LEADERSHIP COMES AT A COST

Most people won’t leave anything behind worth remembering beyond the family photo album and some stories around a campfire. And that’s the hard truth.

Someone with enormous influence was just murdered and, whether you loved him or despised him, you can’t deny this: he had tremendous influence and made an impact. Millions of people followed him, quoted him, and were shaped by his words. Agree or disagree, that’s influence and impact.

Now here’s the question: when you’re gone, what will people say? Will anyone point to you and say, ‘My life is different because of her’? Or will your name fade as quickly as yesterday’s news?

We’ve become so tribal, so divided, that people are cheering death when it happens to someone they disagree with. That’s not strength, that’s weakness. If your compassion ends where your politics begin, you’ve already lost your humanity.

And let’s not pretend you don’t know life is short. I say it all the time and you probably do too. But you don’t act like it and certainly don’t live like it. You waste days. You put off the work that matters. You wait for some mythical “someday” that may never come. Then an event like this happens, and suddenly everyone remembers life is fragile. You already knew that, you just chose to ignore it.

Here’s the reality friends: leadership isn’t safe. If you want the perks without the work, the reward without the risk, you’re not a leader, you’re merely a follower. Real leadership makes you a target. Real leadership separates you from the crowd. And if you can’t stomach that, don’t call yourself a leader.

In this episode, we’re going to talk about legacy, leadership, and urgency and the universal truth that every one of us will leave something behind. The only question is: will it be worth remembering?”

Good morning my friends and welcome back to the show. My name is Blaine Feyen, founder of the coaching academy and your host for this, and every episode of the always sponsor free, Real Value Podcast.

Yes, this episode is about the death of Charlie Kirk. But this episode is not about his politics, his beliefs, or whether or not you liked him, hated him, or were completely neutral about him. I’ll be the first to say that there were things about his messages that I didn’t agree with and there were things in his messages that I absolutely agreed with.

Most people won’t leave anything behind worth remembering beyond the family photo album and some stories around a campfire. And that’s the hard truth.

Someone with enormous influence was just murdered and, whether you loved him or despised him, you can’t deny this: he had tremendous influence and made an impact. Millions of people followed him, quoted him, and were shaped by his words. Agree or disagree, that’s influence and impact.

Now here’s the question: when you’re gone, what will people say? Will anyone point to you and say, ‘My life is different because of her’? Or will your name fade as quickly as yesterday’s news?

We’ve become so tribal, so divided, that people are cheering death when it happens to someone they disagree with. That’s not strength, that’s weakness. If your compassion ends where your politics begin, you’ve already lost your humanity.

And let’s not pretend you don’t know life is short. I say it all the time and you probably do too. But you don’t act like it and certainly don’t live like it. You waste days. You put off the work that matters. You wait for some mythical “someday” that may never come. Then an event like this happens, and suddenly everyone remembers life is fragile. You already knew that, you just chose to ignore it.

Here’s the reality friends: leadership isn’t safe. If you want the perks without the work, the reward without the risk, you’re not a leader, you’re merely a follower. Real leadership makes you a target. Real leadership separates you from the crowd. And if you can’t stomach that, don’t call yourself a leader.

In this episode, we’re going to talk about legacy, leadership, and urgency and the universal truth that every one of us will leave something behind. The only question is: will it be worth remembering?”

Yes, this episode is about the death of Charlie Kirk. But this episode is not about his politics, his beliefs, or whether or not you liked him, hated him, or were completely neutral about him. I’ll be the first to say that there were things about his messages that I didn’t agree with and there were things in his messages that I absolutely agreed with.

I’ve been very open on this show that I am not a religious person, so his use of biblical references to support his political beliefs and his message, although not lost on me as I was very religious in my youth and early 20’s, in my mind it made his message weaker, not stronger, but that’s just me. If you’re a deeply religious person, this aspect may have had the exact opposite effect.

As a student of rhetoric and speaking techniques, I didn’t think he was anything special as a debater. I often saw him using disingenuous tactics that many debaters use to fool their crowds like moving the goalpost, ad hominem attacks against the individual, the famous Gish Gallup technique, changing the subject when he was losing, and several other tactics that most don’t catch in the moment but are all too common amongst public figures and debaters.

Nevertheless, I often found myself watching his debates and video clips because I recognized several things right away:

1.        He was willing to stand in a crowd and be challenged on his beliefs.

2.        He encouraged everyone to simply have a conversation.

3.        He was almost always polite and friendly.

4.        He took a public stand on very controversial issues.

5.        He accepted the cost of speaking up, which was to be hated.

6.        He took extreme personal and professional risks for being heard.

Again, we’re not going to talk about his politics on this episode, we’re going to talk about some valuable takeaways from this tragedy, but I thought it important for you to know where I stand on the person and his methods lest you think I’m just a biased follower and in agreement with everything he said and did.

What I did and do have for Charlie Kirk, and others like him regardless of political persuasion, is tremendous respect for what he was doing, even if I disagreed with some of his takes. I am mature enough to recognize and respect when someone is doing something important and doing it in a way that few others were. Yes, I get it; debating college kids is not that difficult considering most of them have yet to develop a strong understanding of what they believe to the degree that they can articulate it against someone who’s sole purpose in life is to do just that. But he was doing it whether he was liked or not, despised or not, and in danger or not. Putting yourself in those kinds of audiences makes you stronger, not weaker, and I respect that.

It’s the ‘Man in the Arena’ quote from Roosevelt’s 1910 speech in Paris. Which goes like this:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

And yes, I also fully understand what he was ultimately doing and what Charlie represented to the political side he so passionately promoted and campaigned for. But I’ve been very transparent on this show that I am ‘apolitical’. Being apolitical doesn’t mean I’m uninformed, naive, or disconnected from what’s happening in the world. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. I study politics, economics, and history closely. I know the arguments from every side, and I understand deeply how the game is played.

What being apolitical really means is that I refuse to pledge allegiance to any particular tribe, party, person, or ideology. I don’t outsource my thinking to politicians, pundits, or groupthink. I reject the premise that I need a ruler to dictate how I live, what I believe, or who I stand with. Just as being ‘areligious’ means I don’t need a particular book, building, or deity to instruct me (or threaten me) to be compassionate, love my fellow human, and do good while I’m on this earth; being apolitical simply means no particular group gets to count me as a card carrying member. I think for myself, and I encourage you to do the same.

Awareness is not the same as loyalty and knowledge doesn’t require a membership or submission. I choose to stay outside of the political echo chambers because I value freedom of thought more than belonging to a particular team and, again, I would encourage you all to think similarly. When you stay outside of a gang, you’re free to think how you wish instead of how you’re told to. And, more importantly, you’re free to listen and enjoy people on all sides of those made-up lines. When you live apolitically, you’re free to choose some from this side, some from that side, some from the middle, and some from no side.

That’s true freedom and it’s what allowed me to listen to someone like Charlie Kirk without the bias that comes with membership on any team. I didn’t feel compelled to like him or believe him because I was on team red or team Jesus, and I didn’t despise him and yell at the screen because I was on team blue. I listened like I used to listen to really good religious preachers, watching their methods, their movements, their command of the microphone, and their command of their message. You don’t have to agree with somebody to recognize influence and impact.

With that out of the way, let’s discuss some of the potential takeaways from this tragedy and see what might apply to our own lives and legacy.

The first significant thought I had last week after sitting with the news was about ripple effects of one’s life. You may not like a man, in fact, you may despise him, his message, and everything he stands for, but a valuable question should always be, whose life are YOU influencing and how? I say this more as a challenge than a denigration of you personally since I don’t know you, but how many people could you list out on a piece of paper right now that has been impacted by your work beyond your immediate family. What are you building that actually matters and will live on long after you’ve passed?

If someone has influence and impact and is actively doing something to amplify that influence, that means you have the power to do something similar. What will the ripple effect be of your life, your death, your message, and your influence?

The next thought I had was that leadership comes with a risk and at a cost. Leadership is about responsibility and courage and is not for the weak. Most people want the perks without the work and the rewards without the risk, and it simply doesn’t work that way. True leadership, whether you’re running a business, sitting on college campuses debating with college kids, or standing on a stage, will always put a bullseye on your back. If you’re willing to stand for something, you’ll inevitably become someone else’s target and, if you’re not willing to be a target, don’t call yourself a leader.

I get it, not everyone considers themselves, nor wants to be a leader. Some will hear this one and say, ‘you’re exactly right, Blaine! I’m not a leader, don’t want to be one, and that way I can just do my thing with no target on my back’. To which I would say, ‘you’re absolutely right!’ Leadership, by its very nature and definition is limited to a relatively few. Everyone can’t be the leader. But everyone of you is leaving a legacy whether you know it or not. The question will always be, are you creating your legacy deliberately and intentionally? Or are you letting it be created haphazardly?

I recorded an episode many years ago entitled,“Will You Miss Me When I’m Gone”, in which I talked a lot about legacy and intentional leadership, and it was one of the first questions that came to my mind as I pondered what happened last week. Will you miss me when I’m gone and, if so, why? What impact was I able to have on the lives of others? Another form of this question is, ‘who will miss me when I’m gone?’ I encourage you all to start asking those kinds of questions and see what bubbles up. Leaders often arise out of tragedy and trial. Whether you like him or despised him, what would you be willing to do to have a positive impact on the lives of others and what would it take for you to start doing that?

The next thought I had as I watched an outpouring of love, sadness, grief, and shock, as well as what I can only describe as some of the most vile behavior from some celebrating the event and the loss of a life and message they despised, was that we should be able to have grief without agreement.

In no way must I share someone’s values, their political views, or their lifestyle to acknowledge the sadness of a life cut short and, especially, the trauma that would naturally come from the way it was done and how publicly it was done.

To be clear, there is no rule that says I must grieve. People pass everyday that I don’t know and nothing would compel me to grieve for them. We all see people posting on social media that one of their loved ones has passed and then a fitting tribute to ‘GamGam, as if something like that is meant for general consumption. I don’t know this person, I didn’t need to know this person, I don’t need to know how much you’re grieving because I can assume as a human being that you would naturally feel grief at the loss of a loved one, we all would. But nothing in the unwritten rule book of human behavior says I have to feel the same way as you.

Which is my point. You’re grieving and we can both agree on that. I don’t have to grieve for someone I didn’t know. But where I think this becomes really important is when it is someone we knew but maybe disagreed with. If you don’t have the ability to grieve over someone simply because you disagreed with them, that is an area I would encourage exploring.

A recent example I have from my own life is the passing of my father. My father left my mother for another woman when I was 2 years old. He gave up his custody and was given every other weekend visitation, which he loosely maintained until I was about 14 or 15. As my brother and I grew and life got busier, there was more agency on our part and less interest on his part to try to maintain the relationship. Even as a youngster, he attended 1 of my soccer games, 1 of my football games, and nothing else ever again.

I more or less lost contact with him when I was 16 and, in fact, one of the last times I saw him until my 40s was when I went out of my way to visit him when I was 18 or 19 and had my own car. After that, he moved out of state with no notice to me or my brother and we would occasionally find out things from friends or family.

I didn’t see him again until my 40s when I asked if I could attend the funeral of my grandmother, his mother. At least 25 years had passed with almost zero contact. After reconnecting at that funeral, we loosely kept in touch via text on holidays or birthdays, and I saw him a few other times when I was traveling and would end up in his city, always at my request.

My father got sick in the past year or so with some kind of brain tumor and he went down hill fast. His passing, although not out of the blue, left me asking some questions within myself. I didn’t agree with how he left our family. I didn’t agree with how he parented (or didn’t parent). I’ve never understood how you could have 2 children and then just leave them to start a whole new family with someone else. I couldn’t understand (and still don’t) how you wouldn’t want to know what was going on in the lives of your first 2 children and your grandchildren.

Although he lived the last 40 or so years in Nevada, his funeral was held in my town. I am a big believer in paying final respects to those we knew, so I went. I was curious as I prepared emotionally for the event what I would feel at the funeral. I was curious if I would have a flood of emotions and break down crying. I arrived and greeted aunts, uncles, cousins, sisters, and friends of my father and then spent time walking around the room looking at all of the photo displays his kids had made. I think I spied one or two images out of hundreds with my brother and I, which would make sense. The guy spent the vast majority of his life without us. I felt nothing. It was as if I was at the funeral of a distant friend’s father whom I never knew.

One of the big shocks came when I sat down and opened the little booklet they make for those events. It tells a little of the person’s life and then the schedule of hymns and what will follow the ceremony. The little story of his life named all of his children and grandchildren, except his two first born sons. Nowhere in any of his life story did my brother and I exist. Seemed like a last, petty action either of his, or of my half and step siblings to make sure we both knew that we were not considered his kids.

Nevertheless, I felt no anger or resentment. I felt a bit of sorrow and grief for him living his life without really knowing my brother and me. I couldn’t find it in me to squeeze out any fake tears for myself and the loss of my father, this man I didn’t really know. But what I did tear up at was all of the grief I heard and saw from the people that did know him and loved him. The stories told of golfing with him, him helping out with construction projects, and him being a giver of himself to his family were one’s that allowed me to see that, just because I didn’t grieve his passing much personally since we didn’t have much of a relationship and were not in agreement on some really important things, I didn’t have to be in agreement to feel the emotions of those who were grieving.

Side note, I don’t know about you, but I could be stone cold and unemotional about something happening in life or a movie, but as soon as I see and hear real grief from another human being, I have to hold back the tears (which I’m often unsuccessful in holding back), especially if it’s another man that breaks down in grief. It’s just something innate in me, and I believe in many others, to feel the grief of others even if they’re not connected in any way, and even if we’re in disagreement with the person or reason they’re grieving for.

Friends, we have entered a very dangerous and disheartening era where we’ve turned politics into war and we’ve normalized the dehumanization of people who don’t think the same way as we do. When rhetoric gets so intense that opponents are no longer seen as human beings, but instead as things that need to be cancelled, removed from society, or even eliminated, tragedy is the only possible outcome.

I know what you’re thinking right now. You’re thinking, “You’re exactly right, Blaine, and that’s what their side has been doing to us!” And that is exactly where we will disagree. My position as an apolitical and non-partisan thinker allows me the freedom to stand back and watch it play out on all sides. Different words, some slightly different tactics here and there, but both sides saying the same thing: “these people need to be removed from society”.

When you treat those with views that differ from yours as opponents, instead of simply people with differing views that probably want the same core things as you do, you can’t be surprised when violence follows.

I can assure you after running businesses like a martial arts school, a mechanical contracting business, and a business coaching company that has as its customers and members people from all walks of life and all political persuasions, at the end of the day everyone wants to live in peace, take care of their family, ensure a future for their children, and not be forced by someone else to live in a way they don’t want to live.

When you dehumanize another person, group, or political party, you’re more likely to cheer when something terrible happens to their side and grieve when it happens to your side. When it happens to your side, you demand justice and often times vengeance. When it happens to their side, you say, ‘oh well, that’s what they get, they had it coming”.

If you’re cheering death because of a disagreement, not only have you lost your own humanity, but you’ve also lost all moral ground to be heard or listened to on any other topics. The danger of dehumanization is real and its at a fevered pitch at this very moment.

No matter our political beliefs, we all know loss, and we all know grief. Death doesn’t care how you voted or whose hat you’re wearing to the rally. If you need someone to share your worldview and agree with before you can acknowledge their humanity, you’re the problem, not them. If you don’t have an internal filter that says, ‘this is a human first and foremost’, you are forced to judge them based on the way they think.

None of this, by the way, is meant to suggest that I am somehow ignorant to bad behavior, crime, statistics, the predominant beliefs and behaviors of different sides of the political spectrum, and that I believe we can all just sing hymns by the fire and everything will be ok. No, I’m actually very pessimistic on that front. But not because peace can’t or doesn’t exist, but instead because of exactly what I’ve been talking about this whole episode: the epidemic of dehumanization of people who don’t think or believe as you do.

Events like the murder of Charlie Kirk highlight some of the challenge we all face:

1.        To live with urgency and focus on what matters

2.        To stop dehumanizing those we might not agree with

3.        To be willing to find points of agreement, instead of focusing on what we may not agree

4.        To question our own influence and impact

5.        And to recognize the responsibility we all have as human beings to advance humanity, often in spite of opposition or differences in views

Friends, if you get nothing else from the events of last week, I hope you take this realization from tragedy: you’re wasting time. You don’t have as much time as you think. You think you’re going to get serious at some imaginary ‘Some day’ and the ‘some day’ never comes. Stop lying to yourself how much time you have and the imaginary impediments in your way to having an impact.

I used to say it at the end of every show, ‘thank you for investing your most valuable resource and currency, which is your time.’ Time is all of our most valuable resource and currency because its limited, it’s literally everything in our lives, you’re not guaranteed even the next moment, and you never know when your last one will be.

What is happening in the world today can be very disheartening and scary. Ideas that can’t survive in the sunlight must live in the shadows. People aren’t silenced because their words are meaningless, they’re silenced because people are afraid of the influence and impact they might be having. This makes leadership and stepping up to the leadership challenge scary.

Millions of people hated Charlie Kirk without ever listening to him. Millions more loved him without ever questioning him. The job of a leader is to think for yourself, not outsource your thinking to the tribe. The job of a leader is to calm people down, not rile them up against the ‘other’ side. The job of a leader is to prepare others for what might be ahead. The job of a leader is to avoid reactionary swings and then model the behavior they want their followers to see. The job of a leader is to help separate the person from the politics. You’re not obligated to agree or even respect somebody else’s politics or ideology in order to recognize their humanity.

Whether you absolutely loved the man or violently despised him, Charlie Kirk died with a microphone in his hand speaking to people he disagreed with and who disagreed with him. He was willing to do some things most people simply weren’t willing to do for what they believe in, and I feel it important to point those things out in this episode to encourage and maybe even inspire someone to do something similar, even if on the complete other side of the belief spectrum.

Here’s just a quick list of what he was willing to do for what he believed in, and saying this as someone who vehemently disagreed with some of his positions and what he was teaching:

1. Step into the spotlight

Most people avoid criticism. He sought visibility, knowing full well it came with constant attacks, hatred, and threats of violence.

2. Take public stands on controversial issues

Most people water down their views to avoid conflict. Most people stand in the middle on topics so as not to stir up controversy or hate. He took positions that guaranteed half the audience would disagree, sometimes violently.

3. Accept being hated

Most people crave and seek out approval. He accepted that influence, impact, and leadership would come with very strong opposition.

4. Build a platform from scratch

Most people consume instead of create. He built organizations, audiences, and events from nothing and right out of high school. I didn’t even know this until I started researching that Kirk doesn’t have a college degree and he started his non-profit when he was just 18 years old. That takes courage, discipline, and relentless output.

5. Put his name and face behind his message

Most people hide behind anonymity online. He tied his reputation, identity, and his career to his message, for better or worse.

6. Endure constant criticism and ridicule

Most people crumble under a few harsh comments. He lived in a 24/7 firestorm of negative press and backlash.

7. Stay consistent in his message

Most people shift their views depending on the room. He hammered the same points repeatedly, risking being labeled, mocked, or dismissed.

8. Organize and mobilize followers

Most people don’t want the responsibility of leading others. He carried the burden of shaping a movement and influencing lives. You may disagree with the movement he was leading, but until you start your own movement to counter it and willing to do what someone like him does, all you have is a desire for people like him to shut up and not talk. That’s called being powerless.

9. Take personal and professional risk

Most people play it safe in their careers. He stepped into an arena where threats, lawsuits, protests, and, of course, the eventual ending of his life were always possibilities.

I’ll end this episode with a line from psychologist, Chase Hughes, who said, “sanity is the most rebellious act you can commit right now”. I encourage you all to be rebels if being rational, calm, levelheaded, and human is considered a rebellious act.

Rest in Peace, Charlie Kirk. I’m out…