himself, the God of the Bible, and that he establishes through his own sovereign purposes the reality to which we are presented, the laws of nature and of nature's God. So the laws of nature, as we talked about with the family, government, require that children have necessarily, exclusively and only one father and one mother. And so that eliminates any sort of, you know, homosexual unions, it eliminates any Sort of homosexual adoptions, it eliminates any sort of context or redefinition of what the family looks like now. And it's not just because traditional values, quote unquote, it's because that's what the laws of nature and of nature's God dictates. And I don't have any authority to change that. You don't. The Democrats don't. The Socialists don't. The LGBTQ Human Rights Campaign, they don't. And when we look at marriage, which God has defined in the context of the family government, he himself has the only authority to define that. And we cannot, within our own power, redefine it, because rights and definitions are all pre political. So rights are endowed by God, not government. But also under conservatism, and particularly American conservatism, we have the conviction that rights flow from the law of nature and of nature's God, and therefore a civil government is bound by that rule of law. Now we then took the laws of nature and of nature's God and codified it in a sense by binding our particular American government to a framework of the U.S. constitution that requires moral self restraint, requires ordered liberty. And that power must be divided because human nature is fallen. And we see that in the reality to which we are presented, God created. And we also recognize in Genesis when humanity fell, and that we live in a fallen world. And therefore power should and must be divided. And so thinkers, in the founding era, and so again we're Talking about the 1760s through about the 1790s, thinkers like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, they were the proponents of the Federalist system. And the, the chief authors of the Federalist Papers reflected a conservative anthropology even while creating a revolutionary system. And so we're going to take a break here, but then we're going to continue to talk about the history of conservatism, come to our current era, and then describe, where we're at today and why. I think Ben Shapiro is absolutely apt, and I agree with him that definitions matter because truth matters. And as we're starting in 2026, we need to reorient toward what is our goal and what defines us as American conservatives. So we will be right.
Jenna Ellis: We're living in a time when truth is under attack. Lies are easy to tell, easy to spread, and easy to believe.
Jenna Ellis: But truth, truth is costly.
Jenna Ellis: And nowhere is the cost greater than for mothers in crisis. When a woman is told abortion is her only option, silence and lies surround her. But when she walks into a preborn network clinic she's met with compassion, support, and the truth about the growing life inside her. That moment of truth happens through a free ultrasound, and it's a game changer. When a mother sees her baby and hears that heartbeat, it literally doubles the chance she will choose life. Preborn network clinics are on the front lines, meeting women in their darkest hour, loving them, helping them choose life, and sharing the truth. Friend, this is not the time to be silent. It is the time for courage, for truth, and for life. Just $28 provides one ultrasound and the opportunity for a mother to see her baby. To help her choose truth and choose life.
Jenna Ellis: Please donate today.
Jenna Ellis: Call £250 and say baby. That's £250, baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr.
Jenna Ellis: We need to define accurately American conservatism in 2026
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And we are talking about the need in 2026 to define accurately American conservatism. And that this isn't just a concept that is totally detached from American history, from its roots in the Declaration, the Constitution, and also, of course, in a biblical worldview. Because without the truth of the Bible and without a recognition that rights are pre political, come from God our Creator, not our government, then we would not have America as it exists today. And there have been moments in American history that we have had to reorient toward our, our goal and, not redefine, but I think rediscover, what the accurate definition of conservatism is. And for those who may be saying, well, you know, anybody can call themselves a conservative and we can have some of these debates and it doesn't necessarily matter, you know, if we have this kind of common definition. anybody who calls themselves a conservative may have a little bit different definition, and that's okay. Well, that doesn't actually work in the real world. definitions matter because definitions inherently create contours of what is that definition and what is not that definition. I am, I'm sitting here with my coffee cup, as I do in the morning, and the definition and, the contours and the boundaries of what is my coffee cup and what is not my coffee cup matter, because if there weren't any boundaries to the reality of what my coffee cup is, well, I wouldn't be able to drink coffee out of my cup. Right. I mean, boundaries and definitions exist in the world, and the way that we articulate meaning and concepts have to reflect reality. I may want to say that, some other arbitrary definition is part of My coffee cup. But that wouldn't actually mirror reality. Thus someone could say my concept of coffee cup was false. Similarly, what defines a man versus a woman? What defines a marriage versus an imposter sort of union masquerading and parading as a marriage is not subject to my individual whim or definition. Also similarly, a person who calls themselves a Christian must adhere to what the Bible defines as a follower of Jesus Christ. As a person who believes in the finished work of Christ and has certain, basic assumptions of theological pretext. And that necessarily means that if you call yourself a Christian accurately, that you must assent to a certain, not only belief system, but mirror that in your life. Otherwise, calling yourself a Christian is hypocritical or actually false. And it's unfortunate that in today's society we have to ask the question when somebody says, you know, or calls themselves a Christian, well, what do you mean by that? Because there have been so many different ways that people have called themselves Christians. And they look, their lives look completely different or they don't assent to God as the ultimate authority and arbiter of what marriage is, or what the guardrails of a legitimate government look like, or the the laws of nature and of nature's God. And so you cannot call yourself a Christian truthfully and accurately without assenting to a core set of beliefs. And it's the same for conservatism. And this was ultimately Ben Shapiro's point, that I'm going to get to, I promise we'll get to it in, in just a moment. But that truth ultimately matters. Truth mirrors reality. We all live in the same reality that God has presented us to. And I always say I am a Christian not just because I believe in God like a child might believe in Santa Claus, but because I believe and understand logically, philosophically and definitionally that the biblical Christian worldview is the best explanation for the reality to which I am presented, the best explanation for why evil exists and the solutions to evil. Why humanity exists? What is the purpose of man? What does eternity look like? How do we come into a right reconciled relationship with God? Who the person of God is, how we identify him, how we understand who he is from the general revelation, which is the reality to which we are presented to. And through special revelation how God Himself has told us through His Word who He is, that he has revealed Himself to us. I am a Christian because that all flows logically. It's consistent and it internally consistent. And so when we're talking about conservatism we have to have a worldview that is internally consistent with what the contours and definition of conservatism means. And so we talked about in the last segment, the founding era that ordered liberty is born. The key moments, the Declaration of independence in 1776, the Constitution was ratified in 1787. the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. Importantly not to give us our rights, but to recognize that there were limitations on federal government's authority to re establish and ensure that federalism is the overarching system that the Constitution provides. And it matters because again conservatism, American conservatism begins with the conviction that rights are pre political liberty requires moral self restraint and power must be divided into different branches because human nature has fallen. So then we get to the early republic and the Jacksonian sort of challenge if you will, from about 1800 to 1860. So kind of the bulk of the 19th century. So Jeffersonian, restraint versus Hamiltonian order. There was kind of that era that introduced a tension that is kind of still unresolved today. And then after that, Jacksonian from Andrew Jackson, populism. And that term is important today because it introduced this tension that constitutional of constitutional restraint versus populist majoritarianism. And what this first introduced was that the populist sort of majoritarianism combined populism's idea of sort of this virtuous or pure people, that the will of the people is always superior to a corrupt elite with the majority's belief that there the majority's will should dominate. And it leads to a political style that prioritizes direct popular consent rather than minority rights, checks and balances or a constitutional restraint. And so this also introduced the concept of federalism versus centralized naturalism. M or maybe better articulated is the kind of the first attention because Andrew Jackson's movement elevated we the people while weakening institutions. And this is a pattern that recurs in modern populism. When we're talking today about you know, the elite and how the will of the people dominates, we're talking about populist majoritarianism instead of constitutional restraint. And the conservative movement is not one of populism or that the majority will, should dominate. Because even if the majority will, let's say even the majority of the GOP wants to assert belief in and policy goals for something like same sex marriage for example, or or some of these, you know, the 16 weeks on abortion or some of these other things that are so completely obviously contrary to the moral contours and the actual legitimate authority of a civil government, then that would be illegitimate. It would be actually morally wrong. And therefore a consistent conservative and American conservatism that is built on constitutional restraint or constitutional restraint outflows from American, conservatism cannot ever advocate for those policy positions. And so we see that clash, and we see as we go into the next era of the Civil War and Reconstruction, that conservatism was under strain because it had been weakened by this kind of populist movement. And federalism versus centralized nationalism was this idea that, well, the federal government should dictate to the entirety of the country. Because if we disagree amongst ourselves and states disagree, then I don't want some other state to do what my state isn't doing, right? And so we then had more and more, and this was also built more, because of the power and actually the corrupt elites in Washington, which then fed into this kind of mindset of the populist majoritarianism. So then we get to the Civil War and Reconstruction, which was about 1861 to 1877. Obviously the key moments there, the Civil War, the 13th and 15th, through 15th Amendments. So the 13th, 14th and 15th, were ratified during this era and federal expansion during Reconstruction. And so the war resolved this issue of slavery, amongst other things. it also resolved the fact that, the Union and the president of the Union is vested constitutionally with the requirement to, ah, fight to protect and preserve the Union. But it also expanded federal power dramatically. And we could do shows, and we have. If you want to go back into the [email protected] on why the 14th Amendment in particular is a Pandora's box that completely opened a lot of, policy arguments, and ultimately Supreme Court decisions that really undermined, the limited restraint federalism that the Constitution requires. And conservatism, though, more pertinent to our conversation today, conservatism afterward, after this era split between kind of a moral constitutionalism of natural rights versus resistance to a centralized enforcement. So this tension later shaped debates about state rights, liberty and moral law. And those are all good debates. We need to be having these conversations. But at the outset of these conversations, we need to be defining what is a debate within the contours of conservatism, within natural law versus something that's so far outside that anyone advocating for those principles can't accurately describe themselves as an American conservative. So then we go into the 1900s and from about 1900 to 1930 is the progressive era and the birth of modern statism. So a lot of these key moments were progressive reforms. there's the NewSong Deal in 1933. this is where I believe the American system of government really went off the rails. Because progressivism rejected the founders limits, which weren't just the founders. It's not that. Well, we should go back to the founding era because we all agree with, you know, Madison and Hamilton and John Jay, because we just happened to believe that they were right, but because it rejected the limits of natural law, it rejected the inherent limits that God himself places on legitimate civil government. So progressivism, in the early 1900s, replaced natural law with expert rule. And we saw this become even more incredibly damaging, during the COVID era of 2020. And, about through the present era and how progressives have taken this expert rule class and have suggested that only the experts can tell, for example, parents what's in the best interest of their children. Only the experts can tell you what the health, safety and welfare of children should be. Only the experts can tell you that the measurable difference between a man and a woman. Right. This is why Justice Jackson famously, during her confirmation hearing, said, well, I'm not a biologist. she was signaling progressivism that expert rule dominates. And because she's not part of the expert class in the area of biology, she can't comment on what is plainly evident in natural law. So progressivism replaced natural law with expert rule.
Conservatism entered a defensive posture against permanent government growth, right
And we're still seeing the effects of that in, and the dominance of that ideology today. And the 1900s to about 1930s, and onward, expanded bureaucracy beyond the constitutional design, well outside the contours of conservatism. So conservatism then, in this era, in Even the early 1900s, I mean, we're barely 100 years into our American experiment, right? Conservatism then entered a defensive posture against permanent government growth. Instead of being the dominant view and then having the advancements of conservatism, the advancements of policy, and being on the offensive with policy, conservatism entered a defensive posture here and has never recovered, unfortunately, and especially, even within, you know, the Reagan era and the Trump era, really, conservatism has always been on the defensive, which I think is a mistake. But, we'll pin that conversation for maybe later on this year. So. See, 2026 is going to be awesome, guys.
Tucker Carlson: Post war conservative intellectual revival started in 1940s
Okay, so the post war conservative intellectual revival then started in the 1940s, through about the 1960s. And this is because, the national review was founded 1955, William F. Buckley. He drew boundaries that some ideas were simply not conservative. This was kind of a wild concept at the time, but he's absolutely right. And why a lot of people go back to Buckley, including Ben Shapiro in his speech at the Heritage foundation, because Buckley said, well, wait a minute, we need to have definitions. We need to define again, not redefine, but correctly identify again, what conservatism is and what it isn't. So, Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign, which then of course led to, a lot of, you know, great, commentary and a book that you absolutely should read, by Barry Goldwater, talking about how, the Republican Party has gotten so far off conservatism. all of these things were this era that defined conservatism as a coherent philosophy, not just a personal identity, which really matters, and again, I think is reflective of today. And so this was kind of this fusion of anti communism, free markets, moral traditionalism. But it wasn't just a buy into those specific policy issues. It was a recognition that some ideas, because they are not consistent with natural law, the laws of nature and nature's God, not centered and focused on a biblical worldview, were simply not conservative. So then the Reagan revolution happens in the 1980s. So this is a, of course, banner era for conservatives. Why so many conservatives don't even go, back to the Founding or back to Buckley, but talk about Reaganism and how this is kind of the gold standard for conservatism. The.
Jenna Ellis: Because with the election of Reagan in 1980, the Cold War victory, kind of the revival of constitutional rhetoric, it mattered because Reagan unified a moral clarity with optimism, limited government and American exceptionalism under God. And that mattered because so many people understood, practically speaking, what Reagan was all about. And this is why, we tend to, as conservatives, go back to what Reagan clarified and remains the gold standard for many conservatives. But we have to understand, again, this was not Reagan's new idea. This wasn't William F. Buckley's new idea. This wasn't just anti Jacksonian. This wasn't just the founder's new idea. This is a recognition overall that rights are pre political, there are limitations on a legitimate government, and it's God himself who defines the contours and the definitions of the civil government, the church government and the family government. And conservatism is a philosophy that simply acknowledges that truth. So then we end up with the, post Cold War drift, the Bush years, 1990s into the 2000s. we have the expansion of surveillance and executive power under, a legislative, view and the will of the people. That was basically based out of fear. and so without, though a clear external enemy, conservatism lost a lot of coherence. many conservatives became procedural managers of a rapidly expanding administrative state. not reformers or, guards, if you will, of a philosophy that shaped, what American conservatism means. And then there was the Tea Party and constitutional revival attempt, between about 2009 up to 2015, because 2015 obviously begins the Trump era. Right? so the Tea Party attempted and that was kind of the precursor of what became initially a little bit the MAGA movement. But, the Tea Party was the grassroots revolt against the Obama era expansion. It was a renewed focus on debt, federalism, the Constitution. It was really, I believe, and I know a lot of personally, some of the great, Tea Partiers, that was a sincere attempt to return to first principles, but lacked, I think, overall an institutional follow through and candidates who ultimately, could prevail. So then we get to the Trump era and the populist schism. So this is obviously 2015 up to the present era. So here we are. And this is why this matters. Because with Trump's election in 2016, nationalism has replaced constitutional language, loyalty tests have replaced philosophy, influencers and voices have replaced thinkers and philosophers. And the most significant internal fracture, I think, even since probably the NewSong Deal in the early 1930s, has been this clash among conservatives between the goal of conservatism being truth versus power. What are we ultimately after? Are we after truth or are we after power? And I think the speeches and the contrast between Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlsen totally model exactly that tension. M. Are we for principles or just for winning at all costs? Which of course is truth versus power. Are we for conservatism, American conservatism, built on a recognition of pre political rights and natural law, or for simply nationalism, this kind of America first that has become America only. So now we are at the current crossroads, and the defining question, is conservatism about grounded truth in reality and scripture, a biblical worldview? Or, or is it merely about wielding power to defeat perceived enemies? That's the question. But this isn't new. I mean, this echoes Jackson versus Madison, progressives versus the Founders, Buckley versus the populace. But we are at a different moment in American history and the stakes are higher, I think, because the moral consensus, what is defined as traditional values, has really collapsed. When you see more and more people who are part of the gop, who are suggesting that it's perfectly fine, you know, whatever you want to do in the privacy of your own home. We don't really care about that. We only care about capitalism, free markets, and, you know, maybe one or two, closed borders, maybe one or two other things. They really don't care about anything else. And the through line of conservatism across every era has insisted on four things. And here's what I wrote down. One, truth exists. Objective, moral and discoverable truth. As C.S. lewis writes in Mere Christianity, which you should read, this year if you haven't already, or reread it if you haven't last year, truth exists. Second, human nature is fallen. Third, liberty requires virtue. Liberty requires moral virtue. And four, power must be restrained. So whenever conservatives abandon any of these, even in the name of quote, unquote winning, they stop being conservatives. They stop genuinely accurately representing the boundaries and the definitions of what conservatism actually is. So we're going to take a break here and we'll come back and I want to play a couple of clips in the time that we have left from Ben Shapiro talking about this exact thing. That truth exists, human nature has fallen. Liberty requires virtue, power must be restrained. And that conservatism 2026 and beyond, we are at a crossroads, and we have to reclaim the proper definition. And to say that people who do not agree with that central biblical worldview foundation are not conservatives. And we should not, not only not listen to them, but also not platform them and assume that they speak on behalf of genuine American conservatism. We'll be right.
welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
The conservative movement is in flux, Ben Shapiro says
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And so we're talking about where conservatism, American conservatism is on the precipice of 2020. And so Ben Shapiro, at the end of 2025, gave an incredible speech. You should listen to the whole about 22 minutes of it. It's everywhere online at the Heritage Foundation. And he's talking about conservatism is in flux, but it must be a term that has meaning. So this is cut one. The conservative movement is in flux. It's in flux because of the systemic failure by conservative leaders to do what any good leaders must do, define and maintain the foundations of that movement. This is our job. If we care about conservatism, if, as Heritage foundation proclaims, our goal ought to be to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense Then we must stand up against those who would pervert and twist the conservative movement into a movement without principles. Or worse, a movement that promotes the very opposite of the principles that conservatives hold dear.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And he goes on to say that conservatism is a term, as we've been talking about, that has to have a meaning. Cut to. Let's discuss the conservative movement. The conservative movement also requires a border. A conservative movement without a border is no conservative movement. We are a welcoming movement. But those who seek to undermine the character of conservatism must never be granted legitimacy as voices of our movement. Conservatism requires ideological border control.
Ben Shapiro says those who oppose American conservatism definitionally oppose conservatism
American conservatism is a term with a definition. We use terms because they have meaning. Definitions by nature delimit they distinguish. And the term American conservatism has a meaning. That meaning is embodied in the Heritage Foundation's mission statement. Let me read it again more slowly. The principles of, free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense m those who oppose those principles definitionally oppose American conservatism. That is just definitional. Such people are not ideological allies. They are not part of the rich debate that is constantly ongoing between various strands of conservatism. They are opponents, and they ought to be treated that way.
Jenna Ellis: And he goes on to talk about Tucker Carlsen and you know, some of the ideological, opposition, which I think is very apt because we can readily recognize the ideological opponents of, like a Zoran Mamdani or a Tim Walls or a Kamala Harris. But more insidious are the people who claim to be one of us and claim to be Christians or conservatives and are preaching a entirely different message and are perverting those definitions and not actually faithfully adhering to conservatism, which Ben Shapiro goes on to say are traditional American values. This is cut three. Obviously, America is rooted in traditional values, biblical values, Christian values, things like the Ten Commandments and church life, and a strong religiously based social fabric. The fundamental biblical value, the one that God holds in high esteem, is of course, truth. Now, of course, Tucker Carlsen agrees with traditional conservatives. He and I agree on issues like same sex marriage or the evils of radical gender ideology, even though he has downplayed the Trump administration's victories on matters like radical gender ideology as essentially of very little consequence. But on a fundamental level, traditional American values, the biblical worldview, require truth as a priority. Truth is not Tucker Carlsen's priority. He likes speculation. He likes conspiratorial question asking. But evidence and truth, are not of particular value to Tucker Carlsen.
Jenna Ellis: And so, last clip. cut four. He talks about if you reject any of these things that are essential to American conservatism, you are not a conservative. Cut 4. If you reject free enterprise, you reject individual initiative. If you reject limited government, you reject individual rights. If you reject a strong national defense, you open the door to America's enemies. And if you reject traditional values, you reject, you reject both truth and decency. Tucker Carlsen has rejected the central premises upon which conservatism and therefore America stand. But the real question isn't about Tucker Carlsen. It's about a conservative movement that purports to treat him as a thought leader. A movement without a border is no movement. A, conservatism that treats Tucker Carlsen as a thought leader is no conservatism. If conservatives do not stand up and draw lines, conservatism and the dream of America itself will cease to exist. It will cease to exist because the conservative movement will have committed suicide. No country can exist without borders and no conservative movement can exist without principles. It will defend against those who would degrade them even from within.
Jenna Ellis: This is the central question for 2026. Will we as, Christian conservatives stand up for definition? Stand up for ordered liberty? Or will we accede to this big tent in the name of winning and power? Or will we stand for truth? As always, you can reach me and my team jennafr.net. PreBorn's whole mission is to rescue babies from abortion and lead their families to Christ. Last year, PreBorn's network of clinics saw 8,900 mothers come to Christ. Please join us in this life saving mission. To donate, go to preborn.com afr.
