Kind: captions
Language: en
the way I would do it 75% headcount
reduction across the board in the
federal bureaucracy send them home
packing shut down agencies that
shouldn't exist resend every
unconstitutional regulation that
Congress never passed in a true
self-governing democracy it should be
our elected representatives that make
the laws and the rules not unelected
bureaucrats Merit and Equity are
actually
incompatible Merit and group quotas are
incompatible you can have one or the
other you can't have both it's an
assault and a crusade on the nanny State
itself and that Nanny State presents
itself in several forms there's the
entitlement State that's the welfare
state presents itself in the form of the
regulatory State that's what we're
talking about and then there's the
foreign Nanny state where effectively we
are subsidizing other countries that
aren't paying their fair share of
protection or other resources we provide
them if I was to summarize my ideology
in a nutshell it is to terminate The
Nanny state in the United States of
America in all of its forms the
entitlement State the regulatory State
and the foreign policy in any state once
we've done that we've revived the
Republic that I think would make George
Washington
proud the following is a conversation
with VC ramaswami about the future of
conservatism in America he has written
many books on this topic including his
latest called truths the future of
America first he ran for president this
year in the Republican primary and is
considered by many to represent the
future of the the Republican party
before all that he was a successful
biotech entrepreneur and investor with a
degree in biology from Harvard and a law
degree from yaleo as always when the
topic is politics I will continue
talking to people on both the left and
the right with empathy curiosity and
backbone this is Alex frean podcast to
support it please check out our sponsors
in the description and now dear friends
here's VC Ras
Swami you are one of the great
elucidator of conservative ideas so
you're the perfect person to ask uh what
is conservatism what's your let's say
conservative vision for America well
actually this is one of my criticisms of
the modern Republican party and
direction of the conservative movement
is that we've gotten so good at
describing what we're against there's a
list of things that we could rail
against to wokeism transgender ideology
climate ideology cism Co policies the
radical bid agenda the radical Harris
agenda the list goes on but actually
what's missing in the conservative
movement right now is what we actually
stand for what is our vision for the
future of the country and I saw that as
a deficit at the time I started my
presidential campaign it was in many
ways the purpose of my campaign because
I do feel that that's why we didn't have
the Red Wave in 2022
so they tried to blame Donald Trump they
tried to blame abortion they blamed a
bunch of individual specific issues or
factors I think the real reason we
didn't have that red wave was that we
got so practiced at criticizing Joe
Biden that we forgot to articulate who
we are and what we stand for so what do
we stand for as
conservatives I think we stand for the
ideals that we fought the American
Revolution for in
1776 ideals like Merit right that the
best person gets the job without regard
to their genetics that you get ahead in
this country not on the color of your
skin but on the content of your
character Free Speech an open debate not
just as some sort of Catchphrase but the
idea that any opinion no matter how
heinous you get to express it in the
United States of America self-governance
and this is a big one right now is that
the people we elect to run the
government they're no longer the ones
who actually run the government we in
the conservative movement I believe
should believe in restoring
self-governance where it's not
bureaucrats running the show but
actually elected representatives and
then the other the other ideal that the
nation was founded on that I think we
need to revive and I think as a North
star of the conservative movement is
restoring the rule of law in this
country you think about even the
abandonment of the rule of law at the
southern
border it's particularly personal to me
as the kid of legal immigrants to this
country you and I actually share a
couple of aspects in common in that
regard that also though means your First
Act of entering this country can't break
break the law so there's some policy
commitments and principles Merit Free
Speech self-governance rule of law and
then I think culturally what does it
mean to be a conservative is it means we
believe in the anchors of our identity
in truth the value of the individual
family nation and God beat race gender
sexuality and climate if we have the
courage to actually stand for our own
vision and that's a big part of what's
been missing and it's a big part of not
just through the campaign but through
you know a lot of my future advocacy
that's the vacuum I'm aiming to fill
yeah we'll talk about each of those
issues
immigration the growing bureaucracy of
government religion is a really
interesting topic something you spoken
about a lot uh but you've also had a lot
of really tense debates so you're a
perfect person to ask to steal me on the
other side yeah so let me ask you about
progressivism Can you steal me on the
case for progressivism and leftwing
ideas yeah so look I think the strongest
case particularly for leftwing ideas in
the United States so in the American
context is that the country has been
imperfect in living up to its ideals so
even though our founding fathers
preached the importance of life liberty
in the pursuit of happiness and freedom
they didn't practice those values in
terms of many of our founding fathers
being slave owners inequalities with
respect to women and other disempowered
groups such that they say that that
creat cre a power structure in this
country that continues to last to this
day the vestiges of what happened even
in 1860 in the course of human history
isn't that long ago and that we need to
do everything in our power to correct
for those imbalances in power in the
United States that's the core view of
the modern left I'm not criticizing it
right now I'm steelmanning it I'm trying
to give you I think a good articulation
of why the left believes they have a
compelling case for the government
stepping in to correct for historical or
presid
inequalities I can give you my counter
abuttal of that but the best statement
of the left I think that it's the fact
that we've been imperfect in living up
to those ideals in order to fix that
we're going to have to take steps that
are severe steps if needed to correct
for those historical inequalities before
we actually have true equality of
opportunity in this country that's the
case for the leftwing view in modern
America so what's your criticism of that
so my concern with it is even if that's
well motivated I think that it recreates
many of the same problems that they were
setting out to solve I'll give you a
really tangible example of that in the
present right now I may be alone amongst
prominent conservatives who would say
something like this right now but I
think it's true so I'm going to say it
I'm actually even in the last year last
year and a half seeing actually a rise
in anti-black and anti-minority racism
in this country which is a little
curious right when over the last 10
years we got as close to Martin Luther
King's Promised Land as you could
Envision place where you have every
American regardless of their skin color
able to vote without obstruction a place
where you have people able to get the
highest jobs in the land without race
standing in their way why are we seeing
that Resurgence in part it's because of
I believe that left-wing obsession with
racial Equity over the course of the
last 20 years in this country and so
when you take something away from
someone based on their skin color and
that's what correcting for prior
Injustice was supposed to do the
leftwing views are to correct for prior
Injustice by saying that whether you're
white straight
man you have certain privileges that you
have to actually correct for when you
take something away from somebody based
on their genetics you actually Foster
greater animus towards other groups
around you and so the problem with that
philosophy is that it creates there are
several problems with it but the most
significant problem that I think
everybody can agree we want to avoid is
to actually fan the Flames of the very
divisions that you supposedly wanted to
heal I see that in a context of our
immigration policy as well you think
about even what's going on in I'm from
Ohio I was born and raised in Ohio and I
live there today the controversy in
Springfield Ohio I personally don't
blame really any of the people who are
in Springfield either the native people
who have born and raised in Springfield
or even the Haitians who have been moved
to Springfield but it ends up becoming a
divide and conquer strategy and outcome
where if you put 20,000 people in a
community where 50,000 people where the
20,000 are coming in don't know the
language are unable to follow the
traffic laws are unable to assimilate
you know there's going to be a
reactionary backlash and so even though
that began perhaps with some type of
some type of charitable Instinct right
some type of sympathy for people who
went through the Earth the earthquake in
2010 in Haiti and achieved temporary
protective status in the United States
what began with sympathy what began with
Earnest intentions actually creates the
very Division and reactionary response
that's supposedly we say we wanted to
avoid so that's my number one criticism
of that leftwing worldview number two is
I do believe that Merit and Equity are
actually
incompatible Merit and group quotas are
incompatible you can have one or the
other you can't have both and the reason
why is no two people and I think it's a
beautiful thing it's true between you
and I between youi and all of our
friends or family or strangers or
neighbors or colleagues no two people
have the same skill sets we're each
endowed by different gifts we're each
endowed with different talents and
that's the beauty of human
diversity and a true meritocracy is a
system in which you're able to achieve
the maximum of your god-given potential
without anybody standing in your way but
that means necessarily there's going to
be differences and outcomes in a wide
range of parameters not just Financial
not just money not just fame or currency
or whatever it is there's just going to
be different outcomes for different
people in different spheres of lives
and that's what meritocracy demands it's
what it requires and so the left's
vision of group Equity necessarily comes
at the cost of meritocracy and so those
are be my two reasons for opposing the
view is one is it's not meritocratic but
number two is it often even has the
effect of hurting the very people they
claimed to have wanted to help and I
think that's part of what we're seeing
in modern America yeah you had a pretty
intense debate with Mark hubin a great
conversation I think it's on your
podcast actually yes yeah
that's great okay well speaking of good
guys he he messages me all the time with
with beautifully eloquent criticism I
appreciate that Mark uh what was uh what
was one of the more convincing things he
said to you you're mostly focus on kind
of Dei so so let's just take a step back
and understand because people use these
acronyms and then they start saying it
out of muscle memory and stop asking
what it actually means like Dei refers
to Capital D diversity equity and
inclusion which is a philosophy adopted
by institutions principally in the
private sector companies nonprofits and
universities to say that they need to
strive for specific forms of racial
gender and Sexual Orientation Diversity
and it's not just the D it's the equity
in ensuring that you have equal outcomes
as measured by certain group quota
targets or group representation targets
that they would meet in their ranks now
the problem with the Dei agenda is in
the name of diversity it actually has
been a vehicle for sacrificing true
diversity of thought so the way the
argument goes is this is that we have to
create an environment that is receptive
to minorities and minority views but if
certain opinions are themselves deemed
to be hostile to those minorities then
you have to exclude those opinions in
the name of the capital D diversity but
that means that you're necessarily
sacrificing actual diversity of thought
I can give you a very specific example
that might sound like okay well is it
such a bad thing if an organization
doesn't want to exclude people who are
saying racist things on a given day we
could debate that but let's get to the
tangible world of how that actually
plays out I I for my part have not
really heard in ordinary America people
uttering racial epithets if you're going
to a restaurant or in the grocery store
it's not something I've encountered
certainly not in the workplace but
that's a theoretical case let's talk
about the real world case of how this
plays out so there there was an instance
it was a case that presented itself
before the equal employment opportunity
commission the EEOC one of the
government enforcers of the Dei agenda
and there was a case of a woman who wore
red sweater on Fridays in celebration of
veterans and those who had served the
military and invited others in the
workplace to do the same thing and they
had a kind of affinity group you could
call it that a veteran type affinity
group appreciating those who had served
her son had served as well there was a
minority employee at that business who
said that he found that to be a
microaggression so the employer asked
her to stop wearing said clothes to the
office well she still felt like she
wanted to celebrate I think it was
Friday was the day of the week where
they did it she still wore the red
sweater and she she she didn't wear it
but she would hang it on the back of her
seat right put it on the back of her
seat at the office they said no no no
you can't do that either so the iron is
in the name of this capital D diversity
which is creating a supposedly welcoming
workplace for all kinds of Americans by
focusing only on certain kinds of
so-called diversity that translates into
actually not even a diversity of your
genetics which is what they claim to be
solving for but also a host ility to
diversity of thought and I think that's
dangerous and you're seeing that happen
in the last four years across this
country it's been pretty rampant I think
it leaves America worse off the beauty
of America is we're a country where we
should be able to have institutions that
are stronger from different points of
view being expressed but my number one
criticism of the Dei agenda is not even
that it's anti meritocratic it is anti
meritocratic but my number one criticism
is actually hostile to the free and open
exchange of ideas by creating off legal
liabilities for organizations that even
permit certain viewpoints to be
expressed and I think that's the biggest
concern I think what mark would say is
that
diversity uh allows you to look for
talent in places where you haven't
looked before and therefore find really
special uh Talent special people I think
that's the case he made he did make that
case and it was a great conversation and
and my response to that is great that's
a good thing we don't need a
three-letter acronym to do that right
you don't need special programmatic Dei
incentives to do it because companies
are always going to seek in a truly free
market which I think we're missing in
the United States today for a lot of
reasons but in a truly free market
companies will have the incentive to
hire the best and brightest or else
they're going to be less competitive
versus other companies but you don't
need ESG Dei CSR regimes in part
enforced by the government to do it
today to be a government contractor for
example you have to adopt certain racial
and gender representation targets and
Workforce that's not the free market
working so I think you can have it both
ways either it's going to be good for
companies and companies are going to do
what's in their self-interest that's
what capitalists like Mark Cuban and I
believe but if we really believe that
then we should let the market work
rather than forcing it to adopt these
top- down standards that's my issue with
it I don't know what it is about human
psychology but whenever you have a sort
of administration a committee that gets
together to do a good thing the
committee starts to use the good thing
that ideology behind which there's a
good ideal to bully people and to do bad
things I don't know what it is this has
less to do with leftwing versus
right-wing ideology and more the nature
of a bureaucracy is one that looks after
its own existence as its top goal so so
part of what you've seen with the
so-called perpetuation of wokeness in
American life is that the bureaucracy
has used the appearance of virtue to
actually deflect accountabilities for
its own failure so you've seen that in
several different spheres of American
life you could even talk about in the
military right you think about our entry
into Iraq after 911 had nothing to do
with the stated objectives that we had
and I think by all accounts it was it
was a policy move we regret our policy
ranks and our foreign policy
establishment made a mistake in entering
Iraq invading a country that really by
all accounts was not at all responsible
for 911
nonetheless if you're part of the US
military or your general Mark Millie you
would rather talk about white Rage or
systemic racism then you would actually
talk about the military's actual
substantive failures it's what I call
the practice of blowing woke smoke to
deflect accountability can say the same
thing with respect to the educational
system it's a lot easier to claim that
and I'm not the one making this claim
but others have made this claim that
math is racist because there are
inequitable results on objective tests
of mathematics based on different
demographic attributes you can claim
using that that math is racist it's a
lot easier to blow that woke smoke than
it is to accept accountability for
failing to teach black kids in the inner
city how to actually do math and fix our
Public School Systems and the and the
zip code coded mechanism for trapping
kids in poor communities in bad schools
so I think that in many cases what these
bureaucracies do is they use the
appearance of signaling this virtue as a
way of not really advancing a social
cause but it's strengthening the power
of the bureaucracy itself and insulating
that bureaucracy from criticism so so in
many ways bureaucracy I think carves the
channels through which much of this woke
ideology has flowed over the last
several years and that's why part of my
focus has shifted away from just
combating wokeness because that's just a
symptom I think versus combating actual
bureaucracy itself the rise of this
managerial class the rise of the deep
State we talk about that in the
government but the Deep State doesn't
just exist in the government it exists I
think in every sphere of Our Lives from
companies to non-profits to universities
it's the rise of you call the managerial
class the committee class the people who
professionally sit on committees I think
are wielding far more power today than
actual creators entrepreneurs original
ideators and and ordinary citizens alike
yeah you need managers but as few as
possible uh it seems like when you have
a giant managerial class they the actual
doers don't get to to do uh but like you
said
bureaucracy is uh a phenomena of both
the left and the right this is not it's
not even a left or right it's it's it's
just transcends that but it's
anti-American at its core so our
founding fathers they were
anti-bureaucratic at their core actually
they were the Pioneers the Explorers the
unafraid right they were the inventors
the creators people forget this about
Benjamin Franklin who signed the
Declaration of Independence one of the
great inventors that we have in the
United States as well he invented the
lightning rod he invented the Franklin
stove which was actually one of the
great Innovations of the in the field of
thermodynamics he even invented a number
of musical instruments that Mozart and
Beethoven went on to use that's just
Benjamin Franklin so you think oh he's a
one-off everybody think okay he was the
one zany founder who was also a creative
scientific innovator who happened to be
one of the founders of the country wrong
it wasn't unique to him you have Thomas
Jefferson what what are you sitting in
right now you're sitting in a on a
swivel chair mhm okay who invented the
swivel chair Thomas Jefferson yes Thomas
Jefferson funny enough he invented the
swivel chair while he was writing the
Declaration of Independence you you're
the one that reminded me that he drafted
he wrote the Declaration of Independence
when he was 33 and he was 33 when he did
it while inventing the swivel chair I
like how you're focus on the swivel
chair can we just pause on the de
aration of Independence it makes me but
the Declaration of the Declaration of
Independence part everybody knows what
people don't know he was an architect so
he worked in Virginia but the Virginia
state capital Dome so the building
that's in Virginia today where the state
capital is that Dome was actually
designed by Thomas Jefferson as well so
these people weren't people who sat on
professional committees they weren't
bureaucrats they hated
bureaucracy part of Old World England is
Old World England was committed to the
idea of bureaucracy bureaucracy and
monarchy go hand inand a monarch can't
actually administer or govern directly
requires a bureaucracy a machine to
actually technocratic govern for him so
the United States of America was founded
on the idea that we reject that old
world view right the Old World Vision
was that we the people cannot be trusted
to self-govern or make decisions for
ourselves we would burn ourselves off
the planet is the modern version of this
with existential risks like global
climate change if we just leave it to
the people and their Democratic will
that's why you need professional
technocrats educated Elites enlightened
bureaucrats to be able to set the limits
that actually protect people from their
own worst impulses that's the old world
view in most nations in human history
have operated this way but what made the
United States of America
itself to know what made America great
we have to know what made America itself
what made America itself is we said hell
no to that Vision that we the people for
better wor are going to self-govern
without the committee class restraining
what we do and the likes of Jefferson
and Benjamin Franklin and I could give
you examples of John Adams or Robert
Livingston you could go straight down
the list of founding fathers who are
inventors creators Pioneers explorers
who also were the very people who came
together to sign the Declaration of
Independence and so yeah this rise of
bureaucracy in America in every sphere
of life I view it as anti-American
actually and and I hope that you know
conservatives and liberals alike can can
get behind my crusade certainly to get
in there and and shut most of it
down yeah speaking of shutting most of
it down how do you propose we do that
how do we make government more efficient
how do make it smaller what the diff
What are the different ideas of how to
do that well the first thing I will say
is you're always taking a risk okay
there's there's no Freel lunch here
mostly at least you're always taking a
risk one risk is that you say I want to
reform it grad ually I want to have a
grand master plan and get to exactly
what the Right End state is and then
carefully cut with a chisel like a work
of art to get there I don't believe that
approach works I think that's an
approach that conservatives have taken
for many years I think it hasn't gotten
us very far and the reason is if you
have like an eight-headed Hydra and you
cut off one of the heads it grows right
back the other risk you could take so
that's the risk of not cutting enough
the other risk you could take is the
risk of cutting too much
to say that I'm going to cut so much
that I'm going to take the risk of not
just cutting the fat but also cutting
some muscle along the way that I'm going
to take that
risk I can't give you option C which is
to say that I'm going to cut exactly the
right amount I'm going to do it
perfectly okay you don't know X anti you
don't know beforehand that it's exactly
how it's going to go so that's a
meaningless claim it's only a question
of which risk you're going to take I
believe in the moment we live in right
now the second risk is the risk we have
to be willing to take and we haven't had
we haven't had a class of
politician I Donald Trump in 2016 was I
think the closest we've gotten and I
think the second term will be even even
closer to what we need but short of that
I don't think we've really had a class
of politician who has gotten very
serious about cutting so much that
you're also going to cut some fat but
not only some fat but also some muscle
that's the risk we have to take so what
would I the way I would do it 75%
headcount reduction across the board in
the federal bureaucracy send them home
packing shut down agencies that
shouldn't exist resend every
unconstitutional regulation that
Congress never passed in a true
self-governing democracy it should be
our elected representatives that make
the laws and the rules not unelected
bureaucrats and that is the single
greatest form of economic stimulus we
could have in this country but it is
also the single most effective way to
restore self-governance in our country
as well and it is the blueprint for I
think how we save this country that's
pretty gangsters
75% uh there's this kind of almost meme
like video of uh Argentinian president
Harry
MLA we're on a whiteboard he has all the
I think 18 Ministries lined up and he's
like he's ripping like dep Department of
Education gone and he's just gone like
this uh now the situation in Argentina
is pretty dire mhm and and the situation
in United un States is not despite
everybody saying oh the Empire is
falling this is still in my opinion the
greatest nation on Earth still the
econom is doing very well still there's
this is the Hub of culture The Hub of uh
Innovation The Hub of so many amazing
things um do you think it's possible to
do something like firing
75% of people in government when things
are going relatively well
yes in fact I think it's necessary and
essential I think things are depends on
depends on what your level of well
really is what your benchmarking against
America's not built on complacency right
we're built on the pursuit of excellence
and are we still the greatest nation on
planet Earth I believe we are I agree
with you on that but are we great as we
could possibly be or even as we have
been in the past measured against our
own standards of excellence no we're not
I think the nation is in a trajectory of
decline that doesn't mean it's the end
the Empire yet but we are a nation in
Decline right now I don't think we have
to be but part of that decline is driven
by the rise of this managerial class the
bureaucracy sucking the lifeblood out of
the country sucking the lifeblood out of
our Innovative culture a culture of
self-governance so is it possible yeah
it's really possible I mean I'll tell
you one easy way to do it this is a
little bit I'm being a little bit glib
here but I think it's not crazy at least
as a thought experiment getting there on
day one say that anybody in the federal
bureaucracy Who Was Not Elected elected
representatives obviously are elected by
the people but if the people who were
not
elected if your social security number
ends in an odd number you're out if it
ends in an even number you're in there's
a 50% cut right there of those who
remain if your social security number
starts in an even number you're in and
if it starts with an odd number you're
out boom that's a 75% reduction then
literally stastically okay one of the
virtu of that it's a thought experiment
not a policy prescription but one of the
virtues of that thought experiment is
that you don't have a bunch of lawsuits
you're dealing with about gender
discrimination or racial discrimination
or political Viewpoint discrimination
actually the reality is you've at Mass
you didn't bring the Chisel you brought
a chainsaw I guarantee you do that on
day one and do number step two on day
two on day
three not a thing will have changed for
the ordinary American other than the
size of their government being a lot
smaller and more restrained spending a
lot less money to operate it and most
people have run a company especially
larger companies know this it's 25% of
the people who do 80 to 90% of the
useful work these government agencies
are no different so now imagine you
could do that same thought experiment
but not just doing it at random but do
it still at large scale while having
some Metric of screening for those who
actually had both the greatest
competence as well as the greatest
commitment and knowledge of the
Constitution that I think would
immediately raise not only the Civic
character of the United States now we
feel okay the people we elect to run the
government they've got the power back
they're running the government again as
opposed to the unelected bureaucrats who
wield the power today it would also
stimulate the economy I mean the
regulatory state is like a wet blanket
on the American economy most of it's
unconstitutional all we require is
leadership with a spine to get in there
and actually do what conservative
presidents have maybe gestured towards
and talked about but have not really
effectuated ever in modern history and
by the way that kind of thing would
attract the ultra component to actually
want to work in government exactly which
you're missing today because right now
the government would swallow them up
most competent people feel like that
Bure bureaucratic machine will swallow
them whole you clear the decks of 75% of
them real innovators can then show up
yeah you know there's kind of this
cynical view of capitalism where people
think that the only reason you do
anything is to earn more money but I
think a lot of people want to work in
government to build something that's
helpful to a huge number of people yeah
well look I think
um there's there's opportunities for the
very best to have large scale
impact in all kinds of different
institutions in our universities sure to
K through 12 education through
entrepreneurship I'm obviously very
biased in that regard I think there's a
lot you're able to create that you
couldn't create through government but I
do think in the moment that we live in
where our government is as broken as it
isn't is as responsible for the
declining nature of our country yeah I
think bringing in people who are
unafraid talented and able to have an
impact could make all of the difference
and and I agree with you I don't think
actually most people even most people
who say they're motivated by money I
don't think they're actually motivated
by money I think most people are driven
by a belief that they can do more than
they're being permitted to do right now
with their skill sets see I've never
I'll tell you that so I've run I've run
a number of companies and one of the
things that I used to ask when I was you
know I'm not day-to-day involved in them
anymore but as a CEO I would ask when I
did interviews and the first company I
started at royan like for four years in
I we you know company was pretty big by
that point I would still intent on
interviewing every candidate before they
joined screening for the culture of that
person I can talk a lot more about
things we did to build that culture but
one the questions I would always ask
them naturally just to start a
conversation it's a pretty basic
question is why did you leave your last
job or why are you leaving your last
job I'll tell you what I didn't hear
very often is that I wasn't paid enough
right and maybe they'd be shy to tell
you that during an interview but there's
indirect ways to signal that that really
wasn't at all like even a top 10 reason
why people were leaving their job I'll
give you what the number one reason was
is that they felt like they were unable
to do the true maximum of what their
potential was in their prior role that's
the number one reason people leave their
job and you know I think by the way
that's I would say that I'm saying that
in a self- boastful way that we would
attract these people I think it's also
true for most of the people who left the
company as well Roy vent right and and
and it's and that was true at royin true
at other companies I've I've started I
think the number one reason people join
companies number one people leave
companies whether they've been to join
mine or to leave mine in the past have
been that they feel like they're able to
do more than they're able to with their
skill set than that environment permits
them to actually achieve and so I think
that's what people hung for when we
think about capitalism and true free
market capitalism and we used words
earlier like
meritocracy it's about building a system
whether it's in a nation or whether it's
even within an organization that allows
every individual to flourish and achieve
the maximum of their potential and
sometimes it just doesn't match for an
organization where let's say the mission
is here and somebody's skill sets could
be really well aligned to a different
mission
then the right answer is it's not a
negative thing it's just that that
person needs to leave and find their
mission somewhere else but to bring that
back to government I think part of
what's happened right now is that the
rise of that bureaucracy in so many of
these government agencies has actually
obfuscated the mission of these agencies
I I I think if you went to most federal
bureaucracies and just asked him like
what's the mission I'm just making one
up off the top of my head right now the
Department of Health and Human Services
what is the mission of HHS in the United
States of
America I doubt somebody who works there
even the person who leads it could give
you a coherent answer to that question I
I just I just heavily doubt it and you
could fill in the blank for you know any
range of the Department of Commerce I
mean it could go straight down the list
of each of these other ones what is the
mission of this organization you can
even say for the US military what's the
purpose of the US military the
Department of Defense I can give you one
I think it is to win Wars and more
importantly through its strength to
avoid Wars that's it well okay if that's
the mission then you know okay it's not
tinkering around and messing around in
some foreign conflict where we kind of
feel like it sometimes and other ones
where we don't and who decides that I
don't really know but whoever the people
are that decide that we follow those
orders no our mission is to protect the
United States of America to win Wars and
to avoid Wars boom those three things
what does protecting the United States
of America mean number one the homeland
of the United States of America and the
people who reside there okay that's a
clear Mission I mean the Department of
Health and Human Services maybe could be
a reasonable mission to say that I want
to make America the healthiest country
on planet Earth and we will develop the
metrics and meet those metrics and
that's the goal of the Department of HHS
to set policies or at least to implement
policies that best achieve that goal but
you can't and maybe that's the right
statement of the mission maybe it's not
but what one of the things that happens
is when you're governed by the committee
class it dilutes the sense of mission
out of any organization whether it's a
company or government agency or
bureaucracy and once you've done that
then you lose the ability to attract the
best and the brightest because in order
for somebody to achieve the maximum of
their potential they have to know what
it's towards there has to be a mission
in the first place then you're not
getting the best and brightest you get
more from the committee class and that
becomes a self-perpetuating downward
spiral and that is what the blob of the
federal bureaucracy really looks like
today yeah you said something really
profound at the individual scale of the
individual contributor doer Creator what
happens is you have a certain capacity
to do awesome and then there's
barriers that come up where you have to
wait a little bit this happens there's
friction always in when humans together
are working on something there's
friction and so the the goal of a great
company is to minimize that friction
minimize the number of
barriers and what happens is the
managerial class the incentive is is for
to create barriers that's what it does I
mean that's just by the nature of a
bureaucracy it creates sand in the gears
to slow down whatever the other process
was is there some room for that
somewhere in certain context sure it's
like a defensive mechanism that designed
to reduce dynamism but I think when you
when that becomes cancerous in its scope
it then actually kills the host itself
whether that's a school whether that's a
company whether that's a government and
so the way I think about it leex is
there's a there sort of a balance of
distributed power um I don't mean power
in the in the Fuko sense of social power
but I mean just sort of power in sense
of the ability to affect relevant change
and any organization between what you
could call the founder class the Creator
class the everyday citizen the
stakeholder class and then the
managerial class and there's a role for
all three of them right you could have
the constituents of an organization
saying a constitutional republic that's
the citizen you could have the the
equivalent of the Creator class the
people who create things in that that
poity and then you have the bureaucratic
class that's designed to administer and
serve as a liaison between the two I'm
not denying that there's some role
somewhere for people who are in that
managerial class but right now in this
moment in American history and I think
it's been more or less true for the last
century but it's grown starting with
woodro Wilson's Advent of the modern
administrative State metastasizing
through FDR's New Deal and what was
required to administer it blown over and
and metastasizing further through lbj's
Great Society and and everything that's
happened since even aided and embedded
by Republican presidents along the way
like Richard Nixon has created a United
States of America where that committee
class both in and outside the government
in our culture wields far too much
influence and power relative to the
everyday citizen stakeholder and to the
creators who are in many ways
constrained hamstr strong Shackled In a
straight jacket from achieving the
maximum of their own potential
contributions and um you know I I I
certainly feel that myself I you know I
probably identify as being a member of
that Creator class most closely this is
what I've done I create things and I
think we live in an environment in the
United States of America where we're
still probably the best country on Earth
where that creator has that shot so
that's the positive side of it but one
where we are far more constrictive to
the Creator class than we have been when
we've been at our best and that's what I
want to see change can you sort of Steal
man the perspective of somebody that
looks at a particular Department
Department of
Education and are saying that the amount
of pain that would be caused by closing
it and firing 75% of people will be too
much yeah so I go back to this question
of mission right A lot of people who
make Arguments for the Department of
Education aren't aware why the
Department of Education was created in
the first place actually so that might
be a useful place to start is that this
thing was created it had a purpose
presumably what was that purpose might
be at least a relevant question to ask
before we decide what are we doing with
it or not what was the purpose of this
thing that we created it's not
a it to me seems to like a highly
relevant question yet in this discussion
about government reform it's interesting
how eager people are to skip over that
question and just to talk about okay but
we got the status quo and it's just
going to be disruptive versus asking the
question of okay this institution was
created it had an original purpose is
that purpose still relevant is this
organization at all fulfilling that
purpose today to me those are some
relevant questions to ask so let's talk
about that for the Department of
Education its purpose was relevant at
that time which was to make sure that
localities in particularly states were
not siphoning dollars taxpayer dollars
away from predominantly black school
districts to predominantly white ones
and that was not a theoretical concern
at the time it was happening or there
was at least some evidence that that was
happening in certain states in the South
and so you may say you don't like the
federal solution you may say you like
the federal solution but like it or not
that was the original purpose of the US
Department of Education to make sure
that from a federal perspective states
were not systematically disadvantaging
black school districts over
predominantly white ones however Noble
and relevant that purpose may have been
six decades ago it's not a relevant
purpose today there's no evidence today
of States intentionally mapping out
which are the black versus white school
districts and siphoning money in One
Direction versus another to the contrary
one of the things we've learned is that
the school districts in the inner city
many of which are predominantly black
actually spend more money per student
than other school districts for a worse
result as measured by test scores and
other performance on a per student basis
suggesting that there are other factors
than the dollar expenditures per School
determining Student Success and actually
suggesting that even the overfunding of
some of those already poorly run schools
rewards them for their actual
bureaucratic
failures so against that backdrop the
Department of Education has instead
extra lated that original purpose of
what was a racial equality purpose to
instead Implement a different vision of
racial Equity through the ideologies
that they demand in the content of the
curriculum that these public schools
actually teach so Department of
Education funding so Federal funding
accounts for about you know giving you
round numbers here but around 10% of the
funding of most public schools across
the country but that comes with strings
attached so in today's Department of
Education this didn't happen Back in
1970 but it's happening today ironically
it's funny how these things change with
the bureaucracies that fail they blow
Oak smoke to cover up for their own
failures what happens with today's
Department of Education they effectively
say you don't get that funding unless
you adopt certain goals deemed at
achieving racial or gender Equity goals
and in fact they also intervene in the
curriculum where there's evidence of
schools in the midwest or in the Great
Plains that have been denied funding
because Department of Education funding
so long as they have certain subjects
like archery there was one instance of a
school that had archery in its
curriculum I I find that to be pretty
interesting actually I think that I
think you have different kinds of
physical education this is one that
combines mental focus with physical
aptitude but hey maybe I'm biased
doesn't matter whether you like archery
or not I don't think it's the federal
government's job to withhold funding
from a school because they include
something in their curriculum that the
federal government deems inappropriate
where that locality found that to be a
relevant locus of
education so what you see then is an
abandonment of the original purpose
that's long passed you don't have this
problem that the Department of Education
was originally formed to solve of
siphoning money from black school
districts to white school districts and
laundering that effectively in public
funds that doesn't exist anymore so they
find new purposes instead creating a lot
more damage along the way so you asked
me to steal man it and can I say
something constructive rather than just
you know pounding down on the other side
one way to think about this is for a lot
of these
agencies were many of them formed with a
positive intention at the outset
yes where that positive intention
existed I'm still a skeptic of creating
bureaucracies but if you're going to
create one at least make
it what should we call it uh a task
force make it a task force a task force
versus an agency means after it's done
you celebrate you've done your work pat
yourself on the back and then move on
rather than creating a standing
bureaucracy which actually finds things
to do after it has already solved or
addressed the first reason it was born
in the first place and I think we don't
have enough of that in our culture right
I mean even if you have a company that's
generated tons of cash flow and it's
solved a problem let's say it's a let's
say it's a biopharmaceutical company
that developed a cure to some disease
and the only thing people knew at that
company was how to develop a cur to that
disease and they generated a boatload of
cash from doing it at a certain point
you could just give it to your
shareholders and closeup shop and that's
actually a beautiful thing to do you
don't see that happen enough in the
American Consciousness and the American
culture of when an institution has
achieved its purpose celebrate it and
then move on and I think that that
culture in our government would result
in a vastly restrained scope of
government rather than today it's a
one-way ratchet once you cause it to
come into existence you cause new things
to come into existence but the old one
that came into existence continues to
persist and exist as well and that's
where you get this metastasis over the
last century so what kind of things do
you think government should do that the
private sector the forces of capitalism
would would create drastic inequalities
or create the kind of pain we don't want
to have in government so if the question
is what should government do that the
private sector cannot I'll give you on
protect our
border I mean capitalism it's never
going to be the job of capitalists or
never going to be the capability or
inclination of capitalists to preserve a
national border and I think a nation
it's literally uh I think one of the
chapters of this book okay a nation
Without Borders is not a nation it's
almost a tipology an open border is not
a border capitalism is not going to
solve that what's going to solve that a
nation part of the job of the federal
government is to protect the homeland of
its nation in this case the United
States of America that's an example of a
proper function of the federal
government to provide physical security
to its citizens another proper role of
that federal government is to look after
or or in this case could be state
government to make sure that private
parties cannot externalize their costs
onto somebody else without their consent
it's a fancy way economist would use to
describe it what does that mean means if
you go dump your chemicals in somebody
else's River then you're liable for that
it's not that okay I'm a capitalist and
so I want to create things and I'm going
to do hell or high water whether or not
that harms people around me the job of a
proper government is to make sure that
you protect the rights of those who may
be harmed by those who are pursuing
their own rights through a system of
capitalism in seeking Prosperity you're
free to do it but if you're hurting
somebody else without their consent in
the process the government is there to
enforce what is really just a different
form of enforcing a private property
right so I would say that those are two
Central functions of government is to
preserve National boundaries and the
National Security of a Homeland and
number two is to protect and preserve
private property rights and the
enforcement of those private property
rights and I think at that point you've
described about 80 to 90% of the proper
role of a government what about
infrastructure look I think that most
infrastructure can be dealt with through
the private sector I mean you can get
into specifics you could infrastructure
that's specific to National Security no
I do think that military-industrial base
is essential to provide National
Security that's a form of infrastructure
I don't think you could rely exclusively
on the private sector to provide the
optimal level of that protection to a
nation but you know interstate highways
you know I think you could think about
whether or not that's a common good that
everybody benefits from but nobody has
the incentive to create I think you
could make an argument for the existence
of of interstate highways I think you
could also make powerful Arguments for
the fact that actually you could have
have enough private sector co-ops that
could cause that to come into existence
as well but you know I'm not going to be
I'm not I'm not U dogmatic about this
but broadly speaking 80 to 90% of the
goal of the federal government I'm not
going to say 100 80 to 90% of the goal
of the existence of a federal government
should be to of government period should
be to protect National boundaries and
provide security for the people who live
there and to protect the private
property rights of the people who reside
there if we restore that I think we well
on our way to a Revival of what our
founding fathers envisioned and I think
many of them would give you the same
answer that I just did so if we get
government out of Education would you be
also for reducing the size of government
in the states for educ for something
like I here if it goes closer to
municipalities and States I'm fine with
that being a locust for people
determining as for example let's just
say school districts are taxed at the
local level for that to be a matter for
municipalities and townships to actually
decide democratically how they actually
want that govern whether it's balance
between a public school district versus
making that same money available to
families in the form of vouchers or
other forms of of ability to educational
savings accounts or whichever mechanism
it is to opt out of that if that's done
locally I'll have views on that that
tend to go further in the direction of
true educational choice and diversity of
choice the implementation of charter
schools the granting of State Charters
or even lowering the barriers to
granting one I favor those kinds of
policies but if we've gotten the federal
government out of it that's achieved 75%
of what I think we need to achieve that
I'm focused on solving other problems
and leave that to the states and
municipalities to to cover from there so
given this conversation uh what do you
think of elon's proposal of the
Department of government efficiency in
in the uh Trump Administration or really
any Administration I'm I'm uh of course
biased because El and I had discussed
that for the better part of the last
year and a half and so I think it's a
great idea it's something that's very
consistent with the core premise of my
presidential candidacy I got to know him
as I was running for US president in a
couple of events that he came to and
then we built a friendship after that so
obviously I think it's a great idea who
do you think is more hardcore on The
Cutting you or Elon well I think uh Elon
is elon's pretty hardcore um I I said
75% of the federal bureaucrats and while
I was running for president he said you
need to put at least 75 % so so I agree
with him I think I would U I think it'd
be a fun competition to see who ends up
who ends up more hardcore I think he I
don't think there's someone out there
who's going to be more hardcore than
here I would be and the reason is I
think we're both we share in
common a willingness to take the risk
and see what happens I mean the sun will
still rise in the east and set in the
west that much I guarantee you is there
going to be some broken glass and some
damage yes there is there's no way
around that but once you willing to take
that risk then it doesn't become so
scary anymore and and here's the thing
Lex it's so it's easy to say this let's
talk about where the rubber hits the
road here even in even in second Trump
term this would be you know the
discussion president Trump and I had
this conversation but I think we would
continue to have this conversation
is where does it rank on our
prioritization list because there's
always going to be a
trade-off if you have a different policy
objective that you want to achieve a
good policy objective whatever that is
right you could talk about immigration
policy you could talk about Economic
Policy there are other policy
objectives you're going to trade off a
little bit in the short run the
effectiveness of your ability to carry
out that policy goal if you're also
committed to actually thinning out the
federal government by 75% because
there's just going to be some clunkiness
right and there's just going to be
frictional costs for that level of cut
so the question is where does that rank
on your prioritization list to pull that
off to pull off a 75% reduction in the
size and scale of the federal government
the regulatory State and the
headcount I think that only happens if
that's your top priority you could do it
at a smaller scale but at that scale it
only happens if that's your top priority
because then as president you're in a
position to say I know in the super
short run that might even make it a
little bit harder for me to do this
other thing that I want to do and use
the regulatory state to do it but I'm
going to pass on that I'm going to pass
that up I'm going to bear that hardship
and inconvenience because I know this
other goal goal is more important on the
scale of decades and centuries for the
country so it's a question of
prioritization and and certainly my own
view is that now is a moment where that
needs to be a top priority for saving
this country and you if there's one
thing about my campaign I was if I was
to do it
again I would be even clearer about
because I talked about a lot of things
in the campaign and we can cover a lot
of that too but if there's one thing
that I care about more than anything
else is dismantling that bureaucracy and
more moreover it is
a it's an assault and a crusade on the
nanny State itself and that Nanny State
presents itself in several forms there's
the entitlement State that's the welfare
state presents itself in the form of the
regulatory State that's what we're
talking about and then there's the
foreign Nanny state where effectively we
are subsidizing other countries that
aren't paying their fair share of
protection or other resources we provide
them if I was to summarize my ideology
in a nutshell it is to terminate The
Nanny state in the United States of
America in all of its forms the
entitlement State the regulatory State
and the foreign policy in any state once
we've done that we've revived the
Republic that I think would make George
Washington
proud so you mentioned Department of
Education but there's also the
Department of Defense yeah and there's a
very large number of very powerful
people that have gotten used to and a
budget that's increasing mhm and the
number of wars and military conflicts
that's increasing so if we could just
talk about that so this is the number
one
priority it's like uh there's difficulty
levels here the
dod uh would be probably the hardest so
let's take that on what's what's your
view on uh the military industrial
complex Department of Defense and wars
in general so I think the I said the
nanny state I'm against it overall I'm
against the foreign policy Nanny State
as well let's let me start from that as
the starting off point then I'll tell
you about my views on the dod and our
defense first of all I I think that and
and I think that it was easy for many
people from the neocon school of thought
to caricature My Views with the media at
their side but actually my own view is
if it's in the interest of the United
States of America to provide certain
levels of protection to us allies we can
do that as long as those allies actually
pay for it and I think that's important
for two reasons the less important
reason still important reason the less
important reason is it's still money for
us right it's not like we're swimming in
a cash Surplus right now we're at $34
trillion national debt and growing and
you know I think pretty soon the
interest payments are going to be the
largest line item in our own federal
budget so it's not like we have money
willing Illy to just hand over for free
that's the less important reason though
the more important reason is that it
makes sure that our
allies have actual skin in the game to
not have skewed incentives to actually
enter conflicts where they're not
actually bearing the full cost of those
conflicts so take NATO for example most
NATO countries literally a majority of
NATO countries today do not pay or
contribute 2% of their GDP to their own
National Defense which is supposedly a
requirement to be in NATO so majority of
NATO countries are failing to meet their
basic commitment to be nato in the first
place Germany particularly is I think
Arbitrage the hell out of the United
States of America and I don't think that
the I'm not going to be some sort of you
know shrill voice here saying so
therefore we should not be supporting
any allies or providing security
blankets no I'm not I'm not going in
that direction what I would say is you
got to pay for it right pay for your
Fisher a because we're not swimming in
excess money ourselves but B is it tells
us that you actually have skin in the
game for your own defense which actually
then makes Nations far more prudent in
the risks that they take whether not the
end of War versus if somebody else is
paying for it and somebody else is
providing our security guarantee hey
again might as well you know take the
Gamble and see where I end up at the end
of a war versus the restraint that that
imposes on the decision-making of those
allies so now let's bring this bring
this home to the Department of Defense I
think the top goal of the US defense
policy establishment should be to
provide for the National Defense of the
United States of America and the irony
is that's what we're actually doing most
poorly we're not really using other than
the Coast Guard we're not really using
the US military to prevent Crossings at
our own Southern border and Crossings at
our other borders in fact the United
States of America our homeland I believe
is less secure today than it has been in
a very long time vulnerable to threats
from Hypersonic missiles where China and
Russia Russia certainly has capabilities
in excess of that of the United States
missiles Hypersonic means faster than
the speed of sound that could hit the
United States including those carrying
nuclear warheads we are more vulnerable
to Super EMP attacks electromagnetic
pulse attacks that could you know
without exaggeration some of this could
be from other nations some of this could
even be from solar flares cause
significant mass casualty in the United
States of America the electric Grid's
gone it's not an exaggeration to say if
that happened planes would be falling
out of the sky because our chips really
depend on those electromag well would be
affected by those electromagnetic pulses
more vulnerable to cyber attacks I know
this oh people okay start yawning and
say okay boring stuff super P cyber
whatever now actually it is pretty
relevant to whether or not you actually
are facing the risk of not getting your
insulin because your refrigerator
doesn't work anymore or your food can't
be stored or your car or your or your
ability to fly in an airplane is
impaired okay so I think that these are
serious risks where our own National
defense spending has been wholly
inadequate so I'm not one of these
people that says oh we decrease versus
increase National defense spending we're
not spending it in the right places the
number one place we need to be spending
it is actually in protecting our
National Defense and I think protecting
our own physical Homeland and I think we
actually need an increase in spending on
protecting our own Homeland but that is
different from the agenda of foreign
interventionism and foreign Nanny State
ISM for its own sake where we should
expect more and demand more of our
allies to provide for their own National
Defense and then provide the relevant
security guarantees to allies where that
actually advances the interest of the
United States of America so that's what
I believe and you know I think this
process has been corrupted by what D
Eisenhower famously in his farewell
address called the military-industrial
complex in the United States but I think
it's it's bigger than just the you know
I think it's easy to tell the tales of
the financial corruption it's a kind of
cultural corruption and conceit that
just because certain number of people in
that expert class have a belief that
their belief happens to be the right one
because they can scare you with what the
consequence would be if you don't follow
their
advice and one of the beauties of the
United States is at least in principle
we have civilian control of the military
the person who we elect to be the US
president is the one that actually is
the true commander-in-chief I I have my
doubts of whether it operates that way I
think it is quite obvious that Joe Biden
is not a functioning commander-in-chief
of the United States of America yet on
paper supposedly we still are supposed
to call him
that but at least in theory we're
supposed to have civilian control of the
US
Military and I think that one of the
things that that leader needs to do is
to ask the question of again the mission
what's the purpose of this US military
in the first place at the top of the
list should be to protect the Homeland
and the people who actually live here
which we're failing to do so that's
where I land on that question wait okay
there's a lot of stuff to ask first of
all on Joe Biden you mean he's
functionally not in control of the US
military because of the age factor or
because of the nature of the presidency
it's a good question I would say in his
case it's particularly accentuated
because it's
both in his case I don't think anybody
in America anymore believes that Joe
Biden is the functioning president of
the United States of America how could
he be he wasn't even sufficiently
functioning to be the candidate after a
debate that was held in June there's no
way he's going to be in a position to
make the most important decisions on a
daily and demanding basis to protect the
leading nation in the
world now more generally though I think
we have a deeper problem that even when
it's not Joe
Biden in general the people we elect to
run the government haven't really been
the ones running the government it's
been the unelected Bure bureaucrats and
the bureaucratic deep State underneath
that's really been making the decisions
I um so I've done business in a number
of places I've traveled to Japan there's
an interesting corporate
analogy sometimes you get out if you get
outside of politics people can I find um
listen and pay attention a little bit
more because of politics is so fraught
right now that if you start talking to
somebody who disagrees with you about
the politics of it you're just butting
heads but not really making progress so
let's just make the same point but go
outside of politics for a second so I
was traveling in Japan I was having a
late night dinner with a CEO of a
Japanese pharmaceutical company and you
know it takes a while to really get him
to open up culturally speaking in Japan
you know couple nights of karaoke and
and uh you know whatnot maybe late late
night uh late night restaurant whatever
it is we we built a good enough
relationship where he was he was very
candid with me he said uh I'm the COO of
the
company I could go and find the head of
a Research Unit and tell him okay this
is a project we're no longer working on
as a company we don't want to spend
money on it we're going to spend money
somewhere else and he'll looked me in
the eye and he'll say yes sir yes sir
I'll come back six months later and find
that they're spending exactly the same
amount of money on those exact same
projects and I'll tell them no we agreed
I told you that you're not going to
spend money on this project and we have
to stop now it should have stopped six
months ago get a slap on the wrist for
it he says yes sir I'm sorry yes no no
of course that's correct come back six
months later same person is spending the
same money on the same project and
here's why historically in Japan and I
should say in Japan this is changing now
it's changing now but historically until
very recently and even to an extent now
it's near impossible to fire people so
if somebody works for you and you can't
fire them that means they don't actually
work for you it means in some deeper
perverse sense you work for them because
you're responsible for what they do
without any authority to actually change
it so I think most people have traveled
in Japan and Japanese corporate culture
through the 1990s and 2000s and 2010s
and maybe even some vestiges in the
2020s wouldn't really dispute what I
just told you now we're bringing back to
the more contentious terrain I think
that's basically how things have worked
in the executive branch of the federal
government of the United States of
America you have these so-called Civil
Service protections on the books now if
you really read them carefully I think
that there are areas to provide daylight
for a truly constitutionally
well-trained president to act but aart
from those that's a contrarian view that
I have that bucks conventional wisdom
but apart from that caveat in general
the conventional view has been the US
president can't fire these people
there's 4 million Federal bureaucrats
99.9% of them can't be touched by the
person who the people who elected to run
the executive branch can't even fire
those people it's like the equivalent of
that Japanese CEO and so that culture
exists every bit as much in the federal
bureaucracy of the United States of
America as it did in Japanese corporate
culture through the N 1990s and that's a
lot of what's wrong with not just the
way that our Department of Defense is
run and our foreign policy establishment
has run but I think it applies to a lot
of the domestic policy establishment as
well and to come back to the core Point
how are we going to save this Republic
this is the debate in the conservative
movement right now this is a little bit
maybe a little bit spicy for some
Republicans to to to sort of swallow
right now and you know my top focus is
making sure that we win the election but
let's just move the ball forward a
little bit and skate to where the puck
is going here okay yes let's say we win
the election all is well and dandy okay
what's the philosophy that determines
how we govern there's a little bit of a
fork in the road amongst conservatives
where there are there are those who
believe that the right answer now is to
use that regulatory State and use those
levers of power to advance our own
pro-conservative pro-american pro-worker
goals and I'm sympathetic to all of
those goals but I don't think that the
right way to do it is to create a
conservative regulatory state that
replaces a liberal regulatory State I
think the right answer is actually to
get in there and shut it down I don't
want to replace the leftwing nanny state
with the right-wing Nanny State I want
to get in there and actually dismantle
The Nanny State and I think it has been
a long time in the United States maybe
ever in modern history that we've had
a conservative leader at the national
level who makes it their principal
objective to dismantle The Nanny state
in all of its forms the entitlement
State the regulatory State and the
foreign policy Nanny
state that was a
core focus of my candidacy one of the
things that I uh wish and this on me not
anybody else that I should have done
better was to make that more Crystal
clear as a focus without getting
distracted by a lot of the a lot of the
shenanigans let's just say that happen
as side shows during a presidential
campaign but call that a lesson learned
because I do think it's what the country
needs now more than ever yeah it's a
it's a really really powerful idea I
it's actually something that Donald
Trump ran on in uh 2016 it's drain the
swamp drain the swamp I think by most
accounts maybe you can disagree with me
he did not successfully do so he did
fire a bunch of people more than usual
can I say a word about the conditions he
was operating in because I think this
why I'm far more excited for this time
around is that a lot has changed in the
legal landscape so Donald Trump did not
have the Supreme Court backdrop in 2016
that he does today so there are some
really important cases that have come
down from the Supreme Court one is West
Virginia versus EPA I think it's
probably the most important case of Our
Generation in 2022 that came down and
said that if Congress has not passed a
rule into law itself through the halls
of Congress and it relates to what they
call a major question a major policy or
economic question it can't be done by
the stroke of a pen by a regulator an
unelected bureaucrat
either that quite literally means most
federal regulations today are
unconstitutional then this year comes
down a different big one another big one
from the Supreme Court in the Loper
brigh case which held that historically
for the last 50 years in this country
the doctrine has been it's called
Chevron Defence it's a doctrine that
says that federal courts have to
defer to an agency's interpretation of
the
law they now toss that out the window
and said no no no the federal courts no
longer have to defer to an agency's
interpretation of what the law actually
is the combination of those two cases is
seismic and its impact for the
regulatory State there's also another
great case that came down was SEC versus
jassy and and the SEC is one of these
agencies that embodies everything we're
talking about here the SEC among other
agencies has tribunals inside that not
only do they write the rules not only do
they enforce those rules they also have
these judges inside the agency that also
interpret the rules and determine and do
out
punishments that doesn't make sense with
you believe in separation of powers in
the United States so the Supreme Court
put an end to that and said that that
practice at the SEC is unconstitutional
actually as a side note the Supreme
Court has said countless practices and
rules written by the SEC the EPA the FTC
in recent years were outright
unconstitutional think about what that
means for a a constitutional republic
that supposedly these law enforcement
agencies the courts have now said
especially this year the courts have now
said that their own behaviors actually
break the law so the very agencies
entrusted with supposedly enforcing the
law are actually behaving with utter
blatant disregard for the law itself
that's unamerican it's not tenable in
the United States of America but
thankfully we now have a supreme court
that recognizes that so you know whether
or not we have a second Trump term well
that's up to the voters but even whether
or not that now takes advantage of that
backdrop the Supreme Court has given us
to actually gut the regulatory State
we'll find out I I'm optimistic I
certainly think it's the best chance
that we've had in a generation in this
country and that's a big part of why I'm
supporting Donald Trump and well I'm
gonna do everything in my power to help
him but I do think it is going to take a
spine of Steel to see that through and
then after we've taken on the regulatory
State I think that's the next step but I
do think there's this broader project of
dismantling The Nanny state in all of
its forms the entitlement State the
regulatory State and the foreign policy
in any state three-word answer if I was
to summarize my worldview and uh my
presidential campaign in three words
shut it down shut it down okay so the
the Supreme Court cases you
mentioned there's a lot of nuance there
yeah I guess it's weakening the immune
system of the different departments yeah
it's a good way of putting it y on the
human psychology level so you basically
kind of implied that for Donald Trump or
for any
president the the legal situation was
difficult is that the only thing really
operating like isn't it just on a
psychological level just
uh hard yeah to fire a very large number
of people is that what it is like why is
there a basic Civility and momentum
going on there's one other Factor so so
so you're right to point I mean the
legal backdrop is is a valid
understandable excuse in reason um I
think there are other factors at play
too so I think there's something to be
said for never having been in government
showing up there the first time and
you're having to understand the rules of
the road as you're operating within them
and also having to depend on people who
actually aren't aligned with your policy
Vision but tell you to your face that
they are and so I think that's one of
the things that I've admired about
President Trump is he's actually been
very open about that very humble about
that to say that there's a million
learnings from that first term that make
him ambitious and more ambitious in that
second term but everything I'm talking
to you about this is what needs to
happen in the country it's not specific
to Donald Trump it's it's lays out what
needs to be done in the country there's
the next four years Donald Trump is our
last best hope and chance for moving
that ball forward but I think that the
the vision I'm laying out here is one
that hopefully goes even Beyond just the
next two or four years of really fixing
a Century's worth of mistakes I think
we're going to fix a lot of them in the
next four years of Donald Trump's
president but if you have a Century's
worth of mistakes that have accumulated
with the overgrowth of the entitlement
state in the US I think it's going to
take you know probably the better part
of a decade at least to actually fix
them I disagree with you on both the
last and the best
hope uh I Donald Trump is more likely to
fire a lot of people but is he the best
person to do so we got two candidates
right people face a choice this is a
relevant election one of my goals is to
speak to people who may not agree with
100% of what Donald who do not agree
with 100% of what Donald Trump says and
I can tell them you know what I don't
agree with 100% of what he says and I
can tell you as somebody who ran against
him for us president that right now he
is when I say the last best hope I mean
in this cycle the last best hope that we
have for dismantling that bureaucratic
class and you know I think that I'm also
open about the fact that it's going to
take this is a long run project but we
have the next step to actually the next
step to actually take over the next few
years that's kind of where I land on it
I mean you you talked to him I guess a
few weeks ago I saw you had a podcast
with them right what was your impression
about his his preparedness to do it my
impression is his prity allocation was
different than yours I think he's more
focused on some of the other topics that
you are also Focus laser focused on and
there is aention there just as you've
clearly highlighted we share the same
priority with respect to the southern
border and that's that's those are
near-term fixes that we can hit out of
the park in the first year but at the
same time I think we got to think also
on decade long time Horizon so my own
view is um I think that I think that he
it is my conviction and belief that he
does care about dismantling that Federal
bureaucracy certainly more so than any
Republican nominee we have had in
certainly in my lifetime but I do think
that there are going to be competing
schools of thought where some will say
okay well we want to create a right-wing
entitlement state right to shower
Federal subsidies on favored Industries
while keeping them away from disfavored
Industries and new bureaucracies to
administer them and you know I I don't
come from that school of thought I don't
want to see the bureaucracy expand in a
pro-conservative dire I want to see the
bureaucracy shrink in every direction
and you know I do think that from my
conversations with Donald Trump I I
believe that he is well aligned with
this vision of shrinking bureaucracy but
that's a longer term project there's so
many priorities at play here though I
mean you really do have to do the Elon
thing of walking into Twitter
headquarters with a SN right let that
sink in that basically firing a very
large number of people and it's but it's
not just about the firing it's about
setting clear missions for the different
departments that remain uh hiring back
cuz you overfire hiring back uh based on
meritocracy and mean it's it's a
full-time and it's not it's not only
full-time in terms of actual time it's
full-time psychologically because you're
walking into a place unlike a company
like Twitter an already successful
company in government I mean everybody
around you all the experts and the advis
advisers are going to tell you you're
wrong mhm and and like it's a very
difficult psychological place to operate
in because like you're constantly the
and I mean the the certainty you
have to have about what you're doing is
just like nearly infinite because
everybody all the really smart people
are telling you no this is a terrible
idea sir this is a terrible idea you you
have to have the spine of Steel to cut
through what that short-term advice is
you're getting and I'll tell you uh
certainly you I I intend to do whatever
I can for this country both in the next
four years and Beyond but my voice on
this will be crystal clear and president
Trump knows that's my view on it and and
I believe he shares it deeply is that
all all equal getting there and shut
down a as much of the excess bureaucracy
as we can do it as quickly as possible
and that's a big part of how we save our
country okay I'll give you an example
that's really difficult tension given
your priorities immigration there's an
estimated 14 million illegal immigrants
in the United States you've spoken about
Mass deportation yes that requires a lot
of effort right money I mean like how do
you do it and how does that conflict
with the shutting it down sure and so it
goes back to that original discussion we
had is what is the what are the few
proper roles of the federal government I
gave you two one is of the government
period one is to protect the national
borders and sovereignty of the United
States and two is to protect private
property rights there's a lot else most
of what the government's doing today
both at the federal and state level is
something other than those two things
but in my book those are the two things
that are the proper function of
government so for everything else the
federal government should not be doing
the one thing they should be doing is to
protect the homeland of the United
States of America and the sovereignty
and sanctity of our national borders so
in that domain that's missional LED with
a proper purpose for the federal
government I Think We're a nation
founded on the rule of law I say this as
the kid of legal immigrants that means
your First Act of entering this country
cannot break the law and in some ways if
I was to summarize a a formula for
saving the country over the next four
years it would be a tale of two mass
deportations the mass deportations of
millions of illegals who are in this
country and should not be and then the
mass deportation of millions of
unelected federal bureaucrats out of
Washington DC now all sequel you could
say those are in ention but I think that
the reality is anything outside of the
scope of what the core function of the
government is which is protecting
borders and protecting private property
rights that's really where I think the
predominant Cuts need to be and and if
you look at the number of people who are
looking after the Border it's not even
0.1% of the federal employee Base today
so 75% isn't 99.99% it's 75% which still
leaves that it would still be a tiny
fraction of the remaining 25% which I
actually think needs to be more more
rather than less so it's a good question
but that's sort of where I land on when
it's a proper role of the Federal
Government Great ACT and actually do
your job the irony is
99.9999% of those resources are going to
functions other than the protection of
private property rights and the
protection of our national physical
protection there is a lot of criticism
of the idea of mass deportation though
so one fair enough it would cause uh a
large amount of economic harm at least
in the short term the other is there
would be potentially violations of our
kind of higher ideals of how we like to
treat human beings in particular
separation of families for example uh
tearing families apart um and the other
is just like the logistical complexity
of doing something like this how do you
answer to some of those criticism I
guess so fair enough or and I would call
those even not even criticisms but just
thoughtful questions right even if
somebody who's really aligned with doing
this those are thoughtful questions to
ask so I do want to say something about
this point on on uh how we think about
the breakage of the rule of law in other
contexts there are 350,000 mothers who
are in prison in the United States today
who committed crimes and were convicted
of them they didn't take their kids with
them to those prisons either right so we
Face difficult trade-offs in all kinds
of context as it relates to the
enforcement of Law and I just want to
make that basic observation against the
backdrop of if we're a nation founded on
the rule of law that a we acknowledge
that there are trade-offs to enforcing
the law and we've acknowledged that in
other contexts I don't think that we
should have a special exemption for
saying that somehow we weigh the other
way when it comes to the issue of the
Border We're a nation founded under the
rule of law we enforce laws that has
costs that has trade-offs but it's who
we are so that backdrop is and the
easiest fact I can cite is 350,000 or so
mothers who are in prison and did not
take their kids to prison with them is
that bad that is is is undesirable for
kids to grow up without those 350,000
mothers it is
but it's a difficult situation created
by people who violated the law and faced
the consequences of it which is also a
competing and important priority in the
country so that's in the domestic
context as it relates to this question
of mass deportations let's just get very
practical because all that was
theoretical very practically there's
ways to do this starting with people
have already broken the law people have
not just broken the law of entering but
are committing other crimes while
already here in the United States that's
a clear case for an instant Mass
deportation you have a lot of people who
haven't integrated into their
communities you think about the economic
impact of this a lot of people are in
detention already a lot of those people
should be immediately returned to their
country of origin or at least what is
called a safe Third Country so safe
Third Country means even if somebody's
claiming to seek Asylum from political
persecution will move them to another
country that doesn't have to be the
United States of America that they
passed through say Mexico before
actually coming here other countries
around the world are doing this
Australia is detaining people they don't
let them out and live a normal joyful
life because they came to the country
they detained them until their case is
adjudicated well the rates of fraud in
Australia of what people lie about what
their conditions are is way lower now
than in the United States because people
respond to those incentives so I think
that in some ways people make this sound
much bigger and scarier than it needs to
be I fa taken a deeply pragmatic
approach and the North Star for me is I
want the policy that helps the United
States citizens who are already here
what's that policy clearly that's going
to be a policy that includes a large
number of deportations I think by
definition it's going to be the largest
mass deportation in American history
sounds like a punchline at a campaign
rally but actually it's just a factual
statement that says if we've had the by
far largest influx of illegal immigrants
in American history it just stands to
reason it's logic that okay if we're
going to fix that we're going to have
the largest mass deportation in American
history and we can be rational start
with people who are breaking the law in
other ways here in the United States
start with people who are already in
detention or entering detention now that
comes at no cost and strict benefit
there isn't there isn't even a little
bit of an economic trade-off then you
get to areas where you would say okay
the costs actually continue to outweigh
the benefits and that's exactly the way
our policy should be guided here I want
to do it with in as respectful and as
Humane of a manner as possible I mean
the reality is I think one of the things
we got to remember give the example I
gave with the Haitian case in
Springfield town that spent a lot of
time in growing up in Ohio I live about
an hour from there today I don't blame
the individual patients who came here
I'm not saying that they're bad people
cuz in that particular case those
weren't even people who broke the law in
coming here they came as part of a
program called temporary protective
status now the operative word there is
the first one
temporary they have been all kinds of
lawsuits there have been all kinds of
lawsuits for people who even 8 10 12 14
years after the earthquake in Haiti
where many of them came when they're
going to be removed their allegations of
racial discrimination or otherwise no
temporary protective status means it's
temporary and we're not abandoning the
rule of law when we send them back we're
abandoning the rule of law when we let
them stay now if that has a true benefit
to the United States of America
economically or otherwise go through the
paths that allow somebody to enter this
country for economic reasons but don't
do it through Asylum based claims or
temporary protected status I think one
of the features of our immigration
system right now is it is built on a lie
and it incentivizes lying the reason is
the arguments for keeping people the
country if those are economic reasons
but the people actually entered using
claims of Asylum or Refugee status those
two things don't match up so just be
honest about what our immigration system
actually is I think we do need dramatic
reforms to the legal immigration system
to select purposely for the people who
are going to actually improve the United
States of America I think there are many
people I know some of them right I I
gave a story of one guy who I met who is
a educated at our best universities or
among our best universities he went to
Princeton he went to Harvard Business
School he has a great job in the
investment Community he was a
professional tennis player he was a
concert pianist he could do a Rubik's
Cube in less than a minute I'm not
making this stuff up these are hard
facts he can't get a green card in the
United States he's been here for 10
years or something like this he asked me
for the best advice I could give him I
unfortunately could not give him the
actual best advice which would be to
just take a flight to Mexico and cross
the border and claimed to be somebody
who is seeking asylum in the United
States that would that would have been
morally wrong advice so I didn't give it
to him but practically if you were
giving him advice that would be the best
advice that you actually could give
somebody which is a broken system on
both sides people who are going to make
those contributions to the United States
and pledge allegiance to the United
States and speak our language and
assimilate we should have a path for
them to be able to add value to the
United States yet they're not the ones
who are getting in it's actually the
people our immigration system selects
for people who are willing to lie that's
what it does selects for people who are
willing to say they're seeking Refugee
status or seeking Asylum when in fact
they're not and then we have policy
makers who Li after the fact using
economic justifications to keep them
here but if it was an economic
justification that should have been the
criteria you used to bring them in the
first place not this illusion of Asylum
or Refugee status there was a case
actually even the New York Times
reported on this Believe It or Not of a
woman who came from
Russia fleeing Vladimir Putin's
intolerant LGBT
anti-lgbtq regime she was fleeing
persecution by the evil man Putin she
came here and event eventually when she
was pressed on the series of Lies it
came out that and she was crying finally
when she broke down and admitted this
she was like I'm not even gay I don't
even like gay people that's what she
said and yet she was pretending to be
some sort of lgbtq advocate who was
persecuted in Russia when in fact it was
just somebody who was seeking better
economic conditions in the United States
I'm not saying you're wrong to seek
better economic conditions in the United
States but you are wrong to lie about it
and that's what you're seeing a lot of
people even in this industry of of sort
of quote unquote tourism to the United
States they're having their kids in the
United States they go back to their home
country but their kids enjoy Birthright
citizenship that's built on a lie you
have people claiming to suffer from
persecution in fact they're just working
in the United States and then living in
these relative mansions in parts of
Mexico or Central America after they've
spent four five years making money here
just abandon the LIE let's just have an
immigration system built on honesty just
tell the truth if the argument is that
we need more people here for
economically filling jobs I'm skeptical
the extent to which a lot of those
arguments actually end up being true but
let's have that debate in the open
rather than having it through the back
door saying that it's Refugee and Asylum
status when we know it's a lie and then
we justify it after the fact by saying
that that economically helps the United
States cut the dishonesty and I just
think that that is a policy we would do
well to expand every sphere we talk
about from the military-industrial
complex to the rise of the managerial
class to a lot of what our government's
covered up about our own history to even
this question of immigration today just
tell the people the truth and I think
our government would be better serving
our people if it did yeah in the way you
describe eloquently the immigration
system is broken in that way that is
buil fundamentally on lies but there's
the other side of it you know illegal
immigrants are used in political
campaigns for fearmongering for example
so what I would like to understand is
what is the
actual harm that illegal immigrants are
causing so the the claim one of the more
intense claims uh is of crime and you
know I don't I haven't studied this
rigorously but sort of the surface level
studies all show that legal and illegal
immigrants commit less crime than americ
us I think that is true for legal
immigrants I think it's not true for
illegal immigrants that's not what I saw
so I in sort of in this this part of why
I wrote this book okay and I mean the
book is called truths so better Darwell
have well sourced facts in here right
can't be can't be made up hypotheses
hard truths and and there's a chapter
where even in my own research on it Lex
I me I know a lot about this issue from
my time as a presidential candidate but
even in writing the chapter On the
Border here I learned a lot from a lot
of different dimensions and some of
which even caused me to revise some of
my premises going into it okay my main
thesis in that chapter is forget the
demonization of of illegal or legal
immigrants or whatever as you put it
right Fe mry just put all that to one
side I want an immigration system that
is built
on honesty identify what the objective
is we could debate the objectives we
might have different opinions on the
objectives some people may say the
objective is the economic growth of the
United States I make that I air that
argument in this book and I think that
that's insufficient personally
personally I think you need the United
States is more than just an economic
zone it is a country it is a nation
bound together by Civic ideas Bill S I
think we need to screen not just for
immigrants who are going to make
economic contributions but those who
speak our language those who are able to
assimilate and those who share those
Civic ideals and know the US History
even better than the average US citizen
who's here that's what I believe but
even if you disagree with me and say no
no no the sole goal is economic
production in the United States then at
least have an immigration system that's
honest about that rather than one which
claims to solve for that goal by
bringing in people who are rewarded for
being a refugee we should reward the
people in that model which is I don't
even think should be the whole model but
even if that were your model reward the
people who are demonstr have
demonstrably proven that they would make
economic contributions to the United
States not the people who have
demonstrated that they're willing to lie
to achieve a goal and right now our
immigration system if it rewards one
quality over any other there's one
parameter that it rewards over any other
it isn't Civic allegiance to the United
States it isn't fluency in English it
isn't the ability to make an economic
contribution to this country country the
number one attribute human attribute
that our immigration system rewards is
whether or not you are willing to lie
and the people who are telling those
lies about whether they're seeking
Asylum or not are the ones who are most
likely to get in and the people who are
most unwilling to tell those lies are
the ones who are actually not getting in
that is a hard uncomfortable truth about
our immigration system and the reason is
because the law says you only get Asylum
if you're going to face
bodily harm or near-term risk of bodily
injury based on your religion your
ethnicity or certain other factors and
so when you come into the country you're
asked do you fulfill that criteria or
not and the number one way to get into
this country is to check the box and say
yes so that means just systematically
imagine if you're University Harvard or
Yale or whatever you're running your
admissions process the number one
attribute you're selecting for isn't
your SAT score it isn't your GPA it
isn't your athletic accomplishments it's
whether or not you're willing to lie on
the application you're going to have a
class populated by a bunch of charlatans
and
frauds that's exactly what our
immigration system is doing to the
United States of America is it is
literally selecting for the people who
are willing to lie let's say you have
somebody who's a person of Integrity
says Okay I want a better life for my
family but I want to teach my kids that
I'm not going to lie or break the law to
do it that person is
infinitely less likely to get into the
United States that's I know it sounds um
provocative to frame it that way but it
is is not an opinion it is a fact that
that is the number one human attribute
that our current immigration system is
selecting for I want an immigration
system centered on honesty in order to
implement that we require acknowledging
what the goals of our immigration system
are in the first place and there we have
competing Visions on the right okay
amongst conservatives there's a rift
some conservatives believe I respect
them for their honesty I disagree with
them believe that the goal of the
immigration system should be to in part
protect American workers from the
effects of foreign wage competition that
if we have immigrants going to bring
down prices and we need to protect
American workers from the effects of
that downward pressure on
wages it it's a goal it's a coherent
goal I don't think it's the right goal
but many of my friends on the right
believe that's a goal but at least it's
honest and then we can design an honest
immigration system to achieve that goal
if that's their goal I have other
friends on the right that say the sole
goal is economic growth nothing else
matters I disagree with that as well my
view is the goal should be whatever
enriches the Civic quality of the United
States of America that includes those
who know the language know our ideals
pledge allegiance to those ideals and
also willing to make economic
contributions to the country which is
one of our ideals as well but whatever
it is we can have that debate I have a
very different view I don't think it's a
proper role of immigration policy to
make it a form of Labor policy because
the United States of America is found on
Excellence we should be able to compete
but that's a policy debate we can have
but right now we're not even able to
have the policy debate because the whole
immigration policy is built on not only
a lie but on rewarding those who do lie
and that's what I want to see change
there just to linger a little bit on the
demonization uh and to bring an cter
into the picture her which I recommend
uh people should listen to your
conversation with
her I haven't listened to her much but
she had this thing where she's clearly
admires and respects you as a human
being and she's basically saying you're
one of the good
ones and this idea that you had this
brilliant question of like what does it
mean to be American mhm and she
basically
said not you
VC uh she said well maybe maybe you but
not people like you so that whole kind
of approach to immigration I think is
really anti-
meritocratic even anti-American
anti-American yeah so I want to confront
this directly because it is a popular
current on the American wri the reason
I'm not pick on an cter specifically is
I think actually it's a much more L
shared View and I just give her at least
credit for willing to articulate it a
view
that the blood and soil is what makes
for your American identity your genetic
lineage and I just reject that view I
think it's anti-American I think what
makes for an American identity is your
Allegiance Your unabiding Allegiance to
the founding ideals of this country and
your willingness to pledge allegiance to
those ideals so those are two different
views I I think that there is a view on
the American right right now
that says that we're not a credal nation
that our nation is not about a Creed
it's about a physical place and a
physical
Homeland I think that view fails on
several accounts obviously we're we're a
nation every nation has to have a
geographic space that it defines as its
own so obviously we are among other
things a geographic space but the
essence of the United States of America
I think is the common Creed the ideals
that hold that common Nation together
without that a few things happen first
of all American exceptionalism becomes
impossible and I'll tell you
why every other nation is also built on
the same idea most Nations have been
built on common blood and soil arguments
genetic stock of you know Italy or Japan
would have a stronger national identity
than the United States in that case
because they have a much longer standing
claim on what their genetic lineage
really was the ethnicity of the people
is far more pure in those in those
contexts than in the United States so
that's the first re American exceptional
becomes impossible the second is there's
all kinds of contradictions that then
start to emerge if your claim on
American identity is defined based on
how long you've been here well then the
Native Americans would have a far
greater claim of being American than
somebody who came here on the Mayflower
or somebody who came here afterwards now
maybe that blood and soil views inter
it's not quite the Native Americans you
only have to start at this point and
ended this point so on this view of
blood and soil identity has to be okay
you couldn't have come before a certain
year then it doesn't count but if you
came after a certain year it doesn't
count either that just becomes highly
uncompelling as a view of what American
national identity actually is versus my
view that American national identity is
grounded on whether or not you pledge
allegiance to the ideals codified in the
Declaration of Independence and
actualized in the US Constitution and
you know it's been said some of my
friends on the right have said things
like you know people will not die for a
set of ideals people won't fight for
abstractions or AB act
ideals I actually disagree with that the
American Revolution basically disproves
that the American Revolution was fought
for anything over abstract
ideals that said that you know what we
believe in self-governance and free
speech and free exercise of religion
that's what we believe in the United
States which was different from Old
World England so I do think that there
is this Brewing debate on the right and
do I disagree like hell with Anne couter
on this absolutely and did I take
Serious issue with some of the things
she told me absolutely but I also
believe that
she had the stones to say if I may say
it that way that things that many on the
right believe but haven't quite
articulated in the way that she has and
I think we need to have that debate in
the open now personally I think most of
the conservative movement actually is
with me on this but I think it's become
a very popular counternarrative in the
other direction to say that you know
your vision of American identity is tied
is far more physical in nature and to me
I think it is still ideals based in
nature and I think that that's a good
debate for the future for us to have in
the conservative movement and I think
it's going to be a defining feature of
you know what direction the conservative
movement goes in the future uh quick
pause bath break yeah let me ask you to
uh again steal me on the case for and
against Trump so my biggest criticism
for him is uh the fake elector scheme
the 2020 election and actually the 2020
election in the way you formulated in
the nation of victims it's just the
entirety of that process instead of
focusing on
winning uh doing a lot of whining I like
people that win not whine even uh when
the refs are biased in whatever
Direction so look I think the United
States of America I preached this to the
left I preach it to my kids we got to
accept it on our own side too we're not
going to save this country by being
victims we're going to save this country
by being Victorious okay and I don't
care whether it's left-wing victimhood
right-wing victimhood I'm against
victimhood culture the number one factor
that determines whether you achieve
something in life is you I believe that
it's not the only factor that matters
there's a lot of other factors that
affect whether or not you succeed life
is not fair but I tell my kids the same
thing the number one factor that
determines whether or not you succeed in
achieving your goal is you if I tell to
my kids and I preach it to the left I'm
going to preach that to our own side as
well now that being said that's just a
philosophy okay that's a personal
philosophy you asked me to to do
something different and I'm always a fan
I one of the things that the standard I
hope that people hold me to when they
read this book as well as I try to do
that in this book is to give the best
possible argument for the other side you
don't want to give some Rinky Dink
argument for the other side and knock it
down you want to give the best possible
argument for the other side and then
offer your own view or else you don't
understand your own so you ask me what's
the strongest case against Donald
Trump well I I ran for US president
against Donald Trump so I'm going to
give you what my perspective is I think
it's nothing of what you hear on MSNBC
or from the left attacking him to be a
threat to democracy I think all of
that's actually
nonsense I actually think it is if you
were making that case you know and I I
I'm here's my full support as you know
but if you were making that case I think
for many voters who are of the Next
Generation they're asking a question
about how are you going to understand
the position that I'm in as a member of
a new generation the same criticism they
had of Biden they could say oh well are
you too old are you from a different
generation that's too far removed from
my generation's concerns and I think
that that's in many ways a factor that
weighs on that was weighing on both
Trump and Biden but when they played the
trick of swapping out Joe Biden it left
that issue much more on the table for
Donald Trump so you're asking me to
steal man it that's what I would say is
that when I look at what's the number
one issue that I would need to persuade
independent voters of to say that no no
no this is still the right choices even
though the other side claims to offer a
new generation of leadership here's
somebody who is you know one of the
older presidents we all have had who was
elected how do we convince those people
to vote for him that's what I would give
you in that category right but I I get
it and uh you share a lot of ideas with
Donald Trump so I get when you're
running for president that you would say
that kind of thing but there's you know
there's other criticism you could
provide and again on the 2020 election
let me ask you I mean you spoke to
Donald Trump recently what's your top
objection to potentially voting for
Donald Trump and and let me see if I can
address that 2020 election and not in
the
uh what is it TDS kind of objection it's
just I don't think there's clear
definitive evidence that there was uh
voter fraud let me ask you about a
different area hold on a second hold on
a second I think there's a lot of
interesting topics about the influence
of media of uh Tech and so on but I want
a president that has a good clear
relationship with the truth and knows
what truth is what is true and what is
not true and moreover I want a person
who doesn't play victim like you said
who focuses on winning and winning big
and if they
lose like Walk Away With Honor and win
bigger next time or like channel that
into growth and winning winning in some
other direction so just like the
strength of being able to give
everything you got to win and walk away
With Honor if you lose and everything
that happened around 2020 election is
just goes against that to me so I'll
respond to that sure obviously I'm not
the candidate but I'm going to give you
my perspective
nonetheless I think we have seen some
growth from Donald Trump over that first
term and the experience of the 2020
election and you hear a lot of that on
the campaign TR I heard a lot of that
even in the conversation that he had
with you I think he is more ambitious
for that second term than he was for
that first term so I thought that was
the most interesting part of what you
just said is you're looking for somebody
who has growth from their own
experiences say what you will I have
seen personally I believe some
meaningful level of personal growth and
ambition for what Donald Trump hopes to
achieve for the country in the second
term that he wasn't able to for one
reason or another you know Co you could
put a lot of different things on it but
in that first term now I think the facts
of the backdrop of the election actually
like really do matter I don't think you
can isolate one particular aspect of
criticizing the 2020 election without
looking at it holistically on the eve of
the 2020 presidential election we saw a
systematic bureaucratically and
government AED suppression of probably
the single most important piece of
information released on the eve of that
election the hunter Biden laptop story
revealing potentially a compromised US
president presidential candidate his
family was compromised by Foreign
interests and it was suppressed as
misinformation by every major tech
company the New York Post had its own
Twitter account locked at that time and
we now know that many of the censorship
decisions made in the year 20120 were
actually made at behest of us
bureaucratic actors in the Deep State
threatening those tech companies to do
it or else those tech companies would
face consequence I think it might be the
most undemocratic thing that's happened
in the history of our country actually
is the way in which government actors
who were never elected to the government
used private sector actors to suppress
information on the eve of an election
that based on polling afterwards likely
did influence the outcome of the 2020
presidential election that was election
interference of the highest order so I
think that that's just a hard fact that
we have to contend with and I think a
lot of what you've heard in terms of
complaints about the 2020 election
whatever those complaints are have been
take against the backdrop of large
technology companies interfering in that
election in a way that I think did have
an impact on the outcome I personally
believe if the Hun Biden laptop story
had not been suppressed and censored I
think Donald Trump would have been
unambiguous I think the president of the
United States right now would be Donald
Trump no doubt about it in my mind if
you look at polling before and after and
the impact that would have had on the
independent voter now you look at okay
let's talk about constructive Solutions
because I care about moving the country
forward what is a constructive solution
to this issue of concerns about election
Integrity here's one single day voting
on Election Day as a national holiday
with paper ballots and government issued
voter ID to match the voter file I favor
that we do it even in Puerto Rico which
is the territory of the United States
why not do that everywhere in the United
States and I'll make a pledge I'll do it
right here right my
pledgees as a leader in our movement I
will do
everything in my power to make sure we
are done complaining about stolen
elections if we get to that simple place
of basic election security measures I
think they'd be unifying too make
Election Day a national holiday that
unites us around our Civic purpose one
day single day voting on Election Day is
a national holiday with paper ballots
and government issued voter ID to match
the voter file let's get there as a
country and you have my word I will lead
our movement in whatever way I can to
make sure we are done complaining about
Stone elections and fake ballots and I
think the fact that you see resistance
to that proposal which is otherwise very
practical very reasonable nonpartisan
proposal I think the fact of that
resistance actually provokes a lot of
understandable
skepticism understandable skepticism of
okay what what else is actually going on
if not if not that what exactly is going
on here well I think I I agree with a
lot of things you said uh probably
disagree but it's hard to disagree with
the hunter Biden laptop story whether
that would have changed or result
obviously I I looked at some post-
election polling about the views that
that would have had
and I I I can't prove that to you but
that's my instinct it's my opinion I
think there's probably that's just one
example um maybe a sexy example of a
bias in the in the complex of the media
and there's in the other direction too
but uh probably there's bias it's hard
to characterize bias let me ask you one
question about because there's bias is
one thing bias and Reporting censorship
is another so I would I would be
open-minded to hearing an instance of
and if I did hear it I would condemn it
of the
government systematically
ordering tech companies to suppress
information that was favorable to
Democrats suppress that information to
lift up Republicans if there was an
instance that we know of government
bureaucrats that were ordering
technology companies covertly to silence
information that voters otherwise would
have had to Advantage Republicans at The
Ballot Box to censor it I would be
against that and I would condemn that
with equal force as I do to the
suppression of the hunter B laptop story
suppression and censorship of the origin
of covid-19 all happened in 2020 these
are hard
facts I'm not aware of one instance if
you are aware of one I would let me know
cuz I would condemn it most people in
tech companies are privately their
political persuasion is on the left and
most journalists majority of journalists
are on the
left but to characterize the actual
reporting and the impact of the
reporting in the media and the impact of
the
censorship is difficult to do but that's
a real problem just like we talked about
a real problem in Immigration but
there's two different problems I just
want to sort them out right because I
have a problem with both you you talked
about two issues I think both are
important but they're different issues
one is bias in reporting one is
censorship of information so bias in
reporting I felt certainly the recent
presidential debate moderated by ABC was
biased in the way that it was
conducted but that's a different issue
from saying that voters don't get access
to information through any source
so this hun bid laptop store who we now
know that it contains evidence of
foreign
interference in potentially the Biden
Administration and their fam's incentive
structure that story was systematically
suppressed so in the United States of
America if you wanted to find that on
the internet through any major social
media platform or through even Google
search that story was suppressed or
downplayed algorithmically that you
couldn't see it even on Twitter if if
you tried to send it via direct message
that's the equivalent of email right
sending a peer-to-peer message they
blocked you from even being able to send
that story using private
messages that I think is a different
level of concern that's not bias at that
point that's outright interference in
whether or not you know that's out right
interference in the election let's do a
thought experiment here let's suppose
that Russia orchestrated that what would
the backlash be let's say the Russian
government orchestrated the US election
was they interfered in it by saying that
tech companies they worked with them
covertly to stop US citizens from being
able to see information on the eve of an
election there would be a mass uproar in
this country if the Russian government
orchestrated that well if actors in the
US government bureaucracy or the US
technology industry bureaucracy
orchestrated the same thing then we
can't apply a different standard to say
that if Russia did it it's really bad
and interfered in our election but if it
happened right here in the United States
of America and by the way they BL CL
Russia for it falsely on the Russian
disinformation of the hunb laptop story
that was false claim we have to apply
the same standard in both cases and so
the fact that if that were Russian
interference it would have been an
outcry but now it happened domestically
and we just call that hey it's a little
bit of bias ahead of an election I don't
think that that's a fair
characterization of how important that
event was okay so the the connection of
government to platform is a real should
not exist the government FBI or anybody
else should not be able to pressure
platforms to censor information yes we
could talk about Paul durov and the
censorship there there there should not
be any censorship and there's not should
not be media bias and your right to
complain if there is media bias and we
can lay it out in the open and try to
fix that system that said the voter
fraud thing you you can't write a wrong
by doing another wrong you can't just if
there's some shitty Shady stuff going on
in the media and the censorship complex
you can't just make up you can't do
the fake fake elector scheme and then do
a lot of shady crappy behavior during
January 6th and try to like shortcut
your way just cuz your friend is
cheating a monopoly when you're playing
Monopoly you can't cheat you shouldn't
cheat yourself you should be honest and
like with honor and use your platform to
uh help fix the system versus like cheat
your way so here's my view is has any us
politician ever been perfect throughout
the course of American history no but do
you want to if you want to understand
the essence of what was going around in
2020 the mindset of the country we had a
year where people in this country were
systematically locked down told to shut
up sit down do as they're told unless
they're BLM or anti for riers in which
case it's perfectly fine for them to
burn cities down we were told that we're
going to have an election a free and
fair election and then they were denied
information systematically heading into
that election
which was really important and in this
case damning information about one of
the parties and then you tell these
people that they still have to continue
to shut up and comply that creates I
think a real culture of deep frustration
in the United States of America and I
think that the reaction to systematic
censorship is never good history teaches
us that it's not good in the United
States it's not good at other points in
the history of the United States the
reaction to systematic coordinated
censorship and restraints and the
freedom of a free people is never good
and if you want to really understand
what happened if one really wants to get
to the bottom of it rather than you know
figuring out who to point fingers at
that really was the essence of the
national malaise at the end of 20120 is
it was a year of unjust policies
including covid-19 lockdowns systematic
lies about it lies about the election
that created a level of public
frustration that I think
was understandable
now the job of leaders is to how do you
channel that in the most productive
Direction possible and to your question
you know to the independent voter out
there evaluating as you are do I think
that Donald Trump has exhibited a lot of
growth based on his experience in his
first term and what he hopes to achieve
in his second term I think the answer is
absolutely yes and so even if you don't
agree with everything that he said or
done in the choice ahead of us in this
election I still believe he's
unambiguously the best best choice to
revive that sense of national pride and
also prosperity in our country so people
aren't in the condition where they're
suffering at behest of government
policies that leave them angry and
channel that anger in other unproductive
ways no the best way to do it is
actually actions do speak louder than
words implement the policies that make
people's lives better and I do think
that that's the next step of how we best
save the country are you worried if in
this election it's a close
election and uh
Donald Trump loses by a whisker that
there's chaos that's that's Unleashed
and how do we minimize the chance of
that I mean I I don't think that that's
a um concern to frame narrowly in the
context of Donald Trump winning it or
losing it by a whisker I think this is a
man who in the last couple of months in
a span of two months has faced two
assassination attempts and we're not
talking about theoretical attempts we're
talking about gunshots fired that is
history changing in the context of
American History we haven't seen that in
a generation and yet now that has become
normalized in the US so do I worry we're
skating on thin ice as a country I do I
do think it is a little bit strange to
obsess over our concerns or national or
media concerns over Donald Trump when in
fact he's the one on the receiving end
of fire from as salant who reported l
are saying exactly the kinds of things
about him that you hear from the
Democratic machine and I do think that
it is irresponsible at least for the
Democratic party to make their Core case
against Donald Trump it was Joe Biden's
entire message for years that he's a
threat to democracy and to the existence
of America well if you keep saying that
about somebody against the backdrop
conditions that we live in as a country
I don't think that's good for a nation
and so do I have concerns about the
future of the country do I think we're
skating on thin ice absolutely and I
think the best way around it is really
through it through it in this election
win by a landslide I think a unifying
Landslide could be the best thing that
happens for this country like Reagan
delivered in 1980 and then again in
1984 and in a very practical note a
landslide minus some Shenanigans is
still going to be a victory that I think
is how we unite this country and so I
don't think you know
50.1 margin where cable news is
declaring the winner 6 days after the
election I don't think that's going to
be good for the country I think a
decisive victory that unites the country
turns the page on a lot of the
challenges of the last four years and
says okay this is where we're going this
is who we are and what we stand for this
is a Revival of our national identity
and revive national pride in the United
States regardless of whether you're a
Democrat or Republican that I think is
achievable in this election too and
that's what the outcome I'm rooting for
so just to pile on since we're Steel Man
in the criticism against Trump is the
rhetoric I wish there was less of uh
although at times it is so ridiculous it
is entertaining the I hate Taylor Swift
type of tweets or truths or whatever
I I don't think that's he's a funny guy
I mean the reality is different people
have different attributes the one of the
attributes for Donald Trump is he's one
of the funnier presidents we've had in a
long time that might not everybody's cup
of tea maybe different people don't want
that's not a quality they value in their
president I think at a moment where
you're also able to make I will say this
much is everybody's got different styles
Donald Trump's style is different from
mine but I do think that if we're able
to use levity in a moment of national
division you know in some ways I think
right now is probably a role where
really good stand-up comedians could
probably do a big service to the country
if they're able to laugh at everybody
360 degrees so they can go up there and
make fun of Donald Trump all they want
do it in light-hearted and manner that
loves the country do the same thing to
kamla Harris with an equal standard I
think that's actually good for the
country but you know I think I'm I'm
more interested Lex as you know in
discussing the future direction of the
country my own views I was a
presidential candidate who ran against
Donald Trump by the way and is
supporting him now but I um I I I just
prefer engaging on the substance of what
I think each candidate's going to
achieve for the country rather than
picking on really the personal
attributes of either one right I'm not
criticizing KLA Harris's manner of laugh
or whatever you know one might criticize
as like a personal attribute of hers
that you may hear elsewhere and I just
think our country is better off if we
have a focus on both the policies but
also who's going to be more likely to
revive the country that I think is a
healthy debate headed to an election I
think everybody has their personality
attributes their flaws what makes them
funny and lovable to some people makes
them irritating to others I think that
that matters less heading into an
election
I love that you do that I love that you
focus on policy and can speak for hours
on policy let's look at foreign policy
sure what kind of peace deal do you
think is possible feasible optimal in
Ukraine if you sat down you became
president if you sat down with zinski
and sat down with Putin what do you
think it's possible to talk to them
about one of the hilarious things you
did which were intense and entertaining
your debates in the primary but anyway
uh is how how you grilled the other
candidates that didn't know any regions
they wanted to send money and
troops and lead to the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of people and they
didn't know any of the regions in
Ukraine yeah he had a lot of zingers in
that one but anyway how do you think
about negotiating with world leaders
about what's going on there yeah so look
I think that let's just get the
self-interest of each party on the table
and to be very transparent about it from
everyone's perspective you know they
think the other side is the aggressor or
whatever just get it on the table Russia
is concerned about NATO Shifting the
balance of power away from Russia to
Western Europe when NATO has expanded
far more than they expected to and
frankly that Russia was told that NATO
was going to expand it's an
uncomfortable fact for some in America
but James Baker made a commitment to Mel
gorbachov in the early 90s where he said
NATO would expand not one inch past East
Germany well NATO's expanded far more
after the fall of the USSR than it did
during the existence of the USSR and
that is a reality we have to contend
with that's the Russian perspective from
the Western perspective the hard fact is
Russia was the aggressor in this
conflict crossing the boundaries of a
Sovereign Nation and that is a violation
of international norms and it's a
violation of the recognition of
international law of Nations Without
Borders are not a nation and so against
that backdrop what's the actual interest
of each country here I think if we're
able to do a reasonable deal that gives
Russia the assurances it needs about
what they might allege as NATO
expansionism violating prior commitments
but get codified commitments for Russia
that we're not going to see willy-nilly
behavior of just randomly deciding
they're going to violate the sovereignty
of neighboring Nations and have hard
assurances and consequences for that
that's the beginnings of a deal but then
I want to be ambitious for the United
States I want to weaken the Russia China
Alliance and I think that we can do a
deal that requires that gives some real
gives to Russia conditioned on Russia
withdrawing itself from its military
alliance with China and this could be
good for Russia too in the long run
because right now Vladimir Putin does
not enjoy being Xian Ping's little
brother in that relationship but
Russia's military combined with China's
Naval capacity and Russia's Hypersonic
missiles and China's economic might
together those countries in an alliance
pose a real threat to the United States
but if as a condition for a reasonable
discussion about where different
territories land given what's occupied
right now hard requirements that Russia
remove its military presence from the
Western Hemisphere people forget this
Cuba Venezuela Nicaragua we don't want a
Russian military presence in the Western
Hemisphere that too would be a win for
the United States no more joint military
exercises with China off the coast of
the uan islands the kinds of winds that
the United States wants to protect the
West's security get Russia out of the
Western Hemisphere certainly out of the
North American periphery and then also
make sure that Russia's no longer in
that military alliance with China in
return for that able to provide Russia
some things that are important to Russia
we'd have to have a reasonable
reasonable discussion about what the
territorial concessions would be at the
end of this war to bring it to peace and
resolution and what the guarantees are
to make sure that NATO is going to not
expand beyond the scope of what the
United States is at least historically
guaranteed that I think together would
be reasonable deal that gives every
party what they're looking for that
results in immediate peace that results
in Greater stability and most
importantly weakening the Russia China
Alliance which I think is the actual
threat that we have so far no matter who
in this debate of more or less Ukraine
funding has really failed to confront
that I think is the way we deescalate
the risk of World War I and weaken the
threats to the west by actually
dismantling that Alliance so from the uh
americ perspective the main
interest is weakening the alliance
between Russia and China yes I think the
military alliance between Russia and
China represents the single greatest
threat we face yeah so do a deal that
Reon that's very reasonable across the
board but one of the main things we get
out of it is weakening that Alliance so
no joint military exercises no military
collaborations these are monitorable
these are monitorable attributes if
there's cheating on that we're going to
immediately have consequences as a
consequence of cheating but we can't
cheat on you know our own obligations
that we would make in the context of
that deal as well there might be some
extremely painful things for Ukraine
here so Ukraine currently captured a
small region in Russia the KK region but
Russia has captured giant chunks
Dan H regions so it seems given what
you're laying out it's very unlikely for
Russia to give up any of the regions
that's already captured I actually think
that and that would come down of the
spefic specifics of the negotiation but
the core goals of the negotiation are
peace in this war weaken the Russia
China Alliance and for Russia what do
they get out of it part of this is
here's something that's not negative for
Ukraine but that could be positive for
Russia as part of that deal right
because it's it's not a zero sum game
alone with Ukraine on the losing end of
this I think reopening economic
relations with the West would be a big
win for Russia but also a carrot that
gets them out of that military
relationship with China so I I do think
that the foreign policy establishment
has historically been
at the very least unimaginative about
the levers that we're able to use
actually I was a little bit critical of
Nixon earlier in this discussion for his
contribution to the overgrowth of the US
entitlement State and Regulatory state
but I'll give Nixon credit here on a
different point which is that he was
imaginative of being able to pull red
China out from the clasp of the USSR he
broke the China Russia Alliance back
then which was an important step to
bring us to the near end of the Cold War
so I think there's an O opportunity for
a similar unconventional maneuver now of
using greater reopened economic
relations with Russia to pull Russia out
from the hands of China today there's no
skin-off Ukraine's back for that and I
do think that's a big carrot for Russia
in this direction I do think it will
involve some level of territorial
negotiation as well that you know out of
any good deal not everyone's going to
like 100% of what comes out of it but
that's part of the cost of securing
peace is that not everyone's going to be
happy about every attribute but I could
make a case that a an immediate peace
deal is also now in the best interests
of Ukraine let's just rewind the clock
we're looking at now let's just say
we're early 2022 maybe June of 2022
zalinsky was ready to come to the table
for a deal back then until Boris Johnson
traveled when he had his own domestic
political travails to convince zalinski
to continue to fight and that goes to
the point where when Nations aren't
asked to pay for their own National
Security they have what the problem is
of moral hazard of taking risks that
really are suboptimal risks for them to
take cuz they're not bearing the
consequences of taking those risks not
fully in the
cost if Ukraine had done a deal back
then I think it is unambiguous that they
would have done a better deal for
themselves than they're doing now after
having spent hundreds of billions of
dollars and expended tens of thousands
of Ukrainian lives so the idea that
Ukraine is somehow better off because it
failed to do that deal before is a lie
and if we're not willing to learn from
those mistakes of the recent past were
doomed to repeat them again so this idea
that it would be painful for Ukraine you
know what's been painful tens and tens
and tens of thousands of people
continuing to die without any increased
leverage and actually getting the
outcome that they want so I think
there's an opportunity for a win-win-win
a win for the United States in the west
more broadly in weakening the Russia
China Alliance a win for Ukraine in
having an agreement that is back stopped
by the United States of America's
interests that provides a greater degree
of long run security to the Future
existence of Ukraine and its sovereignty
and also stopping the Bloodshed today
and I think a win for Russia which is to
reopen economic relations with the west
and have certain guarantees about what
the mission creep or scope creep of NATO
will be there's no rule that says that
when one party before before full
outright world war starts at least
there's an opportunity for there to
actually be a win for everybody on the
table rather than to assume that a win
for us is a loss to Russia or that
anything positive that happens for
Russia is a loss for the United States
or Ukraine just to add to the table some
things that Putin won't like but I think
are possible to negotiate which is
Ukraine joining the European Union and
not
NATO so establishing some kind of
economic relationships there and also
splitting the bill sort of guaranteeing
some amount of money from both the
Russia and the United States for
rebuilding Ukraine is one of the
challenges in Ukraine a war torn country
is how do you guarantee the flourishing
of this particular Nation right so you
want to not just stop the death of
people and the destruction but also
provide a foundation on which you can
rebuild the country and build a a
flourishing future country I think out
of this conversation
alone there are a number of levers on
the table for negotiation in a lot of
different directions and that's where
you want to be right if there's only one
factor that matters to each of the two
parties and those are their Redline
factors then there's no room for
negotiation this is a this is a deeply
complicated historically
intricate dynamic between Ukraine and
Russia and between NATO and the United
States and the Russia China Alliance and
economic interests that are an issue
combined with the geopolitical factors
there are a lot of levers for
negotiation and the more levers there
are the more likely there is to be a
win-win-win deal that gets done for
everybody so I think it should be
encouraging the fact that there are as
many different possible levers here
almost make certain that a reasonable
practicable peace deal is possible in
contrast to situation where there's only
one thing that matters for each side
then I can't tell you that there's a
deal to be done there's definitely a
deal to be done here and I think that it
requires real leadership in the United
States playing hard ball not just with
one side of this not just with zalinski
or with Putin but across the board hard
ball for our own interests which are the
interests of of stability here and I
think that that will happen to well
serve both Ukraine and Russia in the
process uh if you were president would
you call Putin absolutely I mean in any
negotiation you got to manage when
you're calling somebody and when you're
not but I do believe that open
conversation and the willingness to have
that as another lever in the negotiation
is totally fair
game okay let's go to the China side of
this uh the big concern here is that the
the Brewing cold or
God forbid Hot War uh between the United
States and China in the 21st century how
do we avoid that so A few things one is
I do think the best way we also avoid it
is by
reducing the consequences to the United
States in the event of that type of
conflict because at that point what
you're setting up for if the
consequences are existential for the
United States then what you're buying
yourself in the context of what could be
a small conflict is an allout Great War
so the first thing I want to make sure
we avoid is a major conflict between the
United States and China like a World War
level conflict and the way to do that is
to bring down the existential Stakes for
the US and the way we bring down the
existential Stakes for the US is make
sure that the United States does not
depend on China for our modern way of
life right now we do okay so right now
we depend on China for everything from
the Pharmaceuticals in our medicine
cabinet 95% of ibuprofen one of the most
basic medicines used in the United
States depends on China for its supply
chain we depend on China ironically for
our own military industrial base think
about how little sense that makes
actually our own military which
supposedly exists to protect ourselves
against adversaries Depends for its own
supplies semiconductors and otherwise on
our top adversary that doesn't make
sense even if you're a Libertarian in
the school of fredr Von Hayek somebody I
admire as well even then you would not
argue for
a foreign dependence on adversary for
your military so I think that's the next
step we need to take is at least reduce
us dependence on China for the most
essential inputs for the functioning of
the United States of America including
our own military as a side note I
believe that means not just onshoring to
the United States it does but if we're
really serious about that it also means
expanding our relationships with allies
like Japan South Korea India the
Philippines and that's an interesting
debate to have cuz some on the right
would say Okay I want to decouple from
China but I also want less trade with
all these other places you can't have
both those things at the same time you
can have one or the other you can't have
both and so we have to acknowledge and
be honest with ourselves that there are
trade-offs to declaring independence
from China but the question is what are
the longrun benefits now you think about
the other way to do this is is strategic
Clarity I think the way that you see
world wars often emerge is strategic
ambiguity from two adversaries who don't
really know what the other side's red
line is or is and accidentally crosses
those red lines and I think we need to
be much clearer with what are our hard
red lines and what aren't they and I
think that's the single most effective
way to make sure this doesn't spiral
into major world war and then let's talk
about ending the Russia Ukraine conflict
on the terms that I just discussed with
you before I think weakening the Russia
China Alliance not only reduces the risk
that Russia becomes an aggressor it also
reduces the risk that China takes the
risks that could escalate us to World
War III as well so I think that
geopolitically you got to look at these
things holistically that end of the
Russia Ukraine war and that peace deal
deescalate not only the Russia Ukraine
conflict but the risk of a broader
conflict that includes China as well by
also weakening China because Russia also
has Hypersonic missiles and missile
capabilities that are ahead of that of
China's if Russia's no longer in a
military alliance with China that
changes China's calculus as well so
that's kind of I
think more strategic Vision we need in
our foreign policy than we've had since
certainly you know the Nixon era I think
that you need people who are going to be
able to challenge the status quo
question the existing orthodoxies the
willingness to use levers to get great
deals done that otherwise wouldn't have
gotten done and that's what I do think
someone like Donald Trump and the
presidency and you know obviously I ran
for president as an outsider and a
businessman as well I think this is an
area our foreign policy is one where we
actually benefit from having Business
Leaders in those roles rather than
people who are Shackled by the
traditional political manner of thinking
I think the thing you didn't quite make
clear but I think implied is that we
have to accept the red line that China
provides of of uh the one China policy
both sides need to have their red lines
so you know we can get into specifics
but it's going to it's going to vary
depending on the circumstances but the
principle that I would give you is that
we have to have a hard red line that's
clear I think that that hard red line I
was clear during my campaign on this so
I'll say it again is I think that we
have to have a clear red line that China
will not and should not for any time in
the foreseeable future Annex CH
Taiwan I do think that for the United
States it probably is prudent right now
not to suddenly upend The Diplomatic
policy we've adopted for decades of what
is recognizing the one one China policy
and our position of quiet deference to
that and understand that that may be the
red line is the national recognition of
Taiwan as an independent nation would be
a red line that China would have but we
would have a red line to say that we do
not in any circumstance tolerate the
annexation by physical force in any time
in the foreseeable future when that's
against the interest of the United
States of America so there's examples
but the principle here is you asked how
do we avoid major conflict with China I
think it starts with clear red lines on
both sides I think it starts with also
lowering the stakes for the United
States by making sure we're not
dependent on China for our modern way of
life and I think it also starts with
ironically using a peaceful resolution
to the Ukraine war as a way of weakening
the China Alliance which in the other
direction of weakening China has
significant benefits to us as well but
what do you do when China says very
politely we're going to Annex Taiwan
whether you like it or not against the
backdrop that I just laid out that's not
going to happen that wouldn't happen if
we actually make sure that we're crystal
clear about what our red lines and
priorities are we're also dependent on
CH on Taiwan right now for our own
semiconductor supply chain so China
knows that's going to draw us into
serious conflict in in that circumstance
so against the backdrop of clearly drawn
red lines against the backdrop of Russia
no longer automatically being in China's
Camp that's a big lever I think also
strengthening our relationship with
other allies where we have room to
strengthen those relationships like
India and I'm not just saying that you
know because my name is V ramaswami
right I'm saying it because it's
strategically important to the United
States to understand that God forbid in
a conflict scenario China would perceive
some risk to the Indian Ocean or the
Andaman sea no longer being reliable for
getting Middle Eastern Oil supplies
there's a lot of levers here but I think
that if we are both strategically clear
with our allies and with our adversaries
about what our red lines are what our
priorities are reasonable deals that
pull Russia out of the hands of China
and vice versa reasonable allies and
relationships that cause China to
question whether it can continue to have
the same access to Middle Eastern Oil
supplies as it does today and then clear
red lines with China itself about what
we definitely aren't okay with and
understand that they may have certain
red lines too that allows us I think to
still avoid what many people will call
the unavoidable conflict the thid Trap
you know against the circumstance of
when when there's arising power against
the backdrop of a declining power
conflict always becomes inevitable
that's a theory it's not a law of
physics and I don't think that a we have
to be a declining power and B I don't
think that that has to necessarily
result in major conflict with China here
it's going to require real leadership
leadership with a spine and you don't
have to judge based on international
relations Theory to form your view on
this four years under Trump we didn't
have major conflicts in the Middle East
in places like Russia Ukraine we were on
the cusp of war with North Korea when
Obama left office and Trump took over
four years under Biden less than four
years under Biden and Harris what do you
have major conflicts in the Middle East
major conflict in Russia Ukraine judged
by the results and you know I mean I
would say that even if you're somebody
who disagrees with a lot of Donald Trump
and you don't like his style if your
single issue is you want to stay out of
World War III I think there's a pretty
clear case for why you go for Trump in
this
election so Prime Minister Modi I think
you've complimented him in in a bunch of
different directions one of which is
when you're discussing nationalism yeah
I think I believe that you know somebody
I've got to know actually reasonably
well for example recently is Georgia
Maloney who's a leader of Italy told her
the same thing one of the things I love
about her as a leader of Italy is that
she does not apologize for the national
identity of the country and that she
stands for certain values
uncompromisingly and she doesn't give a
second care about what the media has to
say about it one of the things I love
last time I spoke to her when she was in
the us when we sat down was she talked
about she doesn't even read the
newspaper she doesn't read and watch the
media and allows her to make decisions
that are best for the people and there
are elements of that in modi's approach
as well which I respect about him is he
doesn't apologize for the fact that
India has a national identity and that
the nation should be proud of it but I'm
not saying that because I'm proud of
Maloney or for or Modi for their own
countries I'm American I think there are
lessons to learn from leaders who are
proud of their own nation's identity
rather than apologizing for it and I
think it's a big part of you know it's
why I ran for president on a campaign
centered on national pride it's also why
I'm not only voting for but actively
supporting Donald Trump because I do
think he is going to be the one that
restores that missing national pride in
the United States and you know I uh
touch on this as well in the in the book
there's a chapter here it says
nationalism isn't a bad word I think
nationalism can be a very positive thing
if it's grounded in the actual true
attributes of a nation and in the United
States that doesn't mean ethn
nationalism because that was not what
the national identity of the United
States was based on in the first place
but a Civic nationalism grounded in our
actual National ideals that is who we
are and I think that that is something
that we've gotten uncomfortable with in
the countries to say that oh I'm proud
of being American and I believe in
American exceptionalism somehow that's
looking down on others no not looking
down on anybody but I'm proud of my own
country and I think Modis revived that
spirit in India in a way that was
missing for a long time right India had
an inferiority complex a psychological
inferiority complex but now to be proud
of its National Heritage and its
National mythmaking and its National
Legacy and history and to say that you
know every nation does have to have a
kind of mythmaking about its past and to
be proud of that it's like Malcolm X
actually said this here in the United
States He said a nation without an
appreciation for its
history is like a tree without
roots it's
dead and I think that that's true not
just for the United States I think it's
true for Every Other Nation I think
leaders like Maloney in Italy leaders
like Modi in India have done a great job
that I wish to bring that type of Pride
back in the United States and you know
whatever I do next like I'll tell you
this is I think Reviving that sense of
identity and pride especially in the
Next Generation is one of the most
important things we can do for this
country speaking of what you do
next any chance you run in
2028 well I'm not going to rule it out I
mean that's a long time from now and I'm
most focused on what I can do in the
next chapter for the country I ran for
president million things that I learned
from that experience that you can only
learn by doing it it was very much a you
know fire first aim later with getting
into the race there was no way I could
have planned and plotted this out as
somebody who is coming from the outside
I was 37 years old came from the
business world so there was a lot that
only could learn by actually doing it
and I
did but I care about the same things
that led me into the presidential race
and I don't think the issues have been
solved I think that we have a generation
that is lost in the country it's not
just young people I think it's all of us
in some ways are hungry for purpose and
meaning at a time in our history when
the things that used to fill that void
in our heart they're missing and I think
we need a President Who both has the
right policies for the country you know
seal the Border grow the economy stay
out of World War II and rampant crime
yes we need the right
policies but we also need leaders who in
a sustained way Revive Our National
character Revive Our sense of pride in
this country Revive Our identity As
Americans and you know I think that that
need exists as much today as it did when
I first ran for president I don't think
it's going to be automatically solved in
just a few years I think Donald Trump is
the right person to carry that Banner
forward for the next four years but
after that we'll see where the country
is headed into 2028 and whatever I do
it'll be whatever has a maximal positive
impact on the country I'll also tell you
that my laser
focus maybe as distinct from other
politicians on both sides is to take
America to the next level to move beyond
our victimhood culture to restore our
culture of Excellence we got to shut
down that Nanny State the entitlement
State the regulatory State the foreign
policy Nanny State shut it down and
revive who we really are As Americans
and I'm as passionate about that as ever
but uh the next step is not running for
president the next step is what happens
in the next next four years and that's
why over the next four weeks I'm focused
on doing whatever I can to make sure we
succeed in this election well I hope you
run because uh this was made clear on
the stage in the primary debates you
have a unique Clarity and honesty in
expressing the ideas you stand for and
it would be nice to see that uh I would
also like to see the same thing on the
other side which would make for some
badass interesting debates I would love
nothing more than a kickass set of top
tier Democrat candidates after four
years of Donald Trump we have a primary
field with actually people who have real
Visions for the country on both sides
and the people of this country can
choose between those competing Visions
without insult or injury being the way
we I would love nothing more than to see
that in 2028 who do you think so for me
I would love to see in some kind of
future where it's you versus somebody
like Tim Walls so to Tim Walls maybe I'm
lacking in knowledge it's a first of all
like a good dude has similar to you
strongly held if not radical ideas of
how to make progress in this country so
to just be on stage and debate honestly
about the ideas that are like very
there's a tension between those ideas um
is there other people Shapiro is
interesting also I would like to take
on in an Earnest in civil but contested
context right of a debate who do you
want to take on you want to take on some
somebody who disagrees with you but
still has deep ideology of their own I
think John fedman is pretty interesting
right he's demonstrated himself to be
somebody who is thoughtful able to
change his mind on positions but not in
some sort of fake flip-floppy flippity
floppity way but in a in a thoughtful
Evolution somebody who's been through
personal struggles somebody I deeply
disagree with on a lot of his on a lot
of his views and most of his views but
who I can at least say he comes across
at least as somebody who has been
through that torturous process of really
examining your belief and convictions
and you know has when necessary been
able to preach to his own tribe where he
thinks they're wrong I think it's
interesting I think that you have you a
number of other leaders probably
emerging at lower levels on the left not
everybody's going to necessarily come
from Washington DC in fact the longer
they're there the more they in some ways
get polluted by it um I think the
governor of of Colorado he's an
interesting guy he's got a more
libertarian
tendency um you know I don't know as
much about his views on from a national
perspective but it's intriguing to see
somebody who has at least libertarian
Freedom oriented Tendencies within the
Democratic party I think that there are
a number of you know I mean I I I don't
you know foresee him running for
president but you I had a debate last
year when I was running for president
with Rana who say what you will about
him he's an highly intelligent person
and is somebody who is at least willing
to Buck the consensus of his party when
necessary I think he
recently I would say lambasted he
phrased it very delicately but
criticized Kam Harris's prop OS tax on
unrealized capital gains so I I like
people who are willing to challenge the
orthodoxies in their own party because
it says they actually have convictions
and so whoever the Democrats put up I
hope it's someone like that and for my
part I will I have and continue to have
beliefs that will challenge
Republicans that on the face of it may
not be the policies that poll on paper
as the policies you're supposed to adopt
as a republican candidate but what a
true does doesn't just tell people what
they want to hear you tell people what
they need to hear and you tell people
what your actual convictions are and
this idea that I don't want to create a
right-wing entitlement state or a nanny
State I want to shut it down that
challenges the presuppositions of where
a lot of the conservative movement is
right now I don't think the bill to cap
credit card interest rates is a good
idea because that's a price control just
like K Harris's price controls and it'll
reduce access to credit I don't think
that we want a crony capitalist State
showering private benefits on selected
IND industries that favor us or that we
want to expand the cfpb or the ftc's
remit and somehow we're going to trust
it because it's under our watch no I
believe in shutting it down that
challenges a lot of the current
direction of the conservative movement
you know I I believe in certain issues
that you know maybe even outside the
scope of what Republicans currently care
about right
now one of the things that I oppose for
example is this is not a top issue in
American politics but just to give you a
sense for you know how I think and view
the world I'm against factory farming of
a of a large scale of you know you you
could sort of say putting uh you know
the the mistreatment of it's one thing
to say that you need it for for your
sustenance and that's great but it's
another to say that you have to do it in
a factory farming setting that gives
special exemptions from historical laws
that have existed that are the product
of crony capitalism I'm against crony
capitalism in all its forms I'm against
the influence of Mega Money in politics
I don't think that's been good either
for Democrats or Republicans some of
those views I think are not necessarily
traditional Republican rank you know
Orthodoxy reading chapter and verse from
what the Republican Party platform has
been it's not against the Republican
Party platform but it's asking what the
future of our movement is some of these
things are hard like getting money out
of politics getting Mega Money Getting
Mega Money the Mega Money yeah yeah yeah
and so long as it exists you got to play
the game I mean you got if you're going
to play to win I think one of the things
I realized is that you just can't
compete without it but you want to win
the game in order to change the game and
I think that that's something that I
keep keep in mind as well so you have
written a lot you're exceptionally
productive but even just looking
book-wise you've written basically a
book a year for the last four years when
you're writing when you're thinking
about how to solve the problems of the
world to develop your policy how do you
think I need quiet time extended periods
of it that are separated from the Rush
of the day-to-day or the travel I
actually think a lot better when I'm
working out and Physically Active so if
I'm running playing tennis lifting
somehow for me that really opens up my
mind and then I need a significant
amount of time after that with a
notebook I usually carry around a
notebook everywhere I go and write it
down in there is the notebook full of
chaotic thoughts or is it structured is
it sometimes it's chaotic sometimes it's
structured it's a little bit of
both sometimes I have a thought that I
know I don't want to forget later I'll
immediately jot it down other times s
you know on the flight over here I had a
much more structured layout of I got a
lot of different projects in the air for
example and I cross-pollinate you know I
was in the shower this morning had a
bunch of thoughts collected those on my
plane ride over here so I think that um
riding is something in all of its forms
that helps me it's one of the one of the
things actually helped me this year was
actually writing this
book you're going through a presidential
campaign you're going at super speed and
if I was to do the presidential campaign
again the thing I would do is actually
to take more
structured breaks I don't mean breaks as
in just like vacations but I mean breaks
to reflect on what's actually
happening probably the biggest mistake I
made is last time around heading into
the first debate I was like in N nine
different states over seven days I would
have just taken that as a pause right
we're at halfway through you've
established
relevance now make sure the country sees
who you actually are in full rather than
just the momentum competitive driven
version of you and I I just think that
that sort of those taking those moments
to just take stock of where you are do
some writing I didn't do much writing
during the presidential campaign I enjoy
writing it's part of how I Center myself
it's part of what this book allowed me
to do is okay I ran that Whirlwind of a
campaign the first thing I started doing
after I collected myself for a couple of
weeks was take the pen and start writing
and I was committed to writing that book
whether or not anybody read it I was
just writing it for myself and actually
it started in a very different form it
was very personal reflection oriented so
most of that funny enough I've learned
about writing the books Lex is edit it
out it just didn't end up in the book
because it went went in a different
direction than like what's interesting
for a publisher to publish yeah and so
for each of my books the things that I
started writing ended up never in the
book anyway just because the topic ended
up morphing but the journey that led me
to write this book A lot of it in this
book is still in there uh this is my
fourth book in four years you're right
and I hope it's the most important one
but it is certainly the product of an
honest reflection that
whatever it might do for the reader it
helped me to write it and you know I
think that's one of the things that I
learned from this campaign was not just
all the policy lessons but even just as
a matter of personal
practice the ability to take spaces of
time to not only you know physically
challenge yourself work out Etc but to
give yourself the space to reflect to
reenter yourself on the why had I done
that I think I would have been even more
centered on the the mission the whole
time rather than you know you get
attacked on the way you're thrown off
your tilt or thrown off your balance it
becomes a lot harder for someone else to
do that to you if you've really centered
yourself on your own purpose it's
probably one of my biggest learnings so
you've mentioned uh the first primary
debate so more than almost basically
anybody I've ever seen you step into
some really intense debates yeah on your
own podcast but in in general kind of in
all kinds of walks of life whether it's
sort of debates with sort of protest s
or debates with people that really
disagree with you like the radical
opposite of you um what's the what's the
philosophy behind that and what's the
psychology of being able to be calm
through all of that which you seem to be
able I enjoy debate and for me I think
just in ordinary life forget about like
a formal debate setting whenever I've
received criticism or a contrary view my
first impulse is always are they right
I it's always a possibility right and
most of the time what happens is you
understand the other side's argument but
you emerge with a stronger conviction in
your own belief right you you know your
own beliefs better if you can State the
best argument for the other side but
sometimes you do change your mind and I
think that that's happened over the
course of my life as well I think no
one's a thinking human being unless that
happens once in a while too and so
anyway just the idea of the pursuit of
Truth through open debate and inquiry
that's always just been part of my ident
identity part of who I am I'm wired that
way I thrive on it I enjoy it even my
relationships with my closest friends
are built around he debates and
deep-seated agreement
disagreements and you I just think
that's beautiful not just about human
relationships but it's particularly
beautiful about America right because
it's part of the culture of this country
more so than you know other countries
you know China or India you know Asian
cultures even a lot of European cultures
are very different where that's
considered
not gential Behavior it's not the
respectful Behavior whereas for us you
know part of what makes this country
great is you could disagree like hell
and still get together at the dinner
table at the end of it I think we've
lost some of that but I'm I'm on a bit
of a mission to bring that back and so I
whether it's in politics or not I'm
committed in that next step whatever the
path is over the next four years one of
the things I'm committed to doing is
making sure that I go out of my way to
talk to people who actually disagree
with me and I think it's a big part of
how we're going to save our country are
they right is the thing I actually
literally see you do so you are
listening to the other person it's for
my own benefit to be honest selfish you
also don't lose your so you don't
take it personally you don't get
emotional well you get emotional sort of
in a positive way you get passionate but
you don't get it doesn't you I've never
seen you broken yeah like uh to where
they to they get you like outraged it's
always probably because you just love
the heat I love the Heat and I'm a
curious person so I'm kind of I'm always
curious about what's actually getting
the other what's motivating the person
on the other side that Curiosity I think
is actually the best antidote right
because if you're just try to stay calm
in the face of somebody attacking you
that that's kind of fake but if you're
kind of curious about them right
genuinely just
wondering I think most people are good
people inherently we we all maybe get
misguided from time to time but what's
actually
what is it that's moving that person to
go in such a different direction than
you I think as long as you're curious
about that you know I mean the climate
change protesters that have interrupted
my
events I'm as fascinated by the
psychology of what's moving them and
what they might be hungry for as I am
concerned about rebutting the content of
what they're saying to me and I think
that that's
certainly something I I care to revive
we don't talk about in politics that
much but Reviving that sense of
curiosity I think is in in a certain way
one of the ways we're going to be able
to disagree but still remain friends and
fellow citizens at the end of it I agree
with you I think fundamentally most
people are good and one of the things I
love most about humans is the very thing
you said which is curiosity I think we
should lean into that you're a curious
person I know this podcast is basically
born of your curiosity I'm sure and so I
just think we need more of that in
America that kind of you when I talked
about our founding fathers we were J
Bren about it but they were inventors
they were writers they were political
theorists they were founders of a Nation
they kind of had that boundless
curiosity too and I think part of what's
happened culturally in the country is
we've gotten to this place
where you know we've been told that stay
in your lane you know you don't have an
expert degree in that therefore you
can't have an opinion about it I don't
know I think that's not it's a little
bit unamerican in terms of the culture
of it and yeah it's one of the things I
like about you and why was looking
forward to this conversation too is it's
cool to have intellectual interests that
span Sports to culture to politics to
philosophy and it's not like you just
have to be an expert trained in one of
those things to be able to engage in it
but actually maybe just maybe you might
even be better at each of those things
because you're curious about the other
the renaissance man if you will I think
we've lost a little bit of that that
Concept in America but uh it's certainly
something that is important to me and
this year it's been kind of cool after
leaving the campaign I've been doing
I've been doing a wide range of things
right I've been uh picking up my tennis
game again I practiced at the Ohio
you're damn good at tennis I was
watching I used to be used to be better
but I'm picking it somebody online was
trying to correctly I I think I think
you shot a very particular angle of that
video I think they were criticizing your
backhand was weak potentially cuz you're
that would be a fair
criticism but but it's gotten better
again it's gotten better recently I've
been playing with the um I've practicing
with the Ohio State team in the morning
they're like number one in the country
or close to it now the guys on the team
play but there's a couple coaches who
were recently on the team one of whom
used to be a guy used to play with in
the Juniors who invited me out so I hit
with them in the mornings alongside the
team my goal I I'm I should be I should
be I should be careful
here oh no my hips my hips are telling
I've been playing so many days a week
that uh that I I set a goal for myself
by the end of the to play in a
particular tournament but we'll see if
that happens or not no no but regardless
it's been fun to get back into tennis I
um I I was an executive producer on a
movie something I've never done before
it's called City of Dreams it's about a
story of a young man who was trafficked
into the United States it's a thriller
it's a very cool movie to be a part of
I've actually uh started a couple
companies one company in particular that
I think is going to be significant this
year guiding some of the other
businesses that I've gotten off the
ground in the past so for me I'm I'm
re-energized now where I was in Pol in
the thick of politics for a full year
there and getting a little bit of oxygen
outside of politics doing some things in
the private sector has actually given me
a renewed sense of of energy to you know
get back into driving change through
Public Service well it's been uh fun
watching you do all these fascinating
things but I I do hope that you have a
future in politics as well because it's
nice to have somebody that uh
uh has rigorously developed their ideas
and is honest about presenting them and
is uh willing to debate those ideas out
in public space so I would love for you
and people like you to represent the
future of American politics so uh V
thank you so much uh for every time I'm
swiveling this chair I'm thinking of
Thomas Jefferson it's good that was my
goal so big shout out to Thomas
Jefferson for the for the swivel chair
and thank you so much for talking today
this was fun thank you man one final
fact to Thomas Jefferson whether you cut
this or of course he wrote he wrote
16,000 essays in his life letters right
so you I've written four books in four
years that is nothing compared to you
know how prolific this guy was anyway
anyway good stuff man thanks for having
me neither of us will ever live up to
anything close to Thomas Jefferson I
love your curiosity man thanks for you
know reading the book and appreciated
your feedback on it as well and you know
hopefully we'll do this again sometime
yep thank you brother thanks dude
thanks for listening to this
conversation with VC ramaswami to
support this podcast please check out
our sponsors in the description and now
let me leave you with some words from
George
Orwell political language is designed to
make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable and to give an appearance of
solidity to Pure
wind thank you for listening and hope to
see you next time