Senator Lankford's Timely Reminder of the American Ethos

In November of last year, shortly after Republicans won control of the Senate, as well as the presidency, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma became vice chair of the Senate GOP Policy Committee. Senator Lankford had captured national headlines during the Biden administration for being the lead Republican negotiator on what was presented as a compromise, bipartisan bill to seek to address the border crisis. After receiving considerable flak for his involvement in the bill, including from fellow Republicans, negotiations eventually broke down, and the bill never passed the Senate.

Prior to his election to the Senate in 2015, Senator Lankford was a Representative from Oklahoma, placing first in a crowded primary without having previously held office. A former Baptist minister, his Christian faith continues to guide his approach to politics.

“If you get angry, go mow your neighbor's lawn.”

The book that is the subject of this interview, Turnaround: America's Revival, took him three years to write. And though it could be interpreted as an homage to President Trump's proclaimed "Golden Age of America," as the senator notes in this interview, he was writing it when it was just as possible that then-Vice President Kamala Harris would be elected to the presidency. Amid a precipitous divergence of reported national pride along political party lines, Senator Lankford consistently advocates a grounded patriotism, no matter which party happens to be in control of Washington, D.C. at a given time.

In the following conversation with Merion West editor-in-chief Erich J. Prince, the senator discusses a few themes: getting involved in one's community, whether an elected official or otherwise; a reverence for the country's founding and Constitution; and, when possible, setting aside the rancor to work on difficult, seemingly intractable problems.

He also opens up about what he learned from being at the center of the controversy surrounding the immigration bill, as well as some general comments about the early days of President Trump's second term.

Erich J. Prince’s questions are in bold, and this transcript was lightly edited for clarity.

Senator Lankford, I’ll start with what you set the scene with on the first page. You begin with a simple assertion: “It will take more than an election to get us on the right track.” And it’s a call to action. Practically speaking, how can citizens get started?

I try to walk through that in the book itself to say, “First of all, do you see that you’re a leader at all?” Because I think a lot of people are like, 'Yeah, I vote for leaders, but I’m not a leader.' And that is just not true. That is one of the powerful things about being an American. You do not have to ask permission to go lead and work on an issue; you just go work on it, and anybody can. So, first, I am challenging people to see themselves as leaders. The second thing is to ask: What problem do you see around you? Are you waiting on somebody else to solve it? If you’re a citizen, do not wait. If somebody else was going to solve it, they already would have. If you see the problem, ask somebody to help you, and the two of y’all, three of y’all, five of y’all, ten of y’all—whatever it is—start working on it.

In America, you do not have to say, “Well, I am not elected. I cannot go do that.” Go do it, and eventually you will get the momentum to fix something. Leadership, as I define it in the book, is as simple as this: If you see a problem, ask someone to help you, work on it together—you are a leader. So take the lead and start solving community problems rather than waiting on somebody from D.C. to come to your neighborhood.

Related to that, there was one passage in your book where you say, if you are going to complain about something, it is better to complain to people who might be able to do something about it.

Yeah—if you are just yelling at random people, or at the group of guys you meet for breakfast on Friday, or at your TV (I remind people the TV cannot hear you), that does not solve anything in America. If you are only griping and whining, that helps nobody.

But if you actually say, “There is a problem; I am going to that person to ask: How are we going to fix it together?”—that can change direction. Most people would rather gripe than ask how to engage. Americans always want things to be better. That is not true everywhere; some places simply assume nothing improves. We remain uniquely optimistic and say, “Things can get better.” But they do not get better just by griping; they get better because somebody works on it. Talk to the person most connected to the problem and see if you can figure it out.

Machiavelli argued that, in the beginning, problems are hard to detect and easy to fix; later they are easy to see and hard to fix. How do we push against the inertia and address deeply seated, seemingly intractable problems like the national debt or immigration?

Immigration is a great example, and there are many others. My predecessor in this seat, Dr. Tom Coburn, rang the bell on debt.

I read his book as well.

Yes. He constantly talked about it, but Congress basically yawned and said, “We are not going to do anything.” Congress acts when it has to act—and that is when the American people push hard enough to say, “Solve this.” You have to be up against a deadline, or the people must push so hard that momentum builds. When both sides scream, “I want only my option,” and the other must lose everything, we are not at a point to solve complicated problems.

Social Security is another one. Everybody knows Social Security goes insolvent in eight years—eight years! Yet many still say, “Do not touch Social Security; do nothing.” If you do nothing, eight years from now it is insolvent. It will only get better when people engage and demand solutions. Until the nation rises up and says, “Fix the broken thing,” it does not get better.

The late Senator Johnny Isakson used to say, “I only have friends and future friends.” Should we strip back anger and talk more dispassionately; is rancor itself one of the main reasons we do not get anywhere?

I think people are angry because they see so many things unsolved, but anger does not solve the problem; it makes it worse. No one has ever moved me by screaming and cussing in my face. I have never looked at someone berating me and thought, “You are so smart; I am going to see it your way now.” It just does not happen. When we get angry, we want to lash out, but that fixes nothing.

Fixing the problem means sitting down with people you disagree with and saying, “This is a giant problem; we must solve it.” Anger adds another layer. I even joke, “If you get angry, go mow your neighbor’s lawn.” Use that energy to do something. People solving things are less angry than people doing nothing. If you volunteer at a church or nonprofit, you are too busy to be angry—you are passionate about the solution. Politically, we still praise the snarkiest, angriest voices online. At some point, the country will get bored and say, “I want someone who will fix this.”

This might be a good opportunity to discuss what you learned from working on the immigration compromise bill. When friends on the Left hear your name, they say, “James Lankford, what a reasonable guy.” Friends on the Right harp on the number five thousand, a subheading in your book. How did that figure shape the debate?

It did. Many have asked me afterward, “What did you learn? What would you change?” I was not going to write that chapter—it is contentious—but my wife said people will expect it. It is the longest chapter, walking through the journey, what the bill was and was not, and what I learned. I would have had more cooks in the kitchen: when we tried to sell it, too few people had been part of the process. My Democratic colleagues refused to go through committee, so we lacked a big enough group to fight for the final product.

The biggest issue was how toxic social media and some D.C. groups are. If they believe they have the answer, any different answer is wrong. The social-media noise was incredible. The five thousand figure became the defining feature. Under the bill, the first person crossing the border would be arrested, screened quickly, and deported, because 97 percent of those claiming asylum do not qualify. If cartels saved up thousands of people and rushed the border—say, five thousand in a day—current court orders require everyone be processed. We created a break-glass moment: if numbers hit around five thousand, the rules got tougher, not looser—those people would be arrested and deported without the extra screening. Social media made it sound as if five thousand would be allowed in daily, ignoring the first part.

The lie spread worldwide. Even after the bill was released, people said, “I found five thousand; it must be true,” without reading further. The reality was that five thousand was the threshold for an even tougher enforcement regime—not an allowance. As I note in the book, we have to become more discerning readers: when something sounds outlandish, it usually is. There is no universe in which I would have signed off on a bill permitting five thousand illegal entries each day; yet the ‘Lankford-Schumer five-thousand-a-day’ mantra took on a life of its own entirely on social media—despite being flat-out false.

Has that backlash dampened your appetite to work with Democrats on issues like Social Security? The Senate still needs 60 votes, thanks to Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. How are you approaching bipartisanship now?

A couple of things. My friend Kyrsten Sinema now gleefully asks, “What do you think about the filibuster now, Democrats?” If we did not have it, we would run straight over everyone. When Democrats tried to scrap the filibuster in the previous Congress, it was Senators Sinema and Joe Manchin who ultimately said no—something many of my Democratic colleagues now privately admit they are thankful for.

The Senate is a place where 60 must agree; we were sent to do hard things. If I will not engage the other side on hard conversations, I should go home. I know the fire is hot—I have been burned—but if I back away and decide I am not doing anything hard anymore, I should just go home.

Earlier you used an analogy of a Pepsi bottle floating aimlessly at sea. While the President calls this era “the American Golden Age,” many young Americans feel aimless. How do you view them amid dramatic changes under the new Republican trifecta?

Remember, this book took me three years to write—the bulk was done by last November—so I had no idea where things would land. Drift is a big issue. Many young people are frustrated by politics; some say the Constitution is bad. That is not true—it is fantastic. We just need to run it correctly and respect the boundaries of each branch. I once spoke with the Australian ambassador, who said, “We are your little brother, and we do not recognize you anymore.” The world still looks to us; if we lack purposeful, values-based leadership, others drift even more. If we get a cold, the world gets pneumonia.

For those younger Americans checking out, do we inspire them through a new look at the Constitution, better jobs, or something else–what is the secret sauce to reignite engagement?

It is multifaceted. Families must teach the next generation what it means to be American. A nation is built on its families—if families struggle, the nation struggles. Strong families, churches, and nonprofits build a strong nation; weak ones mean government can never keep up.

Education is key: some of my teachers were very liberal, but they inspired me to engage ideas. There is frustration now when people refuse to teach or even consider the other side, labeling it evil. Education should teach people how to think and consider all views.

The biggest element is the sheer volume of information—much of it false. People cannot figure out what is true and false, so they become cynical and check out. The fear is that soon people will just ask AI, “What should my opinion be?” and accept the output uncritically.

George Will noted conservatives used to complain about executive power but enjoyed it under President Reagan. You write about rediscovering the Senate’s deliberative role. What can Congress do to reclaim its rightful place?

So let me share my favorite George Will quote: “Truth is not responsible for its owner.” You must engage with all ideas. The House does not have to talk to the other side; the Senate forces you to. Congress acts when it has to; if there is no pressure, it is easier to sit back. Many come to me saying, “I dislike how the President did X—go stop him.” I engage privately, but Congress cannot stop the executive outright; the Court is the rapid check.

Long-term, we write law; short-term, courts check executive overreach. A conservative Supreme Court is challenging excessive delegation. Republicans still champion the REINS Act—requiring Congress to sign off on major regulations—regardless of who is President. Most states have similar mechanisms; nationally we do not, and we must find a constitutional way to do so. Yet the executive must sign any bill that limits executive power, and few executives volunteer to curb their own authority.

Senator Lankford, I appreciate such a thoughtful conversation.

Thank you so much. I look forward to talking again in the future.