The Go-Giver: A new way to do business

Glenn interviewed a fascinating author this week who has come up with a way of doing business that turns conventional wisdom squarely on its head. This decidedly unconventional approach will seem completely ludicrous, but it’s so effective Glenn bought every member on staff a copy to read.

Glenn: Okay, we were just talking in the break as I’m watching some of the staff. I just told Bob that I can’t tell you the number of people that wrote to me after I gave it to everybody on the staff and just said thank you. And it wasn’t about giving them the book. It was about, “Thank you. This is the direction we’re going.” I think people really want, in all walks of life, this is who they want to be, but society or whatever, cronyism, has convinced them you can’t be that way and be successful. So go through the five laws.

Bob: Okay, first, thank you for the great complement. I think a lot of times people see on TV, and they see in the movies, you know, the greedy, moneygrubbing capitalist. Nobody wants to be like that, so if that’s what capitalism is, I don’t want… right?

Glenn: Right.

Bob: And so we look at five laws. The basic premise is that shifting your focus, and this is the real key, shifting your focus from getting to giving, and when we say giving in this context, we simply mean constantly and consistently providing value to others. We look at five laws. The first one is the law of value. This one says your true worth is determined by how much more you give in value than you take in payment.

Now, this sounds a little counterproductive at first. How do you give more in value than you take in payment and survive, never mind thrive in business? You’ve got to make a profit, right? And that’s fine. We just need to understand the difference between price and value. Price is a dollar figure. It’s a dollar amount. It’s finite. It is what it is. Value, on the other hand, is the relative worth or desirability of something to the end-user or beholder. In other words, what is it about this thing, this product, service, concept, opportunity, idea, that brings with it so much worth that someone will willingly, again, free market, willingly exchange their money for this and feel great that they did while you make a healthy profit?

16341508181_ff4593d93a_k 16155904370_694111db6b_k

In the book, we talk about Ernesto, the restauranteur, who provides a great dining experience. You go in that restaurant, and not only is the food fantastic, but you feel like a million bucks. They treat you so well, and the atmosphere, and you come out of it, you feel you got more in value than what you paid, but of course his costs for the food and the staff, overhead, is less than what he’s charging, so everybody makes a profit, because the buyer also makes a profit because they come away ahead. But the key is the focus, you can’t be focused on the money. You must be focused on bringing value, because that’s what turns into money.

Glenn: You know, I read this, and I know you’re libertarian. Are you a big Ayn Rand fan?

Bob: I am a big fan of her works without necessarily agreeing with every—

Glenn: Got it. I had a feeling you and I are the same. She’s great, but where she goes wrong for me is she just doesn’t understand the connection to the heart. It’s all very internal. It’s all me, me, me, me, me, so it becomes very selfish. You’re saying the same thing that she is saying about…she’s unashamed of being a capitalist, because she’s saying there is value here. I am creating something that no one else can create. I’m creating it. They want it, so it’s a fair exchange.

Bob: It’s what her heroes did—

Glenn: Correct, but you’ve…I don’t know, I don’t want to use cloaked it, because that’s not the right word, but you’ve wrapped around this service, and to me, that is the big difference between this and Ayn Rand, and it’s very subtle, I think, if you take the bone structure down. It is your intent. Her intent is I want to be me. This intent is I want to be me, but I want to serve the people with what I have. I’m going to go find the people that need what I have, and we’re going to exchange, and it’s going to be great. It’s less of, “That’s who I am, and I’m Howard Roark, and I’m going to design this building. If you don’t like, it screw you.” It’s, “This is great, isn’t it?” And so it’s an exchange.

16157392767_cb42ae53a7_k

Bob: Thank you. I appreciate that. So, that’s really what the law of value is all about. It’s focusing on bringing value. This is why we say that money is an echo of value. It’s the thunder to value’s lightning, which simply means the value, the focus on the value must come first. The value, you’re providing. The money is simply a very direct and natural result of the value you’ve provided. That’s the foundational principle.

The second law is the law of compensation. This one is much simpler. This simply says your income is determined by how many people you serve as well as how well you serve them. So, where law number one says give more in value than you take in payment, law number two tells us the more people whose lives you add this kind of exceptional value to, the more money with which you’ll be rewarded.

Glenn: Here’s why I love this, because you can explain to everybody who says, “Oh, you know, it’s not right that, you know, so-and-so is making all that money.” Really? Look at your average football player. How many people is he affecting? You might be doing something that is more important, but you, you’re not affecting that many people. You know what I mean? That value of that game on Sunday, millions are watching, and so they are attaching just a little bit of value, just a few pennies, all of those people, where you might be doing something really important that yes, it is worth more than a stupid football game, but it’s not, because you’re not affecting millions of people. And so that whole class warfare of well, what you do, you’re making all this money, that all just disappears with this.

Bob: Well, thank you. That’s why we had Nicole Martin, the CEO, who was the schoolteacher who was very frustrated with the fact that, you know, she loved the students, they loved her, the parents loved her, but she could only reach so many people. Plus the government school bureaucracy kind of wasn’t really…so she went out on her own, and she was entrepreneurial, and she found a way to expand her value, to leverage that, and she was able to touch the lives of a whole lot more people and make a lot more money as a result.

Glenn: It’s scalability.

16341508181_ff4593d93a_k

Bob: Exactly. Now, law number three is the law of influence, and the law of influence says your influence is determined by how abundantly you place other people’s interests first. Again, counterintuitive at best, Pollyanna-ish at worst, right? And yet, the top leaders, the great influencers, the most successfully profitable sales people, this is how they conduct their businesses. This is how they run their lives. They’re always looking for ways, as Sam told the protégé, Joe, in the book, to make their win about the other person’s win, but it’s very important to qualify this by saying when we say place other people’s interests first, we don’t mean you should be anybody’s doormat, that you should be a martyr, that you should be self-sacrificial in any way. It should always be congruent with both sides coming out ahead.

[break]

Glenn: Okay, so let’s go back to where we were. Give me an example.

Bob: Okay, this example of placing the other person’s interests first happens every single day just in the sales process. A professional salesperson understands, and Glenn, I often will start out when I speak at sales conventions with this. I’ll say nobody is going to buy from you because you have a quota to meet. They’re not going to buy from you because you need the sale. They’re not going to buy from you because you think it’s a great product. They’re going to buy from you because they see value in doing it.

They see it’s of much greater advantage to them to have your product or service than to not have it, so as a professional salesperson, what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to focus on them. You’ve got to ask them the questions that help identify their need, their want, their desire, and to the degree you do that, you’re going to be successful.

Glenn: Can I tell you, one of the things that we have always done, and at first it drove the salespeople, the professional salespeople, crazy. They were like…the first time I did it before I owned everything, and I was kind of working for another company, I’d come in with the salespeople for a sales call, and I’d be right there. It was a big, you know, a big sale, and I’d say, “I don’t think this is right for you. I don’t think I can do the job for you, because I don’t think my audience will connect with what you’re selling.” And you’d see the salespeople just went white. They were like, “He’s drunk. You should sign.”

And we turned down a lot of business, and what we found is it’s really amazing. (A) You keep your clients because it works, but (B) and I wish I was doing it for unscrupulous reasons, kind of, because we would’ve made more money, because those people always come back, and they want it more. And you’re like, “No, I’m not negotiating with you. I’m just telling you it won’t work.” “No, it’s gotta work. It’s gotta work.” They’re selling you all of a sudden. It’s crazy.

Bob: Glenn, here’s what it comes down to, and in the story, Sam told this to Joe. He called it the golden rule of business, of sales, if you will, but it’s of anything. It’s leadership, influence, and that is all things being equal, people will do business with and refer business to those people they know, like, and trust. There’s no faster, more powerful, more genuinely effective way of eliciting those feelings toward you than by placing their interest first, just like you did.

Glenn: The secret, I think, is not to just hire a bunch of people that people like, because there are people who, you know, you walk in, they might be really smart, but you just don’t like them. They have to actually connect with you. I mean, they have to be doing the right thing for you. That’s where the trust comes in.

Bob: Yeah, absolutely. Stephen M.R. Covey, the son of Dr. Stephen Covey of 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen M.R. Covey wrote a book called The Speed of Trust, where he quantified…he also wrote a book called Smart Trust. They’re both wonderful books, and he really quantified trust. He showed that when there’s high trust, things happen quicker. Things happen faster. People understand what you mean. They trust you. But when there’s no trust, low trust, lack of trust, that’s when bureaucracy, that’s where things…right?

Glenn: Right.

Bob: And so that trust is just so important.

Glenn: Okay, so the next habit.

Bob: The next one is law of authenticity, and this one simply says the most valuable gift you have to offer is yourself. In the story, Deborah Davenport shared a lesson she learned early in her career that all the skills in the world, the sales skills, technical skills, people skills, as important as they are, and they are important, they’re also all for not if you don’t come at it from your true, authentic core.

Now, when you do, when you show up as yourself, day after day, week after week, month after month, people feel good about you. They feel comfortable. They know you. They like you. They trust you. But when someone shows up as they do as a…I think the Latin term is Phonus Bolognus or something…right? You know, people don’t feel comfortable with them.

And you say well, why don’t they show up as themselves? Are they, you know, crooked or trying to…? No, I think usually it’s because they don’t have the confidence in themselves to know that they have something of value to offer, and it’s hard to show up authentically when you don’t feel you have anything worthwhile to offer.

Glenn: This one is going to be really important in the future, because you’re going to be stripped down to your authentic self because everything is going to be taken from you. There’s no privacy. There’s no privacy, so the only way you can get…the only way I got to my authentic self was being down on the ground as an alcoholic and realizing I’ve got nothing left. There’s nowhere to go, and so that’s when you find out who you really, truly are.

That’s going to happen to all of us. In some way or another, you’re going to be stripped down naked to the essence of who you are. The faster you strip it down, the faster you gladly say, “Yep, I’ve got it all out, it doesn’t matter, I want to go there because I want to find who I really, truly am,” the more you’ll be a leader in what’s to come. Okay, next.

16343266025_18312a5ff4_k

Bob: The law of receptivity, and this one kind of ties it together. The law of receptivity says the key to effective giving is to stay open to receiving. Late in the story, Pindar, the main mentor, tells Joe, the protégé, to breathe out and hold that breath to the count of 30. Joe tries, but in about ten seconds or so, he’s gasping for air, and Pindar says, “What’s the matter, Joe, can’t do it?” Joe says, “No, I can’t just breathe out. I’ve got to breathe in as well.” And Pindar says, “But, Joe,” and he says this jokingly, “what if I was to tell you it’s actually healthier to breathe, it’s been medically proven that it’s healthier to breathe out than it is to breathe in?” And Joe said, “That’s silly. You can’t do one or the other. You’ve got to do both.”

Absolutely, we breathe out, we breathe in. We breathe out carbon dioxide. We breathe in oxygen. We breathe out, which is giving. We breathe in, which is receiving. Society, with its very lack messages, and we see this everywhere, we see it on TV, we see it in movies. They pit the rich against the…so we tend to believe it’s one or the other, you know? You’re either a giver or a receiver. No, you’re both.

Glenn : Okay, the name of the book is The Go-Giver, can’t recommend it highly enough, available everywhere. It’s been on the number one New York Times list for years now. Get it, The Go-Giver, and be a part of the change to come.

16343249765_3f578fc8c8_k

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.