Vivek Ramaswamy Trump, Conservatism, Nationalism, Immigration, and War | Lex Fridman Podcast

True conservatism isn't just about what we're against; it's about boldly defining what we stand for: merit, free speech, and reviving the principles of self-governance.

The way I would do it is through a 75% headcount reduction across the board in the federal bureaucracy, sending them home packing. I would shut down agencies that shouldn't exist and rescind every unconstitutional regulation that Congress ever passed. In a true self-governing democracy, it should be our elected representatives that make the laws and the rules, not elected bureaucrats.

I believe that merit and equity are actually incompatible. Merit and group quotas are incompatible; you can have one or the other, but you can't have both. This approach is an assault and a crusade on the nanny state itself, which presents itself in several forms. There's the entitlement state, which is the welfare state, and then there’s the regulatory state, which is what we're discussing. Additionally, 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 were 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 nanny state. Once we've done that, I believe we will have revived the republic that I think would make George Washington proud.

The following is a conversation with Vivek Ramaswamy 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 Republican Party. Before all of that, he was a successful biotech entrepreneur and investor with a degree in biology from Harvard and a law degree from Yale.

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 "Lex Fridman Podcast." To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Vivek Ramaswamy.

You are one of the great elucidators of conservative ideas, so you're the perfect person to ask: 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 the direction of the conservative movement: we've gotten so good at describing what we're against. Right? There's a list of things that we could rail against—wokeism, transgender ideology, climate ideology, COVID policies, the radical Biden agenda, the radical Harris agenda—the list goes on. However, what is missing in the conservative movement right now is what we actually stand for.

What is our vision for the future of the country? 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 feel that’s why we didn’t have the red wave in 2022. They tried to blame Donald Trump, they tried to blame abortion, and 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 believe we stand for the ideals that we fought the American Revolution for in 1776—ideals like merit. The best person should get the job without regard to their genetics. You should get ahead in this country not on the color of your skin, but on the content of your character. We also stand for free speech and open debate, not just as some sort of catchphrase, but as the idea that any opinion...

=> 00:03:41

We got so caught up in criticizing the other side that we forgot to define who we are and what we stand for. It's time to reclaim our conservative ideals: merit, free speech, self-governance, and the rule of law.

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.

We also stand for free speech and 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. Another key point is self-governance, and this is a big one right now. The people we elect to run the government are 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.

Furthermore, the other ideal that the nation was founded on, which I think we need to revive, 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 the law.

So, there are some policy commitments and principles: merit, free speech, self-governance, and rule of law. Culturally, what does it mean to be a conservative? 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. It’s a significant aspect not just through the campaign, but through 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, and religion, which is a really interesting topic. It's something you've spoken about a lot, but you've also had a lot of really tense debates, so you're a perfect person to ask to steal man the other side.

• Yeah.

• [Lex] So let me ask you about progressivism.

• Sure.

• Can you steer me on the case for progressivism and left-wing ideas?

• Yeah, so look, I think the strongest case, particularly for left-wing ideas in the United States, is that the country has been imperfect in living up to its ideals. Even though our founding fathers preached the importance of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and freedom, they didn't practice those values, as many of our founding fathers were slave owners, leading to inequalities with respect to women and other disempowered groups.

Such that they say that this created 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 aren't that long ago. 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 steel manning it, trying to give you...

=> 00:06:19

The pursuit of equality can sometimes ignite the very divisions it aims to heal.

The pursuit of happiness and freedom has been a fundamental value in the United States; however, it is evident that many of our founding fathers did not practice those values. This is particularly true in light of the fact that several were slave owners, and there were significant inequalities with respect to women and other disempowered groups. Such historical realities have contributed to a power structure in this country that continues to persist to this day. The vestiges of what happened even in 1860 remind us that the course of human history isn't that long ago. Therefore, we need to do everything in our power to correct for those imbalances in power in the United States. This perspective encapsulates the core view of the modern left.

I am not criticizing this view right now; rather, I am steel manning it. I aim to provide a good articulation of why the left believes they have a compelling case for the government to step in and correct for historical or present inequalities. While I can offer my counter-rebuttal, I believe the best statement of the left is that we have been imperfect in living up to those ideals. To address this imperfection, we will need to take severe steps, if necessary, to correct for those historical inequalities before we can achieve true equality of opportunity in this country. This is the case for the left-wing view in modern America.

In response to this perspective, my concern is that, even if the motivation is well-intentioned, it may recreate many of the same problems that the left set out to solve. For instance, I have observed a rise in anti-black and anti-minority racism in this country over the last year and a half, which seems curious considering that, over the past decade, we have come as close to Martin Luther King's promised land as one could envision. In this envisioned place, every American, regardless of skin color, is able to vote without obstruction, and individuals can attain the highest jobs in the land without race standing in their way.

So, why are we witnessing this resurgence of racism? I believe it is partly due to the left-wing obsession with racial equity over the last 20 years. When you take something away from someone based on their skin color—which is what correcting for prior injustice was supposed to do according to left-wing views—you foster greater animus towards other groups. This philosophy creates several problems, but the most significant issue is that it can fan the flames of the very divisions that you supposedly wanted to heal.

I see this dynamic reflected in our immigration policy as well. For example, I am from Ohio, where I was born and raised, and I currently live there. The controversy in Springfield, Ohio, illustrates this point. I do not blame the native residents of Springfield or the Haitians who have moved there; however, the situation often results in a divide and conquer strategy. When you introduce a significant number of newcomers—say, 20,000 people into a community of 50,000—who may not know the language, struggle to follow traffic laws, and have difficulty assimilating, it is inevitable that there will be a reactionary backlash.

=> 00:09:06

True diversity thrives on individual merit, not group quotas. When we prioritize equity over ability, we risk creating division and undermining the very progress we aim to achieve.

Born and raised in Ohio, I still live there today. Recently, there has been a controversy in Springfield, Ohio. I personally don't blame really any of the people who are in Springfield, whether they are the native people who have been born and raised there or even the Haitians who have been moved to Springfield. However, it ends up becoming a divide and conquer strategy and outcome. When you put 20,000 people in a community of 50,000, where the newcomers don't know the language, are unable to follow the traffic laws, and struggle to assimilate, there is inevitably going to be a reactionary backlash.

This situation began, perhaps, with some type of charitable instinct—some sympathy for the people who went through the earthquake in 2010 in Haiti and achieved temporary protective status in the United States. What started with sympathy and earnest intentions has actually created the very division and reactionary response that we claim to want to avoid. So, that is my number one criticism of that left-wing worldview.

My second point is that I believe merit and equity are actually incompatible. Merit and group quotas cannot coexist; you can have one or the other, but not both. The reason for this is that no two people are the same. Each individual possesses different skill sets, talents, and gifts, which is the beauty of human diversity. A true meritocracy is a system where individuals can achieve the maximum of their God-given potential without any barriers. However, this will naturally lead to differences in outcomes across various parameters—not just financial, but in many aspects of life.

Meritocracy demands these differences in outcomes, while the left's vision of group equity often comes at the cost of meritocracy. Therefore, my two reasons for opposing this view are that it is not meritocratic, and it often ends up hurting the very people it claims to help. This is part of what we are witnessing in modern America.

In a recent conversation, I had a pretty intense debate with Mark Cuban, which I think is available on my podcast. He is a good guy and often sends me beautifully eloquent criticisms, which I appreciate. One of the more convincing things he said to me was related to the concept of DEI.

To clarify, DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. This philosophy has been adopted by institutions, primarily in the private sector, including companies, nonprofits, and universities. They strive for specific forms of racial, gender, and sexual orientation diversity. However, it is not just about diversity; it also involves equity, which means ensuring equal outcomes as measured by certain group quota or representation targets.

The problem with DEI agendas is that, in the name of diversity, they have often sacrificed true diversity of thought. The argument goes that we need to create an environment receptive to minorities and minority views. However, if certain opinions are...

=> 00:12:08

True diversity thrives on a spectrum of ideas, not just identities. When we prioritize one over the other, we risk silencing the very voices we aim to uplift.

The DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) agendas have been adopted by institutions principally in the private sector, including companies, nonprofits, and universities. These organizations assert that they need to strive for specific forms of racial, gender, and sexual orientation diversity. However, it is not just about diversity; it is also about equity, ensuring that there are equal outcomes as measured by certain group quota targets or group representation targets that they aim to meet within their ranks.

The problem with the DEI agendas is that, in the name of diversity, they have become a vehicle for sacrificing true diversity of thought. The argument often presented is that an environment must be created that is receptive to minorities and minority views. However, if certain opinions are deemed to be hostile to those minorities, then those opinions must be excluded in the name of diversity. This exclusion inherently sacrifices actual diversity of thought.

To illustrate this point, consider a specific example. One might question whether it is truly a bad thing if an organization chooses to exclude individuals who express racist views. While this could be debated, it is essential to examine how such policies play out in the real world. In my experience, I have not encountered people uttering racial epithets in everyday settings like restaurants or grocery stores, nor have I seen this in the workplace. However, a tangible case does exist.

There was an instance presented before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), one of the government enforcers of the DEI agenda. In this case, a woman wore a red sweater on Fridays to celebrate veterans and invited her colleagues to do the same. She had formed an affinity group to appreciate those who had served in the military, as her son had also served. However, a minority employee at the business claimed that this display was a microaggression. Consequently, the employer asked her to stop wearing the sweater. Despite this, she continued to celebrate by hanging the sweater on the back of her seat at the office. The employer then insisted that she could not do that either.

The irony here is that, in the name of diversity, which aims to create a welcoming workplace for all Americans, the focus on certain types of diversity has led to a hostility to diversity of thought. This trend has been particularly rampant over the last four years and, in my view, leaves America worse off. The beauty of America lies in its ability to foster institutions that are strengthened by the expression of different points of view.

My primary criticism of the DEI agenda is not solely that it is anti-meritocratic—though it is—but rather that it is hostile to the free and open exchange of ideas. This hostility often manifests in creating legal liabilities for organizations that allow certain viewpoints to be expressed. I believe this is the most significant concern regarding DEI initiatives.

In contrast, I think what Mark would argue is that diversity allows you to look for talent in places where you haven't looked before. This perspective emphasizes the potential benefits of diversity when it is approached in a manner that truly values a range of ideas and experiences.

=> 00:14:45

Bureaucracies often use the guise of virtue to mask their failures, diverting attention from accountability while promoting ideologies that stifle genuine dialogue.

In discussions about institutional strength and diversity, it is essential to have institutions that are stronger from different points of view being expressed. However, my number one criticism of the DEI agenda is not merely that it's anti meritocratic—though it is—but rather that it's actually hostile to the free and open exchange of ideas. This hostility arises from the creation of often legal liabilities for organizations that permit certain viewpoints to be expressed, which I believe is the biggest concern.

I think what Mark would say is that diversity allows you to look for talent in places where you haven't looked before and therefore find really special talent and special people. He made that case during a great conversation we had. My response to that is, great, that's a good thing. However, we don't need a three-letter acronym to achieve this. You don't need special programmatic DEI incentives 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—the best and brightest. If they fail to do so, they will become less competitive compared to other companies.

Moreover, you don't need ESG, DEI, or CSR regimes, especially those enforced by the government, to facilitate this. For instance, today, to be a government contractor, you must adopt certain racial and gender representation targets in your workforce. That's not the free market working. Therefore, you can't have it both ways. Either it's going to be good for companies, and they will act in their self-interest—something that capitalists like Mark Cuban and I believe—or we should let the market work rather than forcing it to adopt these top-down standards.

I find it intriguing how human psychology plays a role in this dynamic. Whenever you have an administration or a committee that comes together to pursue a good thing, the committee starts to use the good thing, the ideology behind which there's a good ideal, to bully people and to do bad things. This phenomenon seems to transcend left-wing versus right-wing ideology and is more about the nature of bureaucracy, which often prioritizes its own existence as its top goal.

Part of what we've seen with the so-called perpetuation of wokeness in American life is that the bureaucracy has used the appearance of virtue to deflect accountability for its own failures. This has manifested in various spheres of American life. For example, consider the military's actions surrounding our entry into Iraq after 9/11. That decision had nothing to do with the stated objectives and is widely regarded as a regrettable policy move. Our policy ranks and foreign policy establishment made a mistake by invading a country that was not responsible for 9/11.

Nonetheless, if you're part of the U.S. military or a figure like General Mark Milley, you might prefer to discuss white rage or systemic racism rather than addressing the military's substantive failures. This is what I refer to as the practice of blowing woke smoke to deflect accountability. The same trend can be observed in the educational system, where it becomes easier to claim that math is racist due to inequitable results on objective tests based on different demographic attributes. This narrative allows for the deflection of accountability rather than confronting the actual issues at hand.

=> 00:17:35

Bureaucracy stifles innovation and accountability, turning genuine social issues into distractions while the real problems go unaddressed.

General Mark Milley, you would rather talk about white rage or systemic racism than you would actually discuss the military's actual substantive failures. This practice is what I call the practice of blowing woke smoke to deflect accountability. There is a similar phenomenon with respect to the educational system. It is much easier to claim, 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 that math is racist, but it is 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, along with the zip code coded mechanism for trapping kids in poor communities in bad schools. In many cases, what these bureaucracies do is use the appearance of signaling virtue as a way of not really advancing a social cause, but rather strengthening the power of the bureaucracy itself and insulating that bureaucracy from criticism.

In many ways, bureaucracy carves the channels through which much of this woke ideology has flowed over the last several years. That is why part of my focus has shifted away from just combating wokeness, as I think that is just a symptom, versus combating the actual bureaucracy itself. The rise of this managerial class, often referred to as the deep state, is a topic we discuss in government, but the deep state doesn't just exist in the government; it exists in every sphere of our lives, from companies to nonprofits to universities.

This rise of the managerial class, or the committee class, consists of people who professionally sit on committees and wield far more power today than actual creators, entrepreneurs, original ideators, and ordinary citizens alike. Yes, you need managers, but as few as possible. When you have a giant managerial class, the actual doers don't get to do. As you mentioned, bureaucracy is a phenomenon of both the left and the right; it transcends political boundaries.

However, it is anti-American at its core. Our founding fathers were anti-bureaucratic at their core; they were the pioneers, the explorers, the unafraid. They were the inventors and the creators. People often forget this about Benjamin Franklin, who signed the Declaration of Independence. He was one of the great inventors in the United States. He invented the lightning rod, the Franklin stove, which was one of the great innovations in the field of thermodynamics, and he even invented a number of musical instruments that Mozart and Beethoven went on to use.

You might think that Franklin was a one-off, but that is not the case. Thomas Jefferson also contributed significantly to innovation. For instance, what are you sitting in right now? You are sitting on a swivel chair. Who invented the swivel chair?

• Thomas Jefferson?

• Yes, Thomas Jefferson.

Interestingly enough, he invented the swivel chair while he was writing the Declaration of Independence. You reminded me that he drafted the Declaration of Independence when he was 33 years old.

=> 00:20:23

America was built on the belief that we, the people, can self-govern without the constraints of bureaucracy.

Who happened to be one of the founders of the country? Wrong, it wasn't unique to him. You have Thomas Jefferson. What are you sitting in right now? You're sitting on a swivel chair.

Okay, who invented the swivel chair?

• Thomas Jefferson?
• Yes, Thomas Jefferson.
• [Lex] Yeah.

• Funny enough, he invented the swivel chair while he was writing the Declaration of Independence.

• [Vivek] Which is insane.

This reminded me that he drafted the Declaration of Independence when he was 33. He was 33 when he did it while inventing the swivel chair.

I like how you're focused on the swivel chair. Can we just pause on the Declaration of Independence? It makes me feel horrible.

But the Declaration of Independence, the part everybody knows, what people don't know is that he was an architect. He worked in Virginia, and the Virginia State Capital Dome, the building that's in Virginia today where the state capital is, was actually designed by Thomas Jefferson as well.

These people weren't individuals who sat on professional committees; they weren't bureaucrats. They hated bureaucracy. Part of Old World England is that it was committed to the idea of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy and monarchy go hand in hand. A monarch can't actually administer or govern directly; it requires bureaucracy, a machine to actually technocratically govern for him.

So, the United States of America was founded on the idea that we reject that old worldview. The old world vision was that we, the people, cannot be trusted to self-govern or make decisions for ourselves. The modern version of this is that we would burn ourselves off the planet 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, and enlightened bureaucrats to set the limits that actually protect people from their own worst impulses.

That's the old worldview, and 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 that we said, "hell no" to that vision that we, the people, for better or worse, are going to self-govern without the committee class restraining what we do.

The likes of Jefferson, 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 were inventors, creators, pioneers, and explorers. They were also the very people who came together to sign the Declaration of Independence.

So, yes, this rise of bureaucracy in America, in every sphere of life, I view it as anti-American, actually. I hope that, you know, conservatives and liberals alike can get behind my crusade to shut most of it down.

• Yes. Speaking of shutting most of it down, how do you propose we do that? How do we make government more efficient? How to make it smaller? What are the different ideas of how to do that?

Well, the first thing I'll say is you're always taking a risk, okay? There's no free lunch here, mostly, at least. You're always taking a risk. One risk is that you say, "I want to reform it gradually. 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.

=> 00:23:14

To truly restore self-governance and unleash economic potential, we must be bold enough to cut government bureaucracy by 75%. It's not just about trimming the fat; it's about reshaping the entire system for excellence.

How do you propose we do that? This question leads us to consider how to make government more efficient and how to make it smaller. What are the different ideas of how to do that?

Well, the first thing I'll say is you're always taking a risk, okay? There's no free lunch here, mostly, at least. You're always taking a risk. One risk is that you say, “I wanna reform it gradually. I wanna 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, and I think it hasn't gotten us very far. 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 is the risk of cutting too much. This means saying, “I'm gonna cut so much that I'm gonna take the risk of not just cutting the fat, but also cutting some muscle along the way.” I can't give you option C, which is to say that I'm gonna cut exactly the right amount; I'm gonna do it perfectly. Okay, you don't know, x anti, you don't know beforehand that it's exactly how it's gonna go, so that's a meaningless claim. It's only a question of which risk you're gonna take.

I believe in the moment we live in right now, the second risk is the risk we have to be willing to take. We haven't had a class of politician who has gotten very serious about cutting so much that you're also gonna cut some fat, but not only some fat, but also some muscle. That's the risk we have to take.

So, what would I propose? The way I would do it is through a 75% headcount reduction across the board in the federal bureaucracy. We need to send them home packing, shut down agencies that shouldn't exist, and rescind every unconstitutional regulation that Congress ever passed. In a true self-governing democracy, it should be our elected representatives that make the laws and the rules, not unelected bureaucrats. This approach would be 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. I believe it is the blueprint for how we save this country.

That's pretty gangster—75%. There's this kind of almost meme-like video of Argentinian President Javier Milei, where on a whiteboard, he has all the, I think, 18 ministries lined up, and he's ripping them apart, saying things like, “Department of Education, gone.” Now, the situation in Argentina is pretty dire, while the situation in the United States is not. Despite everybody saying, “Oh, the empire is falling,” this is still, in my opinion, the greatest nation on earth. The economy is doing very well, and this remains the hub of culture, innovation, and so many amazing things.

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 depend on what your level of well really is and what you're benchmarking against. America's not built on complacency, right? We're built on the pursuit of excellence. Are we still the greatest nation on planet earth? I believe we are, and I agree with you on that. However, 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.

=> 00:26:25

To achieve true excellence, we must challenge the complacency of bureaucracy and empower elected leaders to reclaim their authority.

The discussion revolves around the idea of firing 75% of people in government during times when things are relatively stable. The speaker expresses a strong belief that such a drastic measure is necessary and essential. They argue that the assessment of whether things are going well depends on one's benchmarking standards.

America, according to the speaker, is not built on complacency; rather, it is founded on the pursuit of excellence. They assert that while America is still the greatest nation on planet earth, it is not performing at its highest potential, especially when measured against its own standards of excellence. The speaker believes that the nation is currently on a trajectory of decline. However, they emphasize that this does not signify the end of the empire, but rather a critical moment that can be addressed.

A significant factor in this decline is attributed to the rise of the managerial class, which the speaker claims is sucking the lifeblood out of the country and undermining the culture of innovation and self-governance. They propose that it is indeed possible to make substantial changes, suggesting a thought experiment for a drastic reduction in the federal bureaucracy.

The speaker humorously suggests that on day one, anyone in the federal bureaucracy who is not elected could be dismissed based on the last digit of their social security number—odd numbers out, even numbers in. This would result in a 50% cut, and further measures could lead to a 75% reduction. They clarify that this is a thought experiment rather than a serious policy proposal.

One of the advantages of this approach, they argue, is that it would avoid legal complications related to gender, racial, or political discrimination. The speaker believes that such a drastic reduction would not negatively impact the average American, except for the fact that the government would become smaller and more restrained, operating with significantly less funding. They point out that in many organizations, 25% of the people do 80 to 90% of the useful work, and government agencies are no different.

The speaker envisions a scenario where this thought experiment is conducted not randomly, but with metrics to identify individuals who possess the greatest competence and commitment to the Constitution. This would not only enhance the civic character of the United States but also restore power to elected officials, allowing them to govern without the interference of unelected bureaucrats.

Moreover, the speaker argues that such changes would stimulate the economy, as the regulatory state is seen as a hindrance to economic growth. They contend that much of the regulatory framework is unconstitutional and that what is needed is leadership with a spine to implement the changes that conservative presidents have only hinted at in the past.

In conclusion, the speaker believes that this kind of reform would attract ultra-competent individuals to government roles, ultimately benefiting the nation as a whole.

=> 00:29:03

People leave jobs not for money, but because they feel stifled and want to unleash their true potential.

To run the government effectively, they've got the power back and they're running the government again, as opposed to the unelected bureaucrats who wield the power today. This shift would also stimulate the economy. The regulatory state is like a wet blanket on the American economy, and most of it is 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.

Furthermore, that kind of leadership would attract the ultra competent to actually want to work in government. Currently, most competent people feel that the bureaucratic machine will swallow them whole. If we could clear the decks of 75% of them, then real innovators could show up. There is a cynical view of capitalism where people think that the only reason to do anything is to earn more money. However, I believe that many people would want to work in government to build something that's helpful to a huge number of people.

There are opportunities for the very best to have a large-scale impact in various institutions, including our universities and K through 12 education. Through entrepreneurship, which I am obviously very biased towards, I think there is a lot that can be created that you couldn't create through government. However, in the moment we live in, where our government is as broken as it is and is responsible for the declining nature of our country, bringing in people who are unafraid, talented, and able to have an impact could make all the difference.

I agree that most people, even those who claim to be motivated by money, are not actually driven by it. Instead, I think most people are driven by a belief that they can do more than they are currently permitted to do with their skill sets. Personally, I have run a number of companies, and one of the questions I would always ask during interviews is, "Why did you leave your last job?" or "Why are you leaving your last job?"

Interestingly, I rarely heard that I wasn't paid enough as a reason for leaving. While candidates might be shy to express that during an interview, there are indirect ways to signal it. In fact, that reason wasn't even in the top ten reasons why people left their jobs. The number one reason was that they felt unable to do the true maximum of what their potential was in their prior role. This is the primary reason people leave their jobs.

As I reflect on this, I don't mean to sound self-boastful when I say that we would attract these people. I believe this sentiment is also true for most of the individuals who left the company as well.

=> 00:31:43

People leave jobs not because of the company, but because they feel their potential isn't being realized. It's all about finding the right mission that aligns with your skills.

There are indirect ways to signal that often go unnoticed. In fact, that really wasn't, at all, like even a top 10 reason why people were leaving their job. The number one reason people leave their jobs is that they felt like they were unable to do the true maximum of what their potential was in their prior role. This sentiment is not only prevalent among those who leave, but I believe it also applies to those who join companies like mine.

At Roivant, and in other companies I've started, the number one reason people join companies, and the number one reason people leave companies, whether they have joined mine or left mine in the past, has been that they feel like they're able to do more than they're able to, with their skillset than that environment permits them to actually achieve. This is what people truly yearn for in their professional lives.

When we consider capitalism and true free market capitalism, we often use terms like meritocracy. This concept revolves around building a system, whether it exists within a nation or an organization, that allows every individual to flourish and achieve the maximum of their potential. However, sometimes there is a mismatch between an organization’s mission and an individual's skill set. In such cases, it is not a negative outcome; rather, it indicates that that person needs to leave and find their mission somewhere else.

Bringing this discussion back to government, I believe that the rise of bureaucracy in many government agencies has actually obfuscated the mission of these agencies. If you were to approach most federal bureaucracies and simply ask them, what's the mission?, I doubt that even the person who leads it could provide a coherent answer. For instance, if we consider the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), I would be surprised if someone working there could articulate its mission clearly.

This uncertainty could be applied to various other departments as well, such as the Department of Commerce or even the U.S. military. If we ask, what's the purpose of the U.S. military, the Department of Defense?, I can provide an answer: to win wars and, more importantly, through its strength, to avoid wars. If that is indeed the mission, then it should not involve tinkering around in foreign conflicts without clear direction.

Ultimately, our mission should be to protect the United States of America. This encompasses three key objectives: to win wars, to avoid wars, and to protect the homeland of the United States of America and the people who reside there. This is a clear mission. Similarly, one could argue that a reasonable mission for the Department of Health and Human Services could be to make America the healthiest country on planet Earth, with the goal of developing and meeting specific metrics to achieve that aim.

=> 00:34:07

A clear mission fuels potential; without it, bureaucracy stifles innovation and progress.

Our mission is to protect the United States of America, to win wars, and to avoid wars. Those three things are paramount. But what does protecting the United States of America mean? First and foremost, it refers to the homeland of the United States of America and the people who reside there. This is a clear mission.

For instance, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) might reasonably state its mission as wanting to make America the healthiest country on planet earth. They would then develop metrics to meet those goals, setting policies or at least implementing policies that best achieve that aim. However, there is a challenge in defining the mission accurately. When governed by the committee class, the sense of mission can dilute within any organization, whether it be a company, government agency, or bureaucracy. Once that sense of mission is lost, it becomes difficult to attract the best and brightest. For individuals to reach their maximum potential, they must know what they are working towards; there has to be a mission in the first place. Without this clarity, organizations tend to attract more from the committee class, leading to a self-perpetuating downward spiral. This is what the blob of the federal bureaucracy looks like today.

You mentioned something profound regarding the individual scale of the individual contributor, doer, creator. Each person has a certain capacity to do remarkable things, but barriers inevitably arise. There is always friction when humans work together on something. The goal of a great company is to minimize that friction and reduce the number of barriers. However, the managerial class often has an incentive to create barriers. This is inherent to the nature of bureaucracy, which tends to create "sand in the gears" to slow down processes.

While there may be some room for barriers in certain contexts—as a defensive mechanism designed to reduce dynamism—when this becomes excessive, it can ultimately kill the host, whether that host is a school, a company, or a government. I think about this in terms of a balance of distributed power. I don’t mean power in the Foucault sense of social power, but rather the ability to effect relevant change within any organization. This balance exists between what you could call the founder class, the creator class, the everyday citizen, the stakeholder class, and the managerial class.

There is a role for all three classes. In a constitutional republic, the constituents are the citizens. The equivalent of the creator class consists of those who create things within that polity, while the bureaucratic class serves to administer and act as a liaison between the two. I don’t deny that there is some role for the managerial class, but currently, in this moment in American history—more or less true for the last century—it has grown, particularly since Woodrow Wilson's advent of the modern administrative state, which has metastasized through FDR's New Deal.

=> 00:36:44

In a world where creators are stifled by bureaucracy, it's time to question the purpose of institutions and whether they still serve the people they were meant to help.

In a constitutional republic, the citizen serves as the foundation of the organization. Within this polity, there exists the equivalent of a creator class, comprising individuals who innovate and produce. Additionally, there is a bureaucratic class designed to administer and act as a liaison between these two groups. While I acknowledge that there is a role for those in the managerial class, I believe that, particularly in this moment in American history, their influence has grown disproportionately. This trend has been evident for the last century, beginning with Woodrow Wilson's advent of the modern administrative state, which expanded further through FDR's New Deal and the requirements to manage it. This expansion continued with LBJ's Great Society and has persisted through various administrations, including those of Republican presidents like Richard Nixon.

As a result, we find ourselves in a United States where the committee class, both within and outside the government, wields excessive influence and power compared to the everyday citizen and the creators. The creators, in many ways, are constrained, hamstrung, and shackled in their ability to reach their full potential contributions. Personally, I identify most closely with the creator class, as I have always been engaged in creating. While I believe the United States remains one of the best countries for creators to thrive, I also recognize that we have become more restrictive towards them than we have been at our best. This is a change I wish to see.

When discussing the Department of Education, one might consider the perspective of those who argue against its closure, citing the potential pain caused by firing 75% of its employees. To address this, we must return to the question of mission. Many advocates for the Department of Education may not fully understand its original purpose. It is essential to ask, what was that purpose? This inquiry is particularly relevant when contemplating government reform.

The Department of Education was established to ensure that localities, especially states, did not divert taxpayer dollars from predominantly black school districts to predominantly white ones. This was not merely a theoretical concern; there was evidence of such practices occurring in certain southern states. Whether one supports or opposes the federal solution, it is crucial to recognize that the original purpose of the U.S. Department of Education was to prevent states from systematically disadvantaging specific groups. Thus, we must evaluate whether this organization is still fulfilling its intended purpose today.

=> 00:39:34

The Department of Education has strayed from its original mission of ensuring equity in funding for schools, now using federal dollars as leverage to impose specific ideological agendas on local curricula.

The concern that localities and particularly states were siphoning taxpayer dollars away from predominantly black school districts to predominantly white ones was not merely theoretical; it was a reality at the time, with evidence suggesting that this was occurring in certain states in the South. Thus, regardless of one's opinion on the federal solution, it is important to recognize that the original purpose of the U.S. Department of Education was to ensure that, from a federal perspective, states were not systematically disadvantaging black school districts in favor of predominantly white ones.

However, while this purpose was noble and relevant six decades ago, it is no longer applicable today. There is no evidence today of states intentionally mapping out which are the black versus white school districts and siphoning money in one direction over another. In fact, we have learned that the school districts in the inner city, many of which are predominantly black, actually spend more money per student than other school districts, yet achieve worse results as measured by test scores and other performance metrics on a per-student basis. This suggests that there are other factors beyond dollar expenditures that determine student success, and it implies that the overfunding of some poorly run schools may inadvertently reward them for their bureaucratic failures.

Against this backdrop, the Department of Education has shifted from its original purpose of promoting racial equality to implementing a different vision of racial equity. This new vision is reflected in the ideologies that they now demand in the curriculum content taught in public schools. Federal funding, which accounts for about 10% of the funding of most public schools across the country, comes with strings attached. Unlike in 1970, today’s Department of Education requires schools to adopt certain goals aimed at achieving racial or gender equity in order to receive funding.

Ironically, as bureaucracies evolve, they often resort to what can be described as "woke smoke" to cover up their failures. For instance, there have been cases where schools in the Midwest or Great Plains have been denied funding by the Department of Education due to the inclusion of certain subjects in their curriculum, such as archery. While archery may seem like an unconventional choice, it combines mental focus with physical aptitude, and whether one likes it or not, it raises the question of whether it is appropriate for the federal government to withhold funding from a school based on its curriculum choices that the locality deems relevant.

Ultimately, what we observe is an abandonment of the original purpose for which the Department of Education was established. The issue of siphoning money from black school districts to white school districts, which the department was originally formed to address, is no longer a pressing concern.

=> 00:42:08

When institutions achieve their purpose, it's time to celebrate and move on, not create endless bureaucracies that just keep expanding.

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. 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, which was siphoning money from black school districts to white school districts and laundering that effectively in public funds; that doesn't exist anymore. Instead, they find new purposes, creating a lot more damage along the way.

So, you asked me to steel 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 that for a lot of these agencies, many of them were formed with a positive intention at the outset. Yes, 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? A task force.

A task force versus an agency means that 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. I think we don't have enough of that in our culture.

For instance, even if you have a company that's generated tons of cash flow and solved a problem—let's say it's a biopharmaceutical company that developed a cure for some disease—and the only thing people knew at that company was how to develop a cure for 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 close up shop. And that's actually a beautiful thing to do.

You don't see that happen enough in the American consciousness, in the American culture, of when an institution has achieved its purpose: celebrate it and then move on. I think that culture in our government would result in a vastly restrained scope of government. Rather than today, where 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. 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 create drastic inequalities or create the kind of pain we don't want to have in government? If the question is what should government do that the private sector cannot, I'll give you one: Protect our border. I mean, capitalism is never going to be the job of capitalists, nor will it ever be the capability or inclination of capitalists to preserve a national border.

I think a nation—it's literally, I think, one of the chapters of this book—a nation without borders is not a nation; it's almost a tautology. An open border is not a border. Capitalism's not going to solve that. What's going to solve that is 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, or in this case, could be state government, is to make sure that private parties cannot externalize their costs onto somebody else.

=> 00:44:54

A nation thrives on secure borders and the protection of private property rights; that's the essence of effective government.

I think one of the chapters of this book discusses the concept that a nation without borders is not a nation; it's almost a tautology. An open border is not a border. Capitalism's not gonna solve that. What's gonna solve that is 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. This is an example of a proper function of the federal government: to provide physical security to its citizens.

Another proper role of that federal government, or in this case, state government, is to ensure that private parties cannot externalize their costs onto somebody else without their consent. This is a fancy way economists would use to describe it. What does that mean? It 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 I want to create things, and I'm gonna 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. Therefore, I would say that those are two central functions of government: to preserve national boundaries and the national security of a homeland, and number two, to protect and preserve private property rights and the enforcement of those private property rights. At that point, you've described about 80 to 90% of the proper role of a government.

When asked about infrastructure, I think that most infrastructure can be dealt with through the private sector. You can get into specifics, such as infrastructure that is specific to national security. I do think that the military industrial base is essential to provide national security, and that's a form of infrastructure. However, I don't think you could rely exclusively on the private sector to provide the optimal level of that protection to a nation.

For example, interstate highways could be considered 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 interstate highways, and you could also make powerful arguments for the fact that you could have enough private sector co-ops that could cause that to come into existence as well. However, I'm not dogmatic about this. Broadly speaking, 80 to 90% of the goal of the federal government—I'm not gonna say 100%—should be to protect national boundaries and provide security for the people who live there, as well as to protect the private property rights of the people who reside there. If we restore that, I think we're well on our way to a revival of what our founding fathers envisioned. I believe many of them would give you the same answer that I just did.

When discussing education, if we get government out of education, would I also be for reducing government involvement in the states regarding education? I think that if it goes closer to municipalities and the states, I'm fine with that being a locus for people determining education. For example, school districts could be taxed at the local level, making it a matter for municipalities and townships.

=> 00:47:26

True educational choice starts at the local level; let communities decide how to shape their schools.

The conversation centers around a revival of what our founding fathers envisioned. The speaker reflects on the idea that many of the founding fathers would likely agree with their perspective. When asked about the implications of removing government from education, the speaker responds, “If we get government out of education, would you be also for reducing this as a government in the states for education?”

The speaker elaborates, stating, “I think here, if it goes closer to municipalities and the states, I'm fine with that being a locus for people determining as, for example, school districts are taxed at the local level.” They emphasize the importance of local governance, suggesting that municipalities and townships should have the autonomy to decide democratically how education is governed. This could involve balancing public school districts with options like vouchers or educational savings accounts, allowing families to opt out of traditional schooling.

The speaker expresses their support for true educational choice and diversity of choice, mentioning policies such as the implementation of charter schools and the lowering of barriers to granting state charters. They assert that if the federal government is removed from the equation, “that’s achieved 75% of what I think we need to achieve.” This would allow them to focus on solving other problems while leaving education to the states and municipalities.

The discussion then shifts to Elon's proposal of the Department of Government Efficiency during the Trump administration. The speaker admits a personal bias, stating, “I think it's a great idea. It's something that's very consistent with the core premise of my presidential candidacy.” They recount their friendship with Elon, which developed during their presidential campaign.

When asked who is more hardcore about cutting government, the speaker acknowledges Elon’s commitment, saying, “Elon is pretty hardcore.” They note that while they suggested cutting 75% of federal bureaucrats, Elon proposed a similar figure, leading to a friendly competition over who could be more aggressive in this regard. The speaker believes that both of them share a willingness to take risks, asserting, “the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west, that much I guarantee you.”

They acknowledge that while there may be “some broken glass and some damage,” taking risks can lessen the fear associated with such changes. The speaker emphasizes the importance of prioritizing policy objectives, stating, “there's always going to be a trade off if you have a different policy objective that you wanna achieve.” They recognize that pursuing various policy goals, such as immigration or economic policy, may require short-term sacrifices in effectiveness, especially when committed to reducing the size of government.

=> 00:50:12

Prioritizing the dismantling of the nanny state is crucial for reviving the republic and achieving long-term goals.

President Trump and I have had this conversation, and I believe we would continue to have this conversation regarding where does it rank on our prioritization list? There is 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. You could talk about immigration policy, or you could talk about economic policy; there are other policy objectives. In this context, 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%. This is because there’s just going to be some clunkiness involved; I mean, there are going to be frictional costs for that level of cut.

So, the question remains: where does that rank on your prioritization list? To pull that off, to achieve 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 is your top priority. You could do it at a smaller scale, but at that scale, it only happens if that is your top priority. As president, you would be 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 bear that hardship and inconvenience because I know this other goal is more important on the scale of decades and centuries for the country."

Thus, it is a question of prioritization. Certainly, my own view is that now is a moment where that needs to be a top priority for saving this country. If there's one thing about my campaign that I would emphasize even more clearly if I were to do it again, it is that I care about dismantling that bureaucracy more than anything else. Moreover, it is an assault and a crusade on the nanny state itself. The nanny state presents itself in several forms: there’s the entitlement state, which is the welfare state; there’s the regulatory state, which we are discussing; 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 were 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 nanny state. Once we've done that, we would have revived the republic that I believe would make George Washington proud.

You mentioned the Department of Education, but there's also the Department of Defense. There are a very large number of powerful people who have gotten used to an increasing budget, alongside the growing number of wars and military conflicts. So, if we could just talk about that.

This is the number one priority. There are difficulty levels here, and the Department of Defense would probably be the hardest to address. So, what’s your view on the military-industrial complex, the Department of Defense, and wars in general?

I think, as with the nanny state, I am against it overall. I am against the foreign...

=> 00:52:54

The U.S. should prioritize its own national defense and ensure allies contribute to their own security, or risk reckless foreign conflicts.

There is a very large number of very powerful people that have gotten used to an increasing budget, alongside a rise in the number of wars and military conflicts. This situation raises important questions, particularly regarding the military industrial complex, the Department of Defense (DOD), and wars in general.

To begin, I would like to express my views on the military industrial complex and the DOD. I am against the nanny state, which includes foreign policy interventions. This serves as my starting point. While many from the Neocon school of thought may caricature my views with the media's assistance, my perspective is more nuanced. If it is in the interest of the United States of America to provide certain levels of protection to U.S. allies, we can do so, as long as those allies actually pay for it.

There are two reasons why this is important. The first, albeit less significant, is financial. We are not in a position of surplus; in fact, we are facing a $34 trillion national debt that is growing. Soon, the interest payments on this debt will become the largest line item in our federal budget. Thus, we cannot afford to hand out money freely.

The more important reason is that requiring allies to contribute ensures they have actual skin in the game. This prevents skewed incentives that could lead them to enter conflicts without bearing the full costs. For example, most NATO countries fail to meet the requirement of contributing 2% of their GDP to their own national defense. This is a basic commitment for being part of NATO, yet a majority of these countries do not fulfill it. Germany, in particular, seems to be taking advantage of the United States in this regard.

However, I do not advocate for withdrawing support from allies or ceasing to provide security. What I propose is that these nations must pay for their own defense. This is crucial not only because we lack excess funds, but also because it encourages nations to be more prudent in their decision-making regarding war. If a nation knows that someone else is footing the bill for their security, they may be more inclined to take risks, rather than exercising restraint.

Now, let's bring this discussion to the Department of Defense. The top goal of the U.S. defense policy establishment should be to ensure the national defense of the United States. Ironically, this is where we are currently failing the most. Aside from the Coast Guard, the U.S. military is not effectively used to prevent crossings at our southern border or other borders. In fact, I believe that the United States of America is less secure today than it has been in the past.

=> 00:55:40

Our national defense is failing to protect our homeland while we focus too much on foreign interventions. It's time to prioritize real security threats and invest in safeguarding America.

On the decision-making of those allies, let's bring this home to the Department of Defense. I think the top goal of the U.S. defense policy establishment should be to provide for the national defense of the United States of America. The irony is that that's what we're actually doing most poorly. Other than the Coast Guard, we are not really using the U.S. military to prevent crossings at our own southern border and crossings at our other borders. In fact, I believe the United States of America, our homeland, is less secure today than it has been in a very long time.

We are vulnerable to threats from hypersonic missiles, where China and Russia certainly have capabilities in excess of that of the United States. Hypersonic missiles, which travel faster than the speed of sound, could hit the United States, including those carrying nuclear warheads. Additionally, we are more vulnerable to super EMP attacks, which are electromagnetic pulse attacks that could, without exaggeration, cause significant mass casualties in the United States. These attacks could originate from other nations or even from solar flares. If such an event were to occur, the electric grid's gone, and it is not an exaggeration to say that if that happened, planes would be falling outta the sky because our chips depend on those electromagnetic pulses.

Moreover, we are more vulnerable to cyber attacks. I know that people often start yawning and say, “okay, boring stuff, super EMP, cyber, whatever.” However, 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 ability to fly on an airplane is impaired. These are serious risks where our own national defense spending has been wholly inadequate.

I am not one of those people who says we should decrease versus increase national defense spending; rather, 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. I believe we need an increase in spending on protecting our own homeland, but that is different from the agenda of foreign interventionism and foreign nanny stateism for its own sake. 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 interests of the United States of America.

This process, I believe, has been corrupted by what Dwight Eisenhower famously called the Military Industrial Complex in the United States. However, I think it's bigger than just the financial corruption; it’s a kind of cultural corruption and conceit. Certain members of the expert class believe their perspective is the right one simply because they can scare you with the consequences of not following their advice. One of the beauties of the United States is that, at least in principle, we have civilian control of the military. The person we elect to be the U.S. president is the one who is the true commander in chief.

However, I have my doubts about whether it operates that way. It seems quite obvious that Joe Biden is not a functioning commander in chief of the United States of America, yet on paper, we are still supposed to call him that.

=> 00:58:16

Real leadership means taking control and ensuring the mission aligns with protecting the people, not just following the status quo.

same amount of money on the same project.

This anecdote highlights a significant issue within organizations, both in corporate and governmental structures. The CEO's frustration stems from the fact that, despite his authority, the decisions he makes are not being executed as intended. He reflects, “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 wanna spend money on it. We’re gonna spend money somewhere else.” Yet, despite his clear directives, the head of the research unit continues to allocate resources to the project, demonstrating a disconnect between leadership and execution.

This situation mirrors a broader concern regarding governance in the United States. One of the beauties of the United States is, at least in principle, we have civilian control of the military. The president, who we elect, is supposed to be the true commander in chief. However, doubts arise about whether this principle is genuinely upheld. The speaker expresses skepticism about Joe Biden's capability to fulfill this role, stating, “I think it’s quite obvious that Joe Biden is not a functioning commander in chief of the United States of America.” This raises questions about the effectiveness of leadership and the influence of unelected bureaucrats who may be making critical decisions behind the scenes.

The speaker further elaborates on the implications of this disconnect, suggesting that the mission of the U.S. military should be to protect the homeland and the people who actually live here, which they believe is currently failing. They emphasize the need for leaders to ask fundamental questions about the purpose of the military and to ensure that decisions align with that mission.

In conclusion, the conversation reveals a deep concern about the functioning of leadership both in corporate settings and within the U.S. government. The anecdote from Japan serves as a metaphor for the challenges faced in governance, where directives from elected officials may not translate into action due to entrenched bureaucratic practices. This situation calls for a reevaluation of how authority is exercised and how decisions are implemented to ensure that the stated missions are effectively achieved.

=> 01:00:56

In a system where you can't fire the people who work for you, you end up working for them instead. It's time to rethink how we govern and stop perpetuating a broken bureaucracy.

In recent discussions, it has become clear that we're no longer working on certain projects as a company. The sentiment is that we don't wanna spend money on it; instead, we're gonna spend money somewhere else. When I confront my colleague about this, he will look me in the eye and say, 'Yes sir, yes sir.' However, when I return six months later, I often find that they're spending exactly the same amount of money on those exact same projects. I remind him, 'No, we agreed, I told you that you're not gonna spend money on this project and we have to stop now, should have stopped six months ago.' The response is typically a mere slap on the wrist. He apologizes, saying, 'Yes sir, I'm sorry. Yes, no, no, of course that's correct.' Yet, when I come back six months later, the same person is spending the same money on the same project.

This situation can be traced back to historical practices in Japan. I should note that this is changing now, but historically, until very recently, it has been near impossible to fire people. If someone works for you and you can't fire them, it implies that they don't actually work for you. In a deeper, perverse sense, it means you work for them because you are responsible for their actions without having the authority to change them. Most people familiar with Japanese corporate culture through the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, and even into the 2020s would likely agree with this assessment.

Bringing this back to the United States, I believe that this is basically how things have worked in the executive branch of the Federal Government. There are so-called civil service protections in place, and while I hold a contrarian view that there are areas where a truly constitutionally well-trained president could act, the conventional wisdom remains that the U.S. president can't fire these people. With 4 million federal bureaucrats, 99.9% of them can't be touched by the elected officials who are supposed to run the executive branch. This situation mirrors that of a Japanese CEO, and 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 1990s. This is a significant factor contributing to the issues we face, not just in the Department of Defense and our foreign policy establishment, but also in many areas of domestic policy.

To return to the core question of how are we gonna save this republic, this is a pressing debate within the conservative movement today. It may be a bit spicy for some Republicans to digest, but my primary focus remains on ensuring that we win the election. However, it is essential to consider what's the philosophy that determines how we govern once we achieve that victory. There seems to be a fork in the road among conservatives: some believe that the right approach is to use the regulatory state and its levers of power to advance pro-conservative, pro-American, pro-worker goals. While I am sympathetic to these objectives, I contend that the right answer is actually to get in there and shut it down, rather than merely creating a conservative regulatory state to replace a liberal one.

=> 01:03:43

True change means dismantling the nanny state, not just swapping one for another. It's time to redefine governance with a focus on freedom, not regulation.

Yes, let's say we win the election; all is well and dandy. However, the question arises: what's the philosophy that determines how we govern? There is a little bit of a fork in the road among conservatives. There are those who believe that the right answer now is to use the regulatory state and leverage those powers to advance our own pro-conservative, pro-American, pro-worker goals. While I am sympathetic to all of those goals, I don't think that the right way to achieve them is to create a conservative regulatory state that merely replaces a liberal regulatory state.

I believe the right answer is actually to get in there and shut it down. I don’t want to replace the left-wing nanny state with a right-wing nanny state; instead, I want to dismantle the nanny state altogether. It has been a long time in the United States—perhaps 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 its forms: the entitlement state, the regulatory state, and the foreign policy nanny state. This was a core focus of my candidacy.

One of the things I wish I had done better—and this is on me, not anybody else—was to make that focus more crystal clear without getting distracted by a lot of the shenanigans, let’s just say, that happened at side shows during a presidential campaign. But I call that a lesson learned, because I truly believe it’s what the country needs now more than ever.

It’s a really, really powerful idea, and it’s actually something that Donald Trump ran on in 2016: drain the swamp. By most accounts, and you may disagree with me, he did not successfully accomplish this. He did fire a bunch of people more than usual, but can I say a word about the conditions he was operating in? I think that’s why I’m far more excited for this time around—a lot has changed in the legal landscape.

Donald Trump did not have the Supreme Court backdrop in 2016 that he does today. There have been some really important cases that have come down from the Supreme Court. One is West Virginia versus EPA, which I think is probably the most important case of our generation. In 2022, this case established 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 cannot be done by the stroke of a pen by a regulator or an unelected bureaucrat. This ruling quite literally means that most federal regulations today are unconstitutional.

Then, this year, another significant case came down: the Loper Bright case. This case held that, historically, for the last 50 years in this country, the doctrine known as Chevron deference stated that federal courts had to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court has now tossed that out the window, declaring that federal courts no longer have to defer to an agency’s interpretation of what the law actually is. The combination of these two cases is seismic in its impact on the regulatory state.

Additionally, there was another important case: SEC versus Jarkesy. The SEC is one of these agencies that embodies everything we’re talking about here. Among other things, the SEC has tribunals that not only write the rules but also enforce those rules. They have judges inside the agency who interpret the rules and determine punishments, which often doesn’t make sense.

=> 01:06:43

The Supreme Court's recent rulings are shaking the foundations of the regulatory state, revealing a system where agencies have overstepped their bounds and acted unconstitutionally. It's time to dismantle the nanny state and reclaim our constitutional rights.

The recent Supreme Court decisions have fundamentally altered the landscape of the regulatory state. The Court has ruled that the federal courts no longer have to defer to an agency's interpretation of what the law actually is. This shift, particularly highlighted by two significant cases, is described as seismic in its impact.

One notable case is SEC versus Jarkesy, which addresses the practices of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC, among other agencies, operates internal tribunals that not only write and enforce rules but also interpret them and impose penalties. This structure raises serious concerns regarding the separation of powers in the United States. The Supreme Court has deemed this practice at the SEC as unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court has recently declared that numerous practices and rules established by the SEC, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are outright unconstitutional. This revelation is significant for a constitutional republic, as it implies that the very agencies tasked with enforcing the law have been found to act with utter blatant disregard for the law itself. Such behavior is deemed un-American and untenable in the United States. Thankfully, the current Supreme Court recognizes these issues.

Looking ahead, the potential for a second Trump term is ultimately in the hands of the voters. However, the Supreme Court's recent rulings provide a backdrop that could allow for substantial changes to the regulatory state. I am optimistic about this opportunity, believing it represents the best chance that we've had in a generation. This conviction is a major reason why I support Donald Trump and intend to do everything in my power to assist him. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that it is going to take a spine of steel to see that through.

Once we address the regulatory state, I believe we must tackle the broader project of dismantling the nanny state in all its forms, including the entitlement state, the regulatory state, and the foreign policy nanny state. If I were to summarize my worldview and presidential campaign in three words, it would be: shut it down.

Regarding the Supreme Court cases, there is indeed a lot of nuance involved. They are effectively weakening the immune system of the different departments. On a psychological level, the legal challenges faced by Donald Trump or any president are significant, but they are not the only factors at play.

There is also the inherent difficulty in firing a large number of people within the government. This creates a basic civility and momentum that can hinder decisive action. Additionally, there is the challenge of being a newcomer in government, where one must navigate the established rules while relying on individuals who may not share the same policy vision, despite claiming to do so.

=> 01:09:37

Change takes time, but dismantling a century of mistakes starts with the right leadership.

To fire a very large number of people, is that what it is? Like, why is there a basic civility and momentum going on? Well, I think there's one other factor. So you're right to point out that the legal backdrop is a valid, understandable excuse and reason. However, I think there are other factors at play too.

There’s something to be said for never having been in government and showing up there for the first time. You have to understand the rules of the road as you operate within them, while also depending on people who actually aren't aligned with your policy vision but tell you to your face that they are. I think that's one of the things that I've admired about President Trump. He has been very open about that and very humble in acknowledging it. He states that there are a million learnings from that first term that make him more ambitious in the second term. Everything I'm talking to you about is what needs to happen in the country.

It's not specific to Donald Trump; it lays out what needs to be done in the country. For the next four years, Donald Trump is our last best hope and chance for moving that ball forward. However, I believe that the vision I'm laying out here is one that hopefully goes beyond just the next two or four years. We need to really fix 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 presidency. But if you have a century's worth of mistakes that have accumulated with the overgrowth of the entitlement state in the US, 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. Donald Trump is more likely to fire a lot of people, but is he the best person to do so? We have 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 a hundred percent of what Donald Trump says. I can tell them, you know what? I don’t agree with a hundred percent of what he says either. As someone who ran against him for U.S. president, I can assert that right now he is, when I say the last best hope, I mean in this cycle, the last best hope we have for dismantling that bureaucratic class.

I’m also open about the fact that it’s going to take time; this is a long-run project. But we have the next step to actually take over in the next few years, so that’s kind of where I land on it. You talked to him, I guess, a few weeks ago. I saw you had a podcast with him, right? What was your impression about his preparedness to do it?

My impression is that his priority allocation was different than yours. I think he is more focused on some of the other topics that you are also focused on—the border? Laser focused on. There is a tension there, just as you've clearly highlighted. We share the same priority with respect to the southern border. 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 need to think also on a decade-long time horizon.

In my own view, I believe that he does care about dismantling that federal bureaucracy, certainly more so than any Republican nominee we have had in my lifetime. However, I do think that there are going to be competing schools of thought. Some will say, okay, well we want to create a right-wing entitlement state, right? They want to shower federal subsidies on favored industries.

=> 01:12:15

To truly save our country, we need to shrink the bureaucracy, not just shift it around. Focus on core government roles and have the spine to make tough decisions.

In discussing the future of federal bureaucracy, it is essential to consider both immediate and long-term goals. My own view is that we can achieve significant results in the first year, but we must also think on a decade-long time horizon. It is my conviction and belief that Donald Trump genuinely cares about dismantling the federal bureaucracy, certainly more than any Republican nominee we have had in my lifetime. However, I anticipate that there will be competing schools of thought regarding this issue. Some may advocate for creating a right-wing entitlement state, which would involve showering federal subsidies on favored industries while excluding disfavored ones, thereby establishing new bureaucracies to manage these programs.

Personally, I do not align with that perspective. I want to see the bureaucracy shrink in every direction, rather than expand in a pro-conservative direction. From my conversations with Donald Trump, I believe he is well aligned with this vision of shrinking bureaucracy, but that's a longer-term project.

There are numerous priorities at play in this endeavor. One must adopt the mindset of doing the Elon thing—walking into Twitter headquarters with a sink—to let it sink in that this involves firing a significant number of people. However, it is not solely about the firings; it is also about establishing clear missions for the remaining departments and hiring back based on meritocracy. This process is not only a full-time job in terms of actual time commitment but also requires a substantial psychological investment.

In government, unlike a successful company like Twitter, the environment is challenging. Everyone around you, including experts and advisors, will likely tell you that you are wrong. It’s a very difficult psychological place to operate in because you may constantly feel like the "asshole." The certainty required to pursue your goals is immense, as you will face opposition from many intelligent voices advising against your plans.

To navigate this, you have to have this spine of steel to cut through the short-term advice you receive. I intend to do everything I can for this country, both in the next four years and beyond. My stance on this is clear: all else equal, getting there and shutting down as much of the excess bureaucracy as we can is crucial, and we must do it as quickly as possible. This is a significant part of how we can save our country.

An example of the difficult tension between priorities is immigration. There are an estimated 14 million illegal immigrants in the United States, and I have spoken about the need for mass deportation. This requires considerable effort and funding, raising the question of how this aligns with the goal of shutting down bureaucracy.

To address this, we must revisit our original discussion about the proper roles of the federal government. I believe there are two primary roles: one is to protect the national borders and sovereignty of the United States, and the second is to protect private property rights. Much of what the government currently does at both the federal and state levels falls outside these two essential functions. In my view, these are the two fundamental responsibilities that the government should focus on.

=> 01:15:12

The core role of government should focus on protecting national borders and private property rights, while everything else is up for reevaluation.

The discussion revolves around the proper roles of the federal government. Initially, two key functions are identified: to protect the national borders and sovereignty of the United States and to protect private property rights. It is argued that much of what the government currently does, at both the federal and state levels, falls outside these two essential roles. Therefore, the federal government should primarily focus on protecting the homeland of the United States and ensuring the sovereignty and sanctity of our national borders.

The speaker emphasizes that the nation is founded on the rule of law, highlighting their background as a child of legal immigrants. They assert that the first act of entering the country should not violate the law. To summarize their vision for the country over the next four years, they propose a tale of two mass deportations: one involving the mass deportation of millions of illegal immigrants currently in the country, and the other concerning the mass deportation of millions of unelected federal bureaucrats out of Washington, D.C.

The speaker acknowledges that while there may be some intention behind the criticisms of mass deportation, they believe that any actions outside the core functions of government—namely, protecting borders and private property rights—should be significantly reduced. They note that a mere 0.1% of the federal employee base is dedicated to border protection, suggesting that the majority of resources are allocated elsewhere, which does not align with the government's primary responsibilities.

However, the idea of mass deportation faces significant criticism. Concerns include potential economic harm in the short term, the risk of violating higher ideals regarding human treatment—particularly regarding family separation—and the logistical complexity of executing such a plan. In response to these criticisms, the speaker acknowledges them as thoughtful questions rather than outright criticisms. They draw a parallel to the 350,000 mothers currently imprisoned in the United States for crimes, noting that they did not take their children with them to prison. This observation underscores the difficult trade-offs that arise in various contexts related to law enforcement, reinforcing the need for a balanced approach to the enforcement of the rule of law.

=> 01:17:48

Enforcing the rule of law means facing tough trade-offs, and sometimes that includes difficult decisions about mass deportations to prioritize the well-being of those already here.

Thoughtful questions, right? Even if somebody is really aligned with doing this, those are thoughtful questions to ask.

I do want to say something about this point on 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 contexts as it relates to the enforcement of law. I just want to make that basic observation against the backdrop of, if we're a nation founded on the rule of law, we must acknowledge that there are trade-offs to enforcing the law.

We've acknowledged that in other contexts, and 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 are a nation founded under the rule of law; we enforce laws that have costs and trade-offs, but it's who we are. So, that backdrop is important, 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? Yes, that is undesirable for the kids to grow up without those 350,000 mothers. But it's a difficult situation created by people who violated the law and face the consequences of it, which is also a competing and important priority in the country.

Now, as it relates to this question of mass deportations, let's just get very practical because all that was theoretical. Very practically, there are ways to do this, starting with people who have already broken the law. This includes people who 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. If you think about the economic impact of this, a lot of people are already in detention. Many of those people should be immediately returned to their country of origin, or at least to what is called a safe third country. A safe third country means that even if somebody is claiming to seek asylum from political persecution, we will move them to another country that doesn’t have to be the United States of America. For example, they might have passed through 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. Instead, they detain them until their case is adjudicated. The rates of fraud in Australia regarding what people lie about and their conditions are 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 have taken a deeply pragmatic approach. The North Star for me is that 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.

It 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.

=> 01:20:10

To fix immigration, we need to prioritize the rule of law and focus on policies that benefit American citizens, even if it means tough decisions like mass deportations.

I have taken a deeply pragmatic approach to immigration policy. The North Star for me is that I want the policy that helps the United States citizens who are already here. What does that policy look like? Clearly, it's going to include a large number of deportations. By definition, this is going to be the largest mass deportation in American history. It may sound like a punchline at a campaign rally, but it is simply a factual statement. Given that we have had the by far largest influx of illegal immigrants in American history, it stands to reason that if we are going to fix that, we will need to implement the largest mass deportation in American history.

We can approach this rationally. We should start with individuals who are breaking the law in other ways here in the United States, particularly those who are already in detention or entering detention now. This approach comes at no cost and provides a strict benefit; there isn't even a little bit of an economic trade-off. As we move forward, we can evaluate areas where the costs continue to outweigh the benefits, and that should guide our policy.

I want to carry out this process in as respectful and humane a manner as possible. The reality is that we must remember the example of the Haitian case in Springfield, a town where I spent a lot of time growing up in Ohio. I live about an hour from there today. I do not blame the individual Haitians who came here; I am not saying that they are bad people. In that particular case, those individuals did not even break the law in coming here; they came as part of a program called Temporary Protective Status. The operative word here is the first one: temporary.

There have been all kinds of lawsuits regarding individuals who, even 8, 10, 12, or 14 years after the earthquake in Haiti, are facing removal. Allegations of racial discrimination and other claims have arisen. However, temporary protective status means it's temporary, and we are not abandoning the rule of law when we send them back; we are abandoning the rule of law when we allow them to stay.

If there is a true benefit to the United States of America, economically or otherwise, we should pursue the paths that allow someone to enter this country for economic reasons. However, we should not do this through asylum-based claims or temporary protected status. One of the features of our current immigration system is that it is built on a lie and incentivizes lying. The arguments for keeping people in the country, if those are economic reasons, do not align with the fact that these individuals entered using claims of asylum or refugee status.

We need to be honest about what our immigration system actually is. I believe we need dramatic reforms to the legal immigration system to purposefully select individuals who will genuinely improve the United States of America. There are many people who fit this description; I know some of them. For instance, I met a man who was educated at our best universities—he attended Princeton and Harvard Business School. He has a great job in the investment community, was a professional tennis player, and is a concert pianist. He can solve a Rubik's Cube in less than a minute. I am not making this up; these are hard facts.

Despite his qualifications, he cannot get a green card in the United States. He has been here for 10 years or so. He asked me for the best advice I could give him. Unfortunately, I could not provide him with the best advice, which would have been to just take a flight to Mexico.

=> 01:22:47

Our immigration system should reward honesty, not lies. Let's create a path for those who truly want to contribute, instead of relying on deception.

Among our best universities, he went to Princeton, and he went to Harvard Business School. He has a great job in the investment community. Additionally, he was a professional tennis player, and he was a concert pianist. He could even solve a Rubik's Cube in less than a minute. I'm not making this stuff up; these are hard facts. However, despite all of this, he can't get a green card in the United States. He has been here for 10 years or something like this.

He asked me for the best advice I could give him. Unfortunately, I could not provide him with the actual best advice, which would have been to just take a flight to Mexico, cross the border, and claim to be somebody who is seeking asylum in the United States. 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 you could actually give somebody, which highlights a broken system on both sides.

People who are going to make contributions to the United States, pledge allegiance to the United States, and speak our language should have a path to add value to the country. Yet, they're not the ones who are getting in. Our immigration system selects for people who are willing to lie; that's what it does. It selects for individuals who claim to be seeking refugee status or asylum when, in fact, they are not. We then have policymakers who lie after the fact, using economic justifications to keep them here. If it was an economic justification, that should have been the criteria used to bring them in the first place, not this illusion of asylum or refugee status.

There was a case, actually, that even the New York Times reported on. Believe it or not, it involved a woman who came from Russia, fleeing Vladimir Putin's intolerant anti-LGBTQ regime. She was supposedly fleeing persecution by the evil man Putin. However, when she was pressed on the series of lies, it eventually came out that she was crying and admitted, "I'm not even gay, I don't even like gay people." She was pretending to be some sort of LGBTQ advocate who was persecuted in Russia when, in fact, she was just someone 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. This situation is prevalent among many people, even in the industry of "tourism to the United States." They have their kids in the United States, go back to their home country, but their kids enjoy birthright citizenship, which is built on a lie. You have people claiming to suffer from persecution when, in fact, they are just working in the United States and living in relative mansions in parts of Mexico or Central America after spending four or five years making money here.

Let's just abandon the lie. Let's have an immigration system built on honesty. Just tell the truth. If the argument is that we need more people here to economically fill jobs, I'm skeptical about the extent to which many of those arguments are actually true. But let's have that debate in the open rather than through the back door, claiming refugee and asylum status when we know it's a lie. Then, we justify it after the fact by saying that it economically helps the United States. Cut the dishonesty. I believe that this is a policy we would do well to adopt.

=> 01:25:08

An immigration system built on honesty is essential for a better society; let's stop hiding behind lies and have open debates about our true objectives.

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 of the extent to which a lot of those arguments actually end up being true. However, 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. Then, we justify it after the fact by saying that it economically helps the United States. We need to cut the dishonesty.

I just think that this is a policy we would do well to expand in every sphere we talk about, from the military industrial complex to the rise of the managerial class, to a lot of what our government has 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.

In the way you describe, eloquently, the immigration system is broken in that it is fundamentally built on lies. But there's the other side of it; 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? One of the more intense claims is of crime. I haven't studied this rigorously, but surface-level studies all show that legal and illegal immigrants commit less crime than Americans.

I think it is true for legal immigrants, but I think it's not true for illegal immigrants. That's not what I saw. This part of why I wrote this book, okay? The book is called "Truths," so I better darn well have well-sourced facts in here, right? It can't be made-up hypotheses; they must be hard truths. In writing the chapter on the border, I learned a lot from many different dimensions, some of which even caused me to revise some of my premises going into it.

My main thesis in that chapter is to forget the demonization of illegal or legal immigrants or whatever, as you put it. Fearmongering should just be put to one side. I want an immigration system that is built on honesty and identifies what the objective is. We could debate the objectives; we might have different opinions on them. Some people may say the objective is the economic growth of the United States. I air that argument in this book, but I think that it's insufficient, personally.

I believe the United States is more than just an economic zone; it is a country, a nation bound together by civic ideals. We need to screen not just for immigrants who are going to make economic contributions, but also for those who speak our language, those who are able to assimilate, and those who share those civic ideals and know U.S. history even better than the average U.S. citizen who's here. That's what I believe.

However, even if you disagree with me and say that 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. I don't even think that should be the whole model, but even if that were your model, reward the people who have demonstrably proven themselves.

=> 01:28:04

Our immigration system rewards dishonesty over integrity, selecting for those willing to lie rather than those who truly seek a better life.

I believe that I know U.S. history even better than the average U.S. citizen who's here. However, even if you disagree with me and assert that the sole goal is economic production in the United States, then at least have an immigration system that is honest about that. It should not be 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 I don't even think should be the whole model, but even if that were your model, we should reward those who have demonstrably proven that they would make economic contributions to the United States, not the individuals who have demonstrated that they're willing to lie to achieve a goal. Right now, our immigration system, if it rewards one quality over any other, does not reward civic allegiance to the United States, fluency in English, or the ability to make an economic contribution. Instead, the number one attribute that our immigration system rewards is whether or not you are willing to lie.

The individuals who are telling those lies about whether they're seeking asylum or not are the ones who are most likely to gain entry. Conversely, those who are most unwilling to tell those lies are actually the ones who are not getting in. This is a hard, uncomfortable truth about our immigration system. The reason for this is that the law states you only get asylum if you're going to face bodily harm or near-term risk of bodily injury based on your religion, ethnicity, or certain other factors. When you come into the country, you're asked if you fulfill that criteria or not. The number one way to get into this country is to check the box and say yes.

Imagine if you're a university like Harvard or Yale, running your admissions process. The number one attribute you're selecting for isn't your SAT score, GPA, or athletic accomplishments; it's whether or not you're willing to lie on the application. Consequently, you're going to have a class populated by a bunch of charlatans and frauds. This is exactly what our immigration system is doing to the United States of America; it is literally selecting for the people who are willing to lie.

Consider someone of integrity who 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 gain entry into the United States. I know it sounds provocative to frame it that way, but it is not an opinion; it is a fact that this 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 must acknowledge what the goals of our immigration system are in the first place. Here, we have competing visions on the right. Among conservatives, there's a rift. Some conservatives believe— and I respect them for their honesty, even though I disagree with them— that the goal of the immigration system should be to protect American workers from the effects of foreign wage competition. They argue that having immigrants will bring down prices and that we need to protect American workers from the effects of that downward pressure on wages.

While I don't think it's the right goal, it is a coherent goal, and at least it's honest.

=> 01:30:37

True American identity isn't about bloodlines; it's about allegiance to our founding ideals. Let's elevate the conversation beyond borders and embrace a shared creed.

Visions on the right, okay? Amongst conservatives, there's a rift. Some conservatives believe, and I respect them for their honesty, though I disagree with them, that the goal of the immigration system should be to protect American workers from the effects of foreign wage competition. They argue that if we have immigrants, it will bring down prices, and we need to protect American workers from the effects of that downward pressure on wages. It's a goal, and it's a coherent goal; however, I don't think it's the right goal. Many of my friends on the right believe that's a valid objective, and at least it's honest. We can design an honest immigration system to achieve that goal if that's their goal.

On the other hand, I have other friends on the right who assert that the sole goal is economic growth, claiming that nothing else matters. I disagree with that perspective as well. My view is that the goal should be whatever enriches the civic quality of the United States of America. This includes those who know the language, understand our ideals, pledge allegiance to those ideals, and are also willing to make economic contributions to the country, which is one of our ideals as well. Regardless of the specifics, we can have that debate.

I hold a very different view. I don't think it's a proper role of immigration policy to serve as a form of labor policy. The United States of America is founded on excellence, and we should be able to compete. That said, this is a policy debate we can have. However, right now, we are not even able to engage in that policy debate because the entire immigration policy is built not only on a lie but also on rewarding those who do lie. And that's what I want to see change.

To linger a little bit on the demonization and to bring Ann Coulter into the picture, I recommend people listen to your conversation with her. I haven't listened to her much, but she clearly admires and respects you as a human being. She essentially states that you are one of the good ones. This leads to the brilliant question you posed: What does it mean to be an American? Coulter's response implied that it might include you, Vivek, but not people like you. This whole approach to immigration is, I believe, fundamentally anti-meritocratic.

[Vivek] And even anti-American. Yes, anti-American. I want to confront this directly because it is a popular current on the American right. The reason I'm not picking on Ann Coulter specifically is that I think this view is much more widely shared, and I at least give her credit for being willing to articulate it. This perspective suggests that blood and soil are what constitute American identity, rooted in genetic lineage. I reject that view; I think it's anti-American. What makes for an American identity is your allegiance—your unwavering allegiance—to the founding ideals of this country and your willingness to pledge allegiance to those ideals.

These are two different views. There is a prevailing notion on the American right that argues we are not a creedal nation, that our identity is not about a creed but rather about a physical place and a physical homeland. I believe that view fails on several accounts. Obviously, every nation must have a geographic space that it defines as its own, so we are, among other things, that geographic space. However, the essence of the United States of America, I believe, lies in the common creed—the ideals that hold that nation together. Without that common creed, several consequences arise. First of all, American exceptionalism becomes impossible, and I'll tell you why. Every other nation is also...

=> 01:33:31

American identity isn't about bloodlines or geography; it's rooted in a shared commitment to ideals like self-governance and freedom.

The discussion surrounding the essence of our nation often centers on the belief that our nation's not about a creed, it's about a physical place and a physical homeland. However, I think that view fails on several accounts. Obviously, we're a nation, and every nation has to have a geographic space that it defines as its own. So, while we are, among other things, that geographic space, the essence of the United States of America is the common creed, the ideals that hold that common nation together.

Without that common creed, 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. For instance, the 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 contexts than in the United States, which is the first reason why American exceptionalism becomes impossible.

The second issue is that all kinds of contradictions start to emerge. If your claim on American identity is defined based on how long you've been here, 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, perhaps that blood and soil view would argue that it’s not quite the Native Americans; you only have to start at this point and end at this point. So, on this view of blood and soil identity, it has to be that you couldn't have come before a certain year, and 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.

In contrast, my view is 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 U.S. Constitution. Some of my friends on the right have argued that people will not die for a set of ideals; people won't fight for abstractions or abstract ideals. I actually disagree with that, as the American experience basically disproves that notion. The American Revolution was fought for anything over abstract ideals, asserting that we believe in self-governance, free speech, and free exercise of religion—principles that distinguish us from Old World England.

I do think that there is a brewing debate on the right. Do I disagree strongly with Ann Coulter on this? Absolutely. Did I take serious issue with some of the things she told me? Absolutely. However, I also believe that she had the courage to articulate the views that many on the right believe but haven't quite expressed in the same way. I think we need to have that debate in the open. Personally, I believe that most of the conservative movement actually aligns with my perspective, but it has become a very popular counter-narrative to assert that your vision of American identity is tied far more to physical nature. To me, I think it is still ideals-based in nature, and I believe that this is a good debate for the future of the conservative movement. Ultimately, I think it's going to be a defining feature of what direction the conservative movement goes.

=> 01:36:01

Victimhood won't save us; victory will. It's time to focus on winning, not whining.

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 counter-narrative in the other direction to say that your vision of American identity is tied, is far more physical in nature. To me, I think it is still ideals based in nature. I believe 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 what direction the conservative movement goes in the future.

Quick pause, bathroom break?

Yeah.

Lemme ask you to again steal man the case for and against Trump. So, my biggest criticism for him is the fake elector scheme. The 2020 election, and actually the 2020 election in the way you formulated in the "Nation of Victims," is just the entirety of that process instead of focusing on winning, doing a lot of whining. I like people that win, not whine, even when the refs are biased in whatever direction.

So look, I think the United States of America, I preach this to the left, I preach it to my kids, we gotta accept it on our own side too. We're not gonna save this country by being victims; we're gonna save this country by being victorious, okay? I don't care whether it's left-wing victimhood or 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 that'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 it to my kids and I preach it to the left, I'm gonna 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 do something different, and I'm always a fan. One of the things that the standard I hope that people hold me to when they read this book as well is that I try to do that in this book: to give the best possible argument for the other side. You don't wanna give some rinky-dink argument for the other side and knock it down. You wanna 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 asked me what is the strongest case against Donald Trump? Well, I ran for U.S. president against Donald Trump, so I'm gonna 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'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 gonna 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? 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.

=> 01:38:44

The challenge for today's leaders is bridging the gap between generations while staying rooted in truth and growth.

How are you gonna 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?" I think that that's, in many ways, a factor that weighs on both Trump and Biden. However, 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: when I look at what’s the number one issue that I would need to persuade independent voters of, it is to say that, "No, no, no, this is still the right choice," 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 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 get it. You share a lot of ideas with Donald Trump, so I understand when you're running for president that you would say that kind of thing. However, there’s other criticism you could provide, especially regarding 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? Let me see if I can address that.

Regarding the 2020 election, my objection is not rooted in what is often referred to as "TDS" (Trump Derangement Syndrome). It's simply that I don't think there's clear definitive evidence that there was voter fraud.

Let me ask you about a different area. Hold on a second, hold on a second. I think there are a lot of interesting topics about the influence of media, tech, and so on, but I want a president that has a good, clear relationship with the truth and knows what is true and what is not true. Moreover, I want a person who doesn’t play victim, like you said. I want someone who focuses on winning and winning big. If they lose, they should walk away with honor and channel that into growth and winning in some other direction.

The strength of being able to give everything you’ve got to win and walk away with honor if you lose is crucial. Everything that happened around the 2020 election just goes against that for me.

So, I’ll respond to that. 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. You hear a lot of that on the campaign trail. 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.

The most interesting part of what you just said is that you’re looking for somebody who has growth from their own experiences. Say what you will, but I have seen, personally, some meaningful level of personal growth and ambition for what Donald Trump hopes to achieve for the country in the second term, which he wasn't able to accomplish for one reason or another—COVID, for instance, or 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 2020 election actually 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, the context is essential to understanding the dynamics at play.

=> 01:41:37

Election integrity starts with simple solutions: a national holiday for single-day voting, paper ballots, and voter ID. Let's unite for a fair process.

Personally, I believe there has been some meaningful level of personal growth and ambition for what Donald Trump hopes to achieve for the country in his second term. This ambition stems from the fact that he wasn't able to accomplish certain goals during his first term, due to various reasons, including COVID.

Now, I think the facts surrounding the backdrop of the 2020 election actually matter significantly. It is essential to understand that one cannot isolate a particular aspect of criticizing the 2020 election without looking at it holistically. On the eve of the 2020 presidential election, we witnessed a systematic, bureaucratically and government-aided suppression of what was probably the single most important piece of information released at that time: the Hunter Biden laptop story. This story revealed a potentially compromised U.S. presidential candidate, whose family was influenced by foreign interests, yet it was suppressed as misinformation by every major tech company.

At that time, the New York Post had its own Twitter account locked. We now know that many of the censorship decisions made in 2020 were actually executed at the behest of U.S. bureaucratic actors in the deep state, who threatened tech companies with consequences if they did not comply. I believe this might be the most undemocratic thing that has happened in the history of our country. It highlights how government actors, who were never elected, used private sector actors to suppress information on the eve of an election. Based on polling afterwards, it is likely that this suppression influenced the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, constituting election interference of the highest order.

This is a hard fact that we must contend with. Many of the complaints about the 2020 election, regardless of their nature, occurred against the backdrop of large technology companies interfering in the election, which I believe did impact the outcome. I personally believe that had the Hunter Biden laptop story not been suppressed and censored, Donald Trump would have been unambiguous in his victory. In my mind, the current president of the United States would undoubtedly be Donald Trump, especially when considering the polling before and after the election and the potential impact on independent voters.

Now, let’s discuss constructive solutions to the concerns about election integrity. One solution I propose is single day voting on election day as a national holiday, utilizing paper ballots and government-issued voter ID to match the voter file. I favor implementing this even in Puerto Rico, which is a territory of the United States. Why not extend this practice everywhere in the United States? I make this pledge as a leader in our movement: I will do everything in my power to ensure we stop complaining about stolen elections if we can reach this simple standard of basic election security measures.

I believe these measures would also be unifying. Making election day a national holiday would unite us around our civic purpose for one day. Let’s aim for single day voting on election day as a national holiday, with paper ballots and government-issued voter ID to match the voter file. I assure you, I will lead our movement in any way I can to ensure we are done complaining about stolen elections and fake ballots. The resistance we see today should motivate us to strive for these essential changes.

=> 01:44:31

Let's unite for a fair election system: make Election Day a national holiday, ensure paper ballots, and require voter ID. It's time to stop complaining and start acting.

To make sure we are done complaining about stolen elections, we need to reach a simple place of basic election security measures. I believe these measures would be unifying as well. For instance, making Election Day a national holiday would unite us around our civic purpose for one day. Additionally, implementing single-day voting on Election Day as a national holiday, using paper ballots and requiring government-issued voter ID to match the voter file, would be significant steps forward.

Let's strive to get there as a country. You have my word that I will lead our movement in whatever way I can to ensure we are done complaining about stolen elections and fake ballots. However, I think the resistance to that proposal, which is otherwise very practical, reasonable, and nonpartisan, provokes a lot of understandable skepticism. This skepticism leads to questions such as, "If not that, what exactly is going on here?"

I agree with many points you made, although I may disagree on some aspects. It’s hard to dispute the Hunter Biden laptop story and whether it would have changed the election results. While I can't prove it, my instinct tells me that it could have had an impact. This is just one example of potential bias in the media, and while there is bias in the other direction as well, it is challenging to characterize bias as the sole problem.

Let me ask you about bias versus censorship. I would be open-minded to hearing about instances where the government systematically ordered tech companies to suppress information favorable to Democrats in order to lift up Republicans. If there were evidence of government bureaucrats covertly ordering technology companies to silence information that voters should have had access to, I would condemn that. I would stand against it with equal force as I do against the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story and the censorship regarding the origin of COVID-19, both of which occurred in 2020. However, I am not aware of any such instance. If you are, please let me know, as I would condemn it.

Most people in tech companies and the majority of journalists tend to lean left politically. However, characterizing the actual reporting and its impact, as well as the impact of censorship, is difficult. This is a real problem, similar to the issues we discussed regarding immigration.

It’s important to sort out the two different problems: bias in reporting and censorship of information. I have concerns about both. For example, I felt that the recent presidential debate moderated by ABC was biased in its conduct. Yet, that is different from saying that voters do not have access to information from any source. The Hunter Biden laptop story, which now reveals evidence of foreign interference potentially involving the Biden administration and their family's incentive structure, was systematically suppressed. In the United States, if you wanted to find that information on the internet, it was challenging due to this suppression.

=> 01:47:41

Censorship and bias are not the same; one undermines democracy while the other can be challenged.

In discussing the issues of bias in reporting and censorship of information, it is important to recognize that these are distinct matters. Bias in reporting was evident in the recent presidential debate moderated by ABC, which I felt was conducted in a biased manner. However, this is a different issue from the concern that voters do not have access to information from any source.

For instance, the Hunter Biden laptop story is significant because it contains evidence of foreign interference that could potentially impact the Biden administration and their family's incentive structure. This story was systematically suppressed. In the United States, if you attempted to find this information on any major social media platform or even through Google search, it was either suppressed or algorithmically downplayed to the extent that it was nearly invisible. Even on Twitter, if you tried to send the story via direct message, which is akin to sending an email or a peer-to-peer message, you were blocked from doing so. This represents a different level of concern; it is not merely bias but rather outright interference in the electoral process.

Let’s consider a thought experiment: what if Russia orchestrated this interference? The backlash would be immense. If the Russian government collaborated with tech companies to prevent U.S. citizens from accessing information about the election, there would be widespread outrage. Yet, if similar actions were taken by actors within the U.S. government or the technology industry, we cannot apply a different standard. If we condemn Russian interference, we must also condemn domestic interference. The claim that Russian disinformation was responsible for the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story is a false narrative. We must apply the same standard to both scenarios. The fact that such interference occurred domestically and is dismissed as mere bias ahead of an election is an unfair characterization of the gravity of the situation.

Furthermore, the connection between the government and social media platforms is a real concern that should not exist. Agencies like the FBI should not pressure platforms to censor information. While we can discuss instances of censorship, such as with Pavel Durov, it is crucial to emphasize that there should be no censorship and no media bias. Citizens have the right to complain about media bias, and we should work to address and rectify these issues openly.

However, it is important to note that one cannot correct a wrong by committing another wrong. If there are questionable practices in the media and the censorship complex, it is unacceptable to fabricate information or engage in schemes, such as the fake elector scheme or the questionable actions during January 6th. Cheating, whether in a game of Monopoly or in real life, is not the answer. We should strive for honesty and integrity, using our platforms to help fix the system rather than resorting to deceitful tactics.

In conclusion, has any U.S. politician ever been perfect throughout the course of American history? The answer is no.

=> 01:50:29

Censorship breeds frustration, and when people feel silenced, chaos can follow. It's time for leaders to channel that anger into productive change.

In light of the current situation in the media and the censorship complex, it is crucial to recognize that you can't just make shit up. Engaging in the fake elector scheme and exhibiting shady, crappy behavior during January 6th is not acceptable. Just like in a game of Monopoly, you can't cheat, and one should be honest and act with honor. Instead of attempting to manipulate the system, it is essential to use one's platform to help fix the system rather than cheat one's way through it.

Reflecting on the broader context, my view is that no U.S. politician has ever been perfect throughout American history. However, to understand the essence of what transpired in 2020, it is vital to consider the mindset of the country during that year. We experienced a time when people were systematically locked down, told to shut up, sit down, and do as they're told, unless they were part of groups like BLM or Antifa, in which case it was deemed acceptable to burn cities down.

As we approached the election, we were promised a free and fair election, yet there was a systematic denial of information—particularly damning information about one of the parties. This led to a culture of deep frustration in the United States. The reaction to systematic censorship is never good; history teaches us that. It is detrimental not only in the United States but also in other historical contexts. The essence of the national malaise at the end of 2020 stemmed from unjust policies, including COVID-19 lockdowns and systematic lies about the election, which understandably fueled public frustration.

The responsibility of leaders is to channel this frustration in the most productive direction possible. To the independent voter evaluating the upcoming election, I believe that Donald Trump has exhibited a lot of growth based on his experiences in his first term and what he hopes to achieve in his second term. Even if one does not agree with everything he has said or done, I still believe he is unambiguously the best choice to revive a sense of national pride and prosperity. This is essential to ensure that people are not left angry and suffering due to government policies. The best way to address this is through actions that speak louder than words, implementing policies that genuinely improve people's lives.

Regarding concerns about the potential for chaos if the election is close and Donald Trump loses by a whisker, I believe this issue should not be framed narrowly. This is a man who, in just a couple of months, has faced two assassination attempts. The implications of such events extend beyond the election outcome itself and highlight the need for a broader understanding of the current political climate.

=> 01:53:20

Actions speak louder than words; let's focus on policies that unite and uplift, not just rhetoric that divides.

Speak louder than words; implement the policies that make people's lives better. And I do 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 Donald Trump loses by a whisker that there's chaos that's unleashed? And how do we minimize the chance of that? I mean, I don't think that that's a concern to frame narrowly in the context of Donald Trump winning or losing by a whisker. I think this is a man who, in the last couple of 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 U.S.

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 assailants who, reportedly, are saying exactly the kinds of things about him that you hear from the Democratic machine. 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.

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 gonna be a victory. That, I think, is how we unite this country.

I don't think, you know, a 50.001 margin where cable news is declaring the winner six days after the election is gonna 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 a revival of 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 an outcome I'm rooting for.

So, just to pile on, since we're steel manning the criticism against Trump, is the rhetoric. I wish there was less of it, although at times it is so ridiculous it is entertaining—the "I hate Taylor Swift" type of tweets or truths or whatever. I don't think that's... He's a funny guy. I mean, the reality is different people have different attributes. 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 be everybody's cup of tea; maybe different people don't want that—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: 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, and in some ways, I think right now is probably a role where really good standup comedians...

=> 01:56:15

In a divided nation, humor can bridge gaps; let's focus on policies and solutions instead of personal quirks.

Different people have different attributes. One of the attributes for Donald Trump is that he's one of the funnier presidents we've had in a long time. However, that might not be everybody's cup of tea. Some people may not value humor as a quality in their president.

I think at a moment where you're also able to make light of the situation, I will say this much: 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, it could be beneficial. In some ways, I think right now is probably a role where really good stand-up comedians could do a big service to the country if they're able to laugh at everybody 360 degrees. They can make fun of Donald Trump all they want, doing it in a lighthearted manner that loves the country, and do the same thing to Kamala Harris with an equal standard. I think that's actually good for the country.

However, I am more interested, as you know, in discussing the future direction of the country. My own views are that I was a presidential candidate who ran against Donald Trump, by the way, and I am supporting him now. But I prefer engaging on the substance of what I think each candidate's gonna achieve for the country rather than picking on the personal attributes of either one. I’m not criticizing Kamala Harris' manner of laughing or whatever. One might criticize a personal attribute of hers that you may hear elsewhere, but I believe our country is better off if we focus on both the policies and who is more likely to revive the country. I think that is a healthy debate headed into an election.

I think everybody has their personality attributes, their flaws, and what makes them funny and lovable to some people may make them irritating to others. However, I believe 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.

What kind of peace deal do you think is possible, feasible, and optimal in Ukraine? If you became president and sat down with Zelenskyy and Putin, what do you think is possible to discuss with them? One of the hilarious things you did, which were intense and entertaining, was how you grilled the other candidates during the primary debates. They didn’t know any regions they wanted to send money and troops to, which could lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. You had a lot of zingers in that one. But anyway, how do you think about negotiating with world leaders regarding what’s going on there?

So, look, I think that we should get the self-interest of each party on the table and be very transparent about it. From everyone's perspective, they think the other side is the aggressor. It’s essential to get that on the table. Russia is concerned about NATO shifting the balance of power away from Russia to Western Europe, especially since NATO has far more influence than they expected. Frankly, 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 Mikhail Gorbachev in the early 90s where he said NATO would expand not one inch past East Germany. Well, NATO has expanded far more after the fall of the USSR than it did during the existence of the USSR, and that is a reality.

=> 01:59:01

To achieve lasting peace, we must balance the scales: address Russia's security concerns while ensuring it can't threaten neighboring nations or strengthen its alliance with China.

The aggressor or whatever, we need to just get it on the table. Russia is concerned about NATO shifting the balance of power away from Russia to Western Europe, especially since NATO has far more influence than they expected. Frankly, Russia was told that NATO was gonna expand, which is an uncomfortable fact for some in America. James Baker made a commitment to Mikhail Gorbachev in the early 90s, stating that NATO would expand not one inch past East Germany. However, NATO has expanded far more after the fall of the USSR than it did during its existence. This is a reality we must contend with, reflecting the Russian perspective.

From the Western perspective, the hard fact is that Russia was the aggressor in this conflict, crossing the boundaries of a sovereign nation. This action is a violation of international norms and the recognition of international law, which states that nations without borders are not a nation. Against this backdrop, we must consider the actual interests of each country involved.

I believe that if we can negotiate a reasonable deal that provides Russia the assurances it needs regarding what they might allege as NATO expansionism violating prior commitments, we could establish codified commitments for Russia. This would ensure that they do not engage in willy-nilly behavior of randomly deciding to violate the sovereignty of neighboring nations, along with hard assurances and consequences for such actions. This could serve as the beginnings of a deal.

Furthermore, I want to be ambitious for the United States. I aim to weaken the Russia-China Alliance, and I think we can create a deal that requires Russia to withdraw from its military alliance with China. This could ultimately be beneficial for Russia as well, as Vladimir Putin does not enjoy being Xi Jinping's little brother in that relationship. The combination of Russia's military, China's naval capacity, Russia's hypersonic missiles, and China's economic might poses a real threat to the United States.

As a condition for a reasonable discussion about territorial claims, given the current occupations, we must impose hard requirements for Russia to remove its military presence from the Western Hemisphere. People often forget this: we don't want a Russian military presence in the Western Hemisphere, specifically in countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. This would be a significant win for the United States, as we aim to prevent joint military exercises with China off the coast of the Aleutian Islands.

These kinds of wins are essential for the United States to protect the West's security, ensuring that Russia is removed from the Western Hemisphere, particularly from the North American periphery. Additionally, we need to ensure that Russia is no longer in that military alliance with China. In return for these conditions, we must engage in a reasonable discussion about the territorial concessions necessary to bring peace and resolution to the end of this war, as well as the guarantees to ensure that NATO will not expand beyond the scope that the United States has historically guaranteed.

Together, I believe this constitutes a reasonable deal that satisfies the needs of every party involved, resulting in immediate peace and greater stability. Most importantly, it would serve to weaken the Russia-China Alliance, which I consider the actual threat we face. This is an issue that has been largely ignored in the debate over funding for Ukraine. Ultimately, I believe this approach is the way we can deescalate the risk of World War III.

=> 02:01:46

To achieve lasting peace, we must focus on weakening the Russia-China alliance through strategic negotiations that benefit all parties involved.

In the pursuit of peace and resolution, it is essential to consider what the guarantees are to ensure that NATO will not expand beyond the scope of what the United States has historically guaranteed. I believe that together, this would constitute a reasonable deal that provides every party with what they seek, resulting in immediate peace and greater stability. Most importantly, this approach aims at weakening the Russia-China Alliance, which I perceive as the actual threat we face. This is a matter that has been largely overlooked in the ongoing debate regarding the funding for Ukraine.

From the American perspective, the main interest lies in weakening the alliance between Russia and China. I contend that the military alliance between these two nations represents the single greatest threat we face. Therefore, we should pursue a deal that is reasonable across the board, with one of the primary objectives being the weakening of that alliance. This could involve stipulations such as no joint military exercises and no military collaborations. These terms are monitorable attributes, and if there is any cheating on their part, there will be immediate consequences. However, we must also uphold our own obligations within the context of that deal.

It is important to acknowledge that there might be some extremely painful things for Ukraine in this negotiation process. Currently, Ukraine has captured a small region in Russia, specifically the Kursk region, while Russia has taken significant portions of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhya, and Kherson regions. Given the outlined framework, it seems unlikely that Russia would relinquish any of the territories it has already captured.

I believe the outcome of this situation will depend on the specifics of the negotiation. The core goals remain peace in this war and weakening the Russia-China Alliance. For Russia, the question is what they would gain from this deal. It is crucial to note that this is not merely a zero-sum game where Ukraine is on the losing end. For Russia, reopening economic relations with the West could be a significant win, serving as a carrot that encourages them to distance themselves from their military relationship with China.

Historically, the foreign policy establishment has been somewhat unimaginative regarding the levers we can utilize. I was critical of Nixon earlier in our discussion for his role in the expansion of the U.S. entitlement and regulatory state, but I must commend him for his creativity in pulling red China away from the USSR. He effectively broke the China-Russia alliance back then, which was a pivotal step toward the near end of the Cold War.

Today, I see an opportunity for a similar unconventional maneuver: using the prospect of greater economic relations with Russia to extricate them from China's influence. This approach does not impose any significant cost on Ukraine and could serve as a substantial incentive for Russia. However, I do believe that this will necessitate some level of territorial negotiation. In any good deal, it is important to recognize that not everyone will be completely satisfied with the outcome. This reality is part of the cost of securing peace, as it is unlikely that everyone will agree with every aspect of the resolution.

=> 02:04:16

Negotiating peace isn't just about avoiding loss; it's about seizing the chance for a win-win that secures a better future for all involved.

At the end of the Cold War, there is an opportunity for a similar unconventional maneuver now. This involves using greater reopened economic relations with Russia to pull Russia out from the hands of China today. This approach presents no significant drawback for Ukraine, and I believe it serves as a substantial incentive for Russia to move in this direction. However, I do think that this will involve some level of territorial negotiation as well. Out of any good deal, it's important to recognize that not everyone will be 100% satisfied with the outcome. This is part of the cost of securing peace; not everyone will be happy about every attribute of the agreement. Nevertheless, I could make a case that an immediate peace deal is also now in the best interest of Ukraine.

Let’s rewind the clock to early 2022, perhaps June of that year. At that time, Zelenskyy was ready to come to the table for a deal. However, Boris Johnson traveled to Ukraine during his own domestic political troubles to convince Zelenskyy to continue fighting. This situation illustrates a critical point: when nations aren't asked to pay for their own national security, they face the problem of moral hazard. This leads them to take risks that are suboptimal because they are not fully bearing the consequences of those risks. If Ukraine had reached a deal back then, it is clear that they would have secured a better agreement for themselves than they are achieving now, especially after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and losing tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives. The notion that Ukraine is somehow better off for not having made that deal is a falsehood.

If we are unwilling to learn from the mistakes of the recent past, we are doomed to repeat them. The idea that pursuing peace would be painful for Ukraine overlooks the reality of the ongoing suffering. What has been painful is the continued loss of life without any increased leverage to achieve the desired outcome. I believe there is an opportunity for a win-win-win scenario: a win for the United States and the West in weakening the Russia-China alliance; a win for Ukraine in securing an agreement backed by U.S. interests that provides greater long-term security for its sovereignty; and a win for Russia in reopening economic relations with the West while receiving certain guarantees regarding NATO's mission creep.

There is no rule that dictates that when one party benefits, it must be at the expense of another. Before a full-scale world war begins, there is an opportunity for all parties to achieve a favorable outcome rather than assuming that a win for one is a loss for another.

To add to the negotiation table, there are elements that Putin won't like but could be possible to negotiate. For instance, Ukraine joining the European Union but not NATO could be a viable option. Establishing some kind of economic relationships there, alongside splitting the financial burden, could also be beneficial. Guaranteeing a certain amount of funding from both Russia and the United States for rebuilding Ukraine is crucial. One of the significant challenges in a war-torn country like Ukraine is figuring out how to ensure the flourishing of the nation. The goal should not only be to stop the loss of life and destruction but also to pave the way for a sustainable future.

=> 02:07:05

Negotiation is key; the more levers we have, the closer we get to a win-win peace deal.

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. Establishing some kind of economic relationships there and also splitting the bill—sort of guaranteeing some amount of money from both Russia and the United States for rebuilding Ukraine—is one of the challenges in Ukraine. A war-torn country faces the question of how to 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 flourishing future.

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 red line factors, then there's no room for negotiation. This is a deeply complicated, historically intricate dynamic between Ukraine and Russia, and between NATO and the United States, the Russia-China Alliance, and the economic interests that are at 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 that there are as many different possible levers here; it almost makes certain that a reasonable, practicable peace deal is possible. In contrast to a 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. The United States is playing hardball, not just with one side of this—not just with Zelenskyy or with Putin—but across the board. Hardball for our own interests, which are the interests of stability here. I think that this will happen to well serve both Ukraine and Russia in the process.

If you were president, would you call Putin? Absolutely. I mean, in any negotiation, you gotta 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.

Now, let's go to the China side of this. The big concern here is that the brewing cold, or god forbid, hot war 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, is that what you're buying yourself in the context of what could be a small conflict is an all-out great war. 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 U.S. The way we bring down the existential stakes for the U.S. is to make sure that the United States does not depend on China for our modern way of life. Right now, we do. 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...

=> 02:09:59

To secure our future, we must break free from dependence on adversaries like China, especially for essentials like medicine and military supplies. It's time to rethink our alliances and trade strategies for a safer America.

Like a world war level conflict. The way to address this situation is to bring down the existential stakes for the U.S. We can achieve this by ensuring that the United States does not depend on China for our modern way of life. Currently, we do depend on China for a multitude of essential goods. For instance, 95% of ibuprofen, one of the most basic medicines used in the United States, relies on China for its supply chain.

Ironically, we also depend on China for our own military industrial base. It is perplexing to consider that our military, which is supposed to protect us against adversaries, relies on supplies, including semiconductors, from our top adversary. This situation does not make sense. Even if you align with the libertarian views of Friedrich von Hayek, whom I admire, you would not advocate for foreign dependence on an adversary for your military needs.

Thus, I believe the next step we need to take is to reduce U.S. dependence on China for the most essential inputs required for the functioning of the United States, including our military. As a side note, I believe this means not only onshoring to the United States, but if we are truly serious about this, it also involves expanding our relationships with allies such as Japan, South Korea, India, and the Philippines.

This presents an interesting debate, as some on the right may argue for decoupling from China while simultaneously wanting less trade with other nations. However, you can't have both those things at the same time. We must acknowledge and be honest with ourselves about the trade-offs involved in declaring independence from China. The critical question is, what are the long-term benefits?

Another approach to this issue is strategic clarity. Historically, world wars often emerge from strategic ambiguity between adversaries who are unclear about each other's red lines, leading to accidental crossings of those lines. Therefore, we need to be much clearer about what our hard red lines are and what they are not. I believe this is the single most effective way to prevent the situation from escalating into a major world war.

Furthermore, let's discuss ending the Russia-Ukraine conflict based on the terms previously mentioned. Weakening the Russia-China Alliance not only reduces the risk of Russia becoming an aggressor but also diminishes the likelihood that China will take risks that could escalate us to World War III. From a geopolitical perspective, we must consider these issues holistically. The end of the Russia-Ukraine War and a peace deal would not only deescalate that specific conflict but also reduce the risk of a broader conflict involving China.

Additionally, it would weaken China, as Russia possesses hypersonic missiles and military capabilities that currently surpass those of China. If Russia is no longer in a military alliance with China, it will alter China's strategic calculations. This perspective represents the kind of strategic vision we need in our foreign policy, which has been lacking since the Nixon era.

We require individuals who are willing to challenge the status quo, question existing orthodoxies, and utilize various levers to achieve significant deals that would otherwise remain unattainable. This is what I believe someone like Donald Trump in the presidency can accomplish, and it is why I ran for office.

=> 02:12:38

Clear red lines are essential for avoiding conflict with China and protecting U.S. interests.

Missile capabilities that are ahead of that of China's present a significant strategic consideration. If Russia is no longer in a military alliance with China, that changes China's calculus as well. This shift suggests that we need a more strategic vision in our foreign policy than we have had since, certainly, the Nixon era.

I believe that we need individuals who are willing to challenge the status quo, question existing orthodoxies, and possess the willingness to use levers to get great deals done that otherwise wouldn't have been achieved. This is where I think someone like Donald Trump in the presidency could make a difference. As someone who ran for president as an outsider and a businessman, I believe that our foreign policy would benefit from having business leaders in those roles rather than individuals who are shackled by traditional political thinking.

Furthermore, it is essential to recognize the red line that China provides with the One China policy. Both sides need to have their red lines, and while specifics may vary depending on circumstances, the principle remains that we must establish a hard red line that is clear. During my campaign, I emphasized that this red line is that China will not and should not annex Taiwan at any time in the foreseeable future.

For the United States, it is probably prudent not to suddenly upend the diplomatic policy we have adopted for decades, which recognizes the One China policy and maintains a position of quiet deference. However, we must understand that the national recognition of Taiwan as an independent nation would be a red line for China. Conversely, we must assert that we do not tolerate the annexation of Taiwan by physical force, especially when it is against the interests of the United States.

To avoid major conflict with China, we must start with clear red lines on both sides. Additionally, we should lower the stakes for the United States by ensuring we are not dependent on China for our modern way of life. Ironically, we could use a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine war as a means of weakening the Russia-China alliance, which would ultimately benefit us by diminishing China's influence.

When faced with the scenario where China states, very politely, that they will annex Taiwan regardless of our stance, I assert that this will not happen. If we are crystal clear about our red lines and priorities, we can deter such actions. Moreover, we are currently dependent on Taiwan for our semiconductor supply chain, which means that any attempt by China to annex Taiwan would draw us into serious conflict.

In this context, clearly drawn red lines, coupled with the reality that Russia is no longer automatically aligned with China, serve as significant levers. Additionally, we should focus on strengthening our relationships with other allies, such as India. This is not merely a statement of personal interest; it is a strategic necessity for our foreign policy.

=> 02:15:09

Strong leadership means standing firm on national identity and priorities, even when the media doesn't approve.

We are currently dependent on Taiwan for our own semiconductor supply chain. This dependency is something that China knows will draw us into serious conflict if circumstances arise. Against the backdrop of clearly drawn red lines, we must also consider that Russia is no longer automatically in China's camp, which serves as a significant lever in our geopolitical strategy.

I believe it is crucial to strengthen our relationships with other allies, particularly India. This is not just a personal sentiment, as my name is Vivek Ramaswamy; rather, it is strategically important for the United States. In a conflict scenario, if China perceives some risk to the Indian Ocean or the Andaman Sea, it could jeopardize its reliability in obtaining Middle Eastern oil supplies. There are numerous levers we can pull in this situation.

If we are both strategically clear with our allies and adversaries about our red lines and priorities, we can create reasonable deals that pull Russia out of the hands of China and vice versa. Strengthening our alliances can cause China to question its continued access to Middle Eastern oil supplies. Establishing clear red lines with China about what we will not tolerate, while also recognizing that they may have their own red lines, will allow us to avoid what many refer to as the unavoidable conflict or the Thucydides trap. This theory suggests that conflict is inevitable when a rising power confronts a declining power; however, I believe this is not a law of physics.

We do not have to be a declining power, nor does this situation have to result in major conflict with China. Achieving this will require real leadership—leadership with the spine to navigate these complex issues. We can assess the effectiveness of leadership based on results rather than international relations theory. For instance, during the four years under Trump, we did not experience major conflicts in the Middle East or in places like Russia and Ukraine. We were on the brink of war with North Korea when Obama left office, but Trump managed to stabilize that situation. In contrast, under Biden and Harris, we have seen major conflicts arise in the Middle East and the ongoing crisis in Russia-Ukraine.

Even if you disagree with many aspects of Donald Trump's style, if your primary concern is to avoid World War III, there is a compelling case for supporting him in this election.

Regarding Prime Minister Modi, I have complimented him on various fronts, particularly in relation to nationalism. I have also had the opportunity to get to know Georgia Maloney, the leader of Italy, who shares similar values. One aspect I admire about her leadership is that she does not apologize for the national identity of her country and stands for certain values uncompromisingly. She is indifferent to media opinions, which allows her to make decisions that are best for her people.

In my last conversation with her during her visit to the U.S., she mentioned that she does not read the newspapers or watch the media, which empowers her decision-making. There are elements of this approach in Modi's leadership as well, which I respect. He does not apologize for India's national identity and encourages the nation to take pride in it. However, I want to clarify that my admiration for Maloney and Modi is not solely based on nationalism; it is about their commitment to their countries and their people.

=> 02:17:50

Embrace national pride without apology; it's the key to uniting and empowering a nation.

Values uncompromisingly. She doesn't give a second care about what the media has to say about it. One of the things I love about her, which I realized during our last conversation when she was in the U.S., is that she talked about how she doesn't even read the newspaper; she doesn't read or watch the media. This approach allows her to make decisions that are best for the people.

There are elements of this in Modi's approach as well, which I respect about him. He doesn't apologize for the fact that India has a national identity and that the nation should be proud of it. However, I'm not saying this because I'm proud of Maloney or Modi for their own countries; I'm American. I believe there are lessons to learn from leaders who are proud of their own nation's identity rather than apologizing for it. This conviction is a significant part of 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 believe he is the one who will restore that missing national pride in the United States. In my book, I touch on this as well; there's a chapter titled, "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. In the United States, this doesn't mean ethnonationalism, as that was not the basis of the national identity of the United States in the first place. Instead, it refers to a civic nationalism grounded in our actual national ideals, which is who we are.

I think that we have become uncomfortable in this country with expressing pride in being American and believing in American exceptionalism. Some people perceive this as looking down on others, but that's not the case. I'm proud of my own country. I believe Modi has revived that spirit in India in a way that was missing for a long time. India had a psychological inferiority complex, but now it is proud of its national heritage, mythmaking, legacy, and history.

Every nation must engage in some form of mythmaking about its past and be proud of it. As Malcolm X said here in the United States, "A nation without an appreciation for its history is like a tree without roots. It's dead." I believe this is true not just for the United States but for every other nation as well. Leaders like Maloney in Italy and Modi in India have done a great job, and I wish to bring that type of pride back to the United States. Whatever I do next, I believe that 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 I might do next, is there any chance I would run in 2028? Well, I'm not going to rule it out. That is a long time from now, and I am most focused on what I can do in the next chapter for the country. I ran for president and learned a million things from that experience—lessons that can only be learned by doing it. It was very much a "fire first, aim later" situation when getting into the race. There was no way I could have planned and plotted this out as someone coming from the outside. I was 37 years old and came from the business world, so there was a lot I could only learn by actually doing it, and I did.

I care about the same issues that led me into the presidential race, and I don't think those issues have been solved. I believe we have a generation that is lost in this country, and it's not just young people.

=> 02:20:41

Real growth happens when you dive in headfirst and learn through experience, not just planning.

There are a million things that I learned from that experience that you can only learn by doing it. It was very much a "fire first, aim later" approach when getting into the race. There was no way I could have planned and plotted this out as someone who was coming from the outside. At 37 years old, coming from the business world, there was a lot that I could only learn by actually doing it, and I did.

However, I care about the same things that led me into the presidential race, and I don't think the issues have been solved. I believe we have a generation that is lost in the country. It's not just young people; I think 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 hearts are missing.

I think we need a president who not only has the right policies for the country—such as "seal the border, grow the economy, stay out of World War III, and address rampant crime"—but we also need leaders who can, in a sustained way, revive our national character. We need to restore our sense of pride in this country and our identity as Americans. I believe that this need exists as much today as it did when I first ran for president. I don't think it will 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. After that, we will see where the country is headed into 2028, and whatever I do will be aimed at having a maximal positive impact on the country. My laser focus, which may be distinct from other politicians on both sides, is to take America to the next level and move beyond our victimhood culture to restore our culture of excellence. We need to "shut down that nanny state, the entitlement state, the regulatory state, and the foreign policy nanny state" and revive who we really are as Americans.

I am as passionate about that as ever, but the next step is not running for president; it is what happens in the next four years. That is why, over the next four weeks, I am focused on doing whatever I can to ensure we succeed in this election.

I hope you run because 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. 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 need a primary filled with people who have real visions for the country on both sides. The people of this country should be able to choose between those competing visions without insult or injury being the norm. I would love nothing more than to see that in 2028.

For me, I would love to see a future where it’s you versus somebody like Tim Walz. Tim Walz is, first of all, a good dude who, similar to you, has strongly held, if not radical, ideas on how to make progress in this country. To be on stage and debate honestly about the ideas that have a real tension between them would be enlightening.

There are other interesting candidates too, like Ben Shapiro. I would like to engage in an earnest, civil, but contested context of a debate. It's important to take on someone who disagrees with you but still has a deep ideology of their own. I think John Fetterman is pretty interesting as well. He has demonstrated himself to be thoughtful and capable of changing his mind on positions.

=> 02:24:02

True leadership means challenging your own party's orthodoxies and standing firm in your convictions, even when it's unpopular.

First of all, like a good dude, I have similar to you, strongly held, if not radical ideas of how to make progress in this country. To just be on stage and debate honestly about the ideas that are very contested creates a tension between those ideas.

Is there anyone else? Shapiro's interesting also. I would like to take on someone in an earnest, civil, but contested context, right? Who do we want to take on? You want to take on somebody who disagrees with you but still has deep ideology of their own. I think John Fetterman is pretty interesting. He has demonstrated himself to be someone who is thoughtful and able to change his mind on positions, but not in some sort of fake flip-floppity way. Instead, it is a thoughtful evolution.

Fetterman is someone who has been through personal struggles and, although I deeply disagree with him on a lot of his views—most of his views—I can at least say he comes across as someone who has been through that torturous process of really examining his beliefs and convictions. He has, when necessary, been able to preach to his own tribe where he thinks they are wrong. I think that’s interesting.

You have a number of other leaders probably emerging at lower levels on the left. Not everybody is going to necessarily come from Washington, D.C. In fact, the longer they are there, the more they, in some ways, get polluted by it. For instance, I think the governor of Colorado is an interesting guy. He has a more libertarian tendency. I don’t know as much about his views from a national perspective, but it’s intriguing to see someone who has at least libertarian, freedom-oriented tendencies within the Democratic Party.

I don’t foresee him running for president, but I had a debate last year when I was running for president with Ro Khanna. Say what you will about him; he is a highly intelligent person and is someone who is at least willing to buck the consensus of his party when necessary. Recently, he delicately criticized Kamala Harris’s proposed tax on unrealized capital gains. I like people who are willing to challenge the orthodoxies in their own party because it shows they actually have convictions. So, whoever the Democrats put up, I hope it’s someone like that.

For my part, I will, I have, and I continue to have beliefs that will challenge Republicans. These beliefs may not be the policies that poll on paper as the policies you are supposed to adopt as a Republican candidate. But what a true leader does is not just tell people what they want to hear; you tell people what they need to hear and what your actual convictions are.

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. For example, I don’t think the bill to cap credit card interest rates is a good idea because that’s a price control, just like Kamala Harris’s price controls, and it will reduce access to credit.

I don’t think we want a crony capitalist state showering private benefits on selected industries that favor us, nor do we want to expand the CFPB or the FTC's remit and somehow trust it just 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. I believe in certain issues that may even be outside the scope of traditional conservatism.

=> 02:26:38

True change requires challenging the status quo, even if it means stepping outside traditional party lines.

I don't think the bill to cap credit card interest rates is a good idea because that's a price control, just like Kamala Harris' 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 industries that favor us, or that we want to expand the CFPB or the FTC's remit and somehow 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 believe in certain issues that are maybe even outside the scope of what Republicans currently care about right now. One of the things that I oppose, for example, is factory farming on a large scale. You could sort of say it's about the mistreatment of animals. It's one thing to say that you need it 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, which are the product of crony capitalism. I'm against crony capitalism in all its forms. I'm also against the influence of mega money in politics. I don't think that's been good for either Democrats or Republicans.

Some of those views, I think, are not necessarily part of the traditional Republican orthodoxy, you know, 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 outta politics—getting mega money, getting mega money. Yeah, yeah, yeah. As long as it exists, you gotta play the game. If you're gonna play to win, I think it's one of the things I realized: you just can't compete without it. But you want to win the game in order to change the game. That's something that I keep in mind as well.

You have written a lot; you're exceptionally productive. Just looking at your books, you've written basically a book a year for the last four years. When you're writing and 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 being physically active. So if I'm running, playing tennis, or lifting, somehow that really opens up my mind. After that, I need a significant amount of time with a notebook. I usually carry around a notebook everywhere I go and write things down in there.

Is the notebook full of chaotic thoughts, or is it structured? 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, so I'll immediately jot it down. Other times, on the flight over here, I had a much more structured layout of different projects I have in the air, for example. I cross-pollinate ideas; I was in the shower this morning and had a bunch of thoughts that I collected on my plane ride over here. I think that writing, in all of its forms, helps me. One of the things that actually helped me this year was writing this book while going through a presidential campaign.

=> 02:29:14

Taking time to reflect and write can ground you in your purpose, especially amidst chaos.

In reflecting on my experiences, I realize that writing is something in all of its forms that helps me. Whenever I have a thought that I know I don't want to forget later, I'll immediately jot it down. Other times, like on the flight over here, I had a much more structured layout of my ideas. I have a lot of different projects in the air, and I often cross-pollinate my thoughts. For instance, I was in the shower this morning and had a bunch of thoughts, which I collected during my plane ride.

This year, one of the things that actually helped me was writing this book. During a presidential campaign, everything moves at super speed, and if I were to do it again, I would take more structured breaks. I don't mean breaks just as vacations; I mean breaks to reflect on what's actually happening. Probably the biggest mistake I made last time around was heading into the first debate after being in nine different states over seven days. I should have taken that as a pause. At that point, I had established relevance, and it would have been beneficial for the country to see who I actually am in full, rather than just the momentum-driven version of myself.

Taking those moments to reflect and do some writing is crucial. I didn't do much writing during the presidential campaign, even though I enjoy it and it helps center me. After I collected myself for a couple of weeks post-campaign, the first thing I did was take the pen and start writing. I was committed to writing that book, regardless of whether anyone read it; I was writing it for myself. Interestingly, it started in a very different form, focusing on personal reflection. However, most of that content, funny enough, didn't end up in the book because it took a different direction that was more interesting for a publisher.

This is my fourth book in four years, and I hope it's the most important one. It is certainly the product of an honest reflection. Whatever it might do for the reader, it helped me to write it. From this campaign, I learned not just policy lessons but also personal practices. The ability to take time to reflect and recenter myself on my purpose is vital. Had I done that more consistently, I think I would have remained more centered on the mission throughout the campaign. When you get attacked, it can throw you off balance, but it becomes much harder for someone else to do that if you've truly centered yourself on your own purpose. This realization is probably one of my biggest learnings.

You've mentioned the first primary debate, and I've stepped into some really intense debates, whether on my own podcasts or in various walks of life, including debates with protesters.

=> 02:31:51

Stay centered on your purpose, and let curiosity guide your debates. Embrace the heat, and you'll emerge stronger in your beliefs.

On the mission the whole time, I have learned that rather than being thrown off balance when attacked, it becomes a lot harder for someone else to do that to you if you've really centered yourself on your own purpose. This realization is probably one of my biggest learnings.

You’ve mentioned the first primary debate, and I have stepped into some really intense debates more than almost anyone I've ever seen, whether on my own podcasts or in various walks of life. This includes debates with protesters or with people who hold radically opposite views. The philosophy behind that and the psychology of being able to remain calm through all of that is something I find intriguing.

I enjoy debate. In ordinary life, whenever I receive criticism or encounter a contrary view, my first impulse is always, “Are they right?” I mean, it’s always a possibility, right? Most of the time, what happens is that I understand the other side's argument better, which leads me to emerge with a stronger conviction in my own beliefs. You know your own beliefs better if you can state the best argument for the other side. However, sometimes I do change my mind, and I think that’s a natural part of being a thinking human being. The pursuit of truth through open debate and inquiry has always been part of my identity; I am wired that way, and I thrive on it.

Even my relationships with my closest friends are built around heated debates and deep-seated disagreements. I find this dynamic beautiful, not just in terms of human relationships but particularly about America. It reflects part of the culture of this country, more so than in other countries like China, India, or many European cultures, where such behavior is often considered disrespectful. In America, part of what makes this country great is the ability to disagree passionately and still come together at the dinner table afterward. I think we’ve lost some of that, but I am on a mission to bring it back.

Whether in politics or not, I am committed to talking to people who actually disagree with me. I believe that this is a significant part of how we’re going to save our country. The question, “Are they right?” is something I literally see myself doing; I am listening to the other person.

To be honest, I do this for my own benefit—selfishly. I also don’t lose my composure. I don’t take disagreements personally, nor do I get overly emotional. While I do get passionate, I’ve never seen myself broken or outraged by opposing views. I love the heat, and I am a curious person. I am always curious about what motivates the person on the other side. That curiosity, I believe, is actually the best antidote to conflict.

=> 02:34:34

Curiosity is the key to understanding others and bridging divides; let's embrace it to foster connection and friendship, even amidst disagreement.

In our conversation, we touched upon the emotional aspect of engaging with others, particularly in the context of passionate discussions. "You get emotional sort of in a positive way," I noted, highlighting how one can be passionate without becoming outraged or broken. Vivek agreed, stating, "Yeah," and I continued, "It's always, probably because you just love the heat."

Vivek elaborated on this, saying, "I love the heat and I'm a curious person." His curiosity drives him to understand what motivates others, which I believe is a crucial quality. "That curiosity I think is actually the best antidote," he explained. When faced with someone attacking you, trying to stay calm can feel disingenuous. Instead, being genuinely curious about the other person's perspective can foster understanding. "I think most people are good people inherently," he asserted, acknowledging that while we may sometimes be misguided, it's important to explore what drives differing viewpoints.

Vivek shared his fascination with the psychology behind climate change protestors who have interrupted his 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." He emphasized the need to revive curiosity in politics, suggesting that it could help us disagree while still remaining friends and fellow citizens.

I concurred with his sentiment, stating, "I think fundamentally most people are good." I expressed my admiration for human curiosity and suggested that we should embrace it more. "You're a curious person," I remarked, acknowledging that this podcast is a product of his curiosity. I believe that America needs more of this spirit.

We reminisced about our founding fathers, who were inventors, writers, political theorists, and nation builders, all driven by "that boundless curiosity too." I pointed out that culturally, we have reached a point where people are often told to "stay in your lane," implying that lacking an expert degree in a subject disqualifies one from having an opinion. I argued that this mindset feels un-American and stifles intellectual engagement.

Vivek's diverse interests, spanning sports, culture, politics, and philosophy, highlight the importance of being a "Renaissance man." I lamented that we seem to have lost this concept in America, but it remains significant to me. After leaving the campaign, Vivek mentioned that he has been exploring a wide range of activities, including picking up his tennis game again.

"You're damn good at tennis," I remarked, recalling my observations of his skills. He responded, "I used to be better, but I'm picking it up again." This exchange encapsulates our shared belief in the value of curiosity and the importance of engaging with a variety of interests.

=> 02:37:02

Embrace your curiosity and explore diverse passions; it might just make you better at everything you do.

In this conversation, the speaker reflects on the importance of being able to engage in multiple interests and activities, suggesting that maybe one might even excel in various pursuits due to curiosity about the others. This concept is reminiscent of the Renaissance man, a notion that seems to have diminished in America, yet remains significant to the speaker.

After leaving the campaign, the speaker has been involved in a wide range of activities. They have resumed playing tennis, practicing at Ohio State, where they acknowledge being “damn good at tennis”. Although they admit to having been better in the past, they are currently working on improving their game. There was a humorous exchange regarding an online critique of their backhand, which the speaker concedes is a fair criticism. However, they note that their skills have improved recently, especially since they have been practicing with the Ohio State team, which is ranked among the best in the country.

The speaker shares their goal of participating in a particular tournament by the end of the season, although they express some caution regarding their physical limits, saying, “My hips are telling me…” Despite this, they find joy in returning to tennis. Additionally, they mention their role as an executive producer on a movie titled "City of Dreams," which tells the story of a young man trafficked into the United States. This experience is described as a thrilling opportunity that they had never encountered before.

Furthermore, the speaker has started a couple of companies, with one in particular expected to be significant this year, helping to guide other businesses they have launched in the past. They express a sense of re-energization after spending a year deeply involved in politics. Engaging in the private sector has provided them with a renewed sense of energy to return to driving change through public service.

The conversation takes a reflective turn as the host expresses admiration for the speaker's diverse pursuits and hopes for their future in politics. They appreciate the speaker's rigorously developed ideas and their willingness to engage in public debate, expressing a desire for individuals like them to represent the future of American politics.

As the discussion wraps up, the speaker humorously acknowledges the influence of Thomas Jefferson, noting that every time they swivel in their chair, they think of him. They share a fascinating fact about Jefferson, mentioning that he wrote 16,000 essays and letters in his lifetime, contrasting that with their own achievements of writing four books in four years. The conversation concludes with mutual appreciation for curiosity and a hopeful sentiment for future discussions.

The host thanks the audience for listening to the conversation with Vivek Ramaswamy and encourages support for the podcast by checking out the sponsors. They leave the audience with a thought-provoking quote 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.” The host expresses gratitude for the listeners and looks forward to the next episode.