214. Fortitude: American Resilience | Dan Crenshaw

[0] Welcome to the Jordan B. Peterson podcast, Season 4, Episode 71.

[1] I'm Michaela Peterson.

[2] This was a great episode.

[3] Congressman Dan Crenshaw and my dad discussed the fallout of withdrawing from Afghanistan and the details of a conflict that kept us there for over 20 years.

[4] They also get into topics like what life is like as a U .S. congressman, the relationship between social media and politics, modern conservatism, Dan's experience as a Navy seal, and more.

[5] I don't want to spoil the rest.

[6] Dan Crenshaw is a Republican congressman in Texas and former Navy SEAL officer.

[7] In one of his deployments to Afghanistan, an IED, improvised explosive device blast, led Dan to losing his right eye.

[8] If there was anyone, I would want to be an eventual president, it would be him.

[9] In 2018, he was elected to Congress and he serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has the broadest jurisdiction of any legislative committee.

[10] Dan recently published his book, Fortitude, American Resilience in an era of outrage.

[11] I hope you enjoy this episode.

[12] Be sure to subscribe if you like this kind of content.

[13] Before we get started with the episode, this episode was sponsored by Latter Life.

[14] Relevant to this episode, Life Insurance.

[15] It makes sense why people get life insurance, especially term coverage, which is surprisingly affordable.

[16] Why not pay a bet each month to protect the ones you love?

[17] If you're asking yourself this question, Ladder is probably the right choice for you.

[18] Ladder is 100 % digital, no doctors, no needles, no paperwork, when you apply for less than $3 million in coverage.

[19] Seriously, some life insurance makes you go to a bunch of tests.

[20] If you do prefer to talk to a person, their team of licensed agents don't work on commission, so they're not there to upsell you just to help.

[21] If you want to do it yourself, you'll just need a few minutes in a phone or a laptop.

[22] A tablet's fine too.

[23] With smart algorithms working in real time, Latter lets you know if you're approved on the spot.

[24] There are no hidden fees whatsoever.

[25] Starting at $5 a month, you can cancel whenever you want and get a full free refund if you change your mind in the first 30 days.

[26] Ladder policies are issued by insurers with long proven histories of paying claims.

[27] AM best rated them A and A -plus.

[28] And one more thing.

[29] Life insurance does cost more as you get older.

[30] Go to ladderlife .com slash J -B -P today to see if you're instantly approved.

[31] That's L -A -D -D -E -R -Life .com slash J -BP.

[32] Latterlife .com slash J -B -P.

[33] I hope you enjoy this episode.

[34] Hello, everybody.

[35] I'm very pleased today to have with me Congressman Dan Crenshaw.

[36] Dan and I have talked before.

[37] but here we are talking again.

[38] Originally from the Houston area, Dan Crenshaw is a proud sixth -generation Texan.

[39] From an early age, he knew that he wanted to serve his country with the most elite fighting force in history, the U .S. Navy SEALs.

[40] His father's career in the Texas oil and gas industry moved his family all over the world, including Ecuador and Colombia, where he attended high school.

[41] As a result, Dan is fluent in Spanish.

[42] In 06, Dan graduated from Tufts University, where he earned his naval officer commission through Navy ROTC.

[43] Following graduation, he immediately reported to seal training.

[44] That's something very difficult to do, by the way, in Coronado, California, where he met his future wife, Tara.

[45] After graduating SEAL training, he deployed to Fallujah, Iraq, to join SEAL Team 3, his first of five deployments overseas.

[46] On his third deployment in 2012, after six months of combat operations, he was hit by an improvised explosive device blast during a mission in Helmland, in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

[47] He was evacuated and awoke from a medically induced coma learning that his right eye had been destroyed in the blast and that his left eye was badly damaged.

[48] He was medically retired in September of 16 as a lieutenant commander, lieutenant commander in the U .S. after serving 10 years in the SEAL teams.

[49] He left with two bronze stars, one with valor, the Purple Heart, and the Navy commendation, with Vellar, among others.

[50] Soon after, he completed his master's in public administration at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

[51] In November of 18, Dan was elected to serve the people of Texas Second Congressional District in Congress.

[52] He serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has the broadest jurisdiction of any legislative committee in Congress.

[53] He also serves on the House Select Committee on the climate crisis, among others.

[54] Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me today.

[55] Well, thank you for having me. It's an honor, as I've noted to you many times, one of our intellectual heroes, but I appreciate you.

[56] It's something.

[57] Yeah, well, that's really something to hear from someone like you.

[58] I can tell you that.

[59] So we just had an election in Canada, and one of the things that wasn't discussed was what happened in Afghanistan, because Canadians served there as well.

[60] And I've been putting together this idea that I'd like to put four or five people who served there together on a podcast and and get a ground's eye view of the situation.

[61] But I've got you right now.

[62] And so what in the world were we doing there?

[63] And what happened?

[64] And was it any use?

[65] And what's your opinion about that?

[66] Because I just don't know, you know, so anything you can tell me would be real helpful.

[67] Yeah.

[68] It's a complicated one.

[69] But at the same time, it's not that complicated.

[70] You know, let's start with some of the first questions.

[71] I mean, why do we go there in the first place?

[72] I went there in the first place because of 9 -11 and the United States invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which is how Canada gets involved because you're our friends.

[73] And if we get attacked, we ask you to come help, you say, sure.

[74] And Americans have a long history of working with Canadians special operations.

[75] And, you know, actually where I was stationed in Kandahar, at least for a while, that was a purely Canadian base.

[76] That's why there was a hockey rink, for instance.

[77] And so, you know, longtime partners, but why were we there?

[78] Well, because of 9 -11.

[79] And we decided that, and I think rightfully decided, that there needed to be a response to the attacks on 9 -11 because they originated from al -Qaeda, and al -Qaeda was being harbored by the Taliban and Afghanistan.

[80] And so we decided that the Taliban no longer should be in control of Afghanistan.

[81] that was day one and basically everybody agreed with what we should do on day one day two and i'm speaking in kind of general terms but let's call it day two um the question becomes now that we kick some butt do we leave um and this was always a difficult question and this kind of gets to the rest of the questions as far as what we're doing there why and there's a question people have been wrestling with for 20 years and there's been dispute about it and it's it's it's it's it's not exactly a simple question or a simple answer because your alternatives are basically come away with the win, you know, call it a win.

[82] I don't know if it's a win, but it's certainly retribution.

[83] Call it revenge.

[84] But the next question is, okay, do we have an interest in prevention?

[85] Do we have an interest in future prevention of future attacks?

[86] And that's a that, and the answer to that question became, yes, we do, which is why the global war on terror became the buzzword for 20 years.

[87] And the difficult question was always, do we let Afghanistan just fall back into the hands of the Taliban?

[88] Or do we stay and try to at least create some semblance of a government that will be our partner that we can align with and that we can conduct counterterror operations with and prevent another 9 -11?

[89] And that became the choice for 20 years.

[90] we chose to do.

[91] And people like to sort of take easy swipes at that and say, well, look, they were never really prepared.

[92] It seemed like an endless war.

[93] We're just sort of institutionalized the war.

[94] We're just doing the same things over and over again.

[95] But they forget what the alternative is.

[96] And life is always about assessing what the alternatives are.

[97] It's easy to be disenchanted with the present or the current choice.

[98] It's a little bit harder to actually think about it and assess what the alternative is.

[99] And it turns out there isn't really good alternatives in a situation like this.

[100] So you can stay at war, or you can say that you ended it and refuse to acknowledge that there's actually an entire ideology out there that has no interest in ending that war with you.

[101] And what I tell people is, and you can kind of get what side of the debate I'm on, you know, call it an end this war, call it what you want.

[102] The fact is, is you send guys like me over there as an insurance policy so that there's no more 9 -11s.

[103] And, you know, what did we get for 20 years of war in Afghanistan?

[104] Well, we got no more 9 -11s.

[105] And that's certainly not nothing.

[106] It's actually pretty significant.

[107] And do you think that's a reasonable causal link?

[108] I mean, you did get Osama bin Laden, or we did, I suppose.

[109] It's another way of looking at it.

[110] Not that I'm taking any credit for that.

[111] So that did happen.

[112] And as you said, there hasn't been another major attack.

[113] And the incidents of terrorism worldwide or that sort of terrorism does seem to have declined.

[114] It's always a trick to attribute the cause of that correctly.

[115] So it's, it's hard.

[116] I mean, it's, but the Al -Qaeda, Qaeda is an organization that exists primarily to externalize their operations.

[117] I mean, they exist to attack homeland, whether that's Europe or the U .S. or Canada.

[118] ISIS, for instance, is an organization that exists to build an Islamic Caliphate.

[119] Now, they're all kind of under the same umbrella.

[120] I mean, and the Taliban, ISIS, Al -Qaeda, to the extent that they fight with each other, it's mostly about power structures as opposed to ideological differences.

[121] They're all on the same team there.

[122] They just might have different strategies.

[123] And so we decimated al -Qaeda, and al -Qaeda tried to move to Iraq.

[124] I'll try to move to Yemen, and we just go after them.

[125] Now, what that does is, is it an endless war?

[126] Yes, because these people are in an endless war with us.

[127] You know, we weren't at war on September 10th, 2001.

[128] We weren't at war in the year 2000 when the USS Cole was hit.

[129] We weren't at war when our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were hit in 1997, and we weren't at war in 1993 when the World Trade Center was bombed.

[130] But somebody was at war with us, and this is what I have to remind people.

[131] And we can say we ended a war a couple months ago, but we didn't end any war.

[132] And the intel suggests that Al -Qaeda is rapidly reforming and is now they have the space and the time because somebody like me is not going after them anymore.

[133] And that's the key ingredient there.

[134] Are they on the run or are they or are they kicked back and and planning the next the next big operation, the next really, really glamorous operation, the really dramatic attack that they like to do?

[135] You know, that's better than just a underwear bomber going on an airplane.

[136] And so do you think they have that space now in Afghanistan?

[137] And so I got to tell you a brief story.

[138] There was a Canadian federal election just not too long ago and maybe a month before that or so.

[139] one of the cabinet members of our prime minister's government, he was re -elected with the minority government, Justin Trudeau.

[140] She referred to the Taliban, the new government in Afghanistan under the Taliban as our brothers.

[141] And, you know, that wasn't so different in some sense from some of the missives that have been coming from the U .S. State Department, but many people weren't too thrilled with that description.

[142] And, you know, the feeling of more hard -headed people and maybe they're wrong is that, you know, it's the same old characters now that have obtained power and we better watch the hell out.

[143] And so is that over suspicious?

[144] Should they be offered in olive branch?

[145] It's like, what's your sense about the right way forward with that new government?

[146] Well, I don't think it's overly suspicious at all.

[147] These are certainly the same people that took my eye.

[148] These are the same people.

[149] Now, granted, I get it to wear cool eye patch as a result of it.

[150] So, you know, I'm not complaining too much.

[151] Yeah, you do look cool.

[152] You do look cool.

[153] There's no doubt about that.

[154] I read a comedian's comment about you.

[155] I think he apologized for it.

[156] It was something like, it looked like, what was it, a private eye and a porno flick or something like that, which is a good joke.

[157] It made it a porno.

[158] That part was the good joke.

[159] That part was the good joke.

[160] It actually was pretty funny.

[161] That kind of sparks the history of my, of the birth of my political career, I guess.

[162] We can talk about that.

[163] Yeah, yeah.

[164] It's a funny moment.

[165] Well, let's finish off with the telemet.

[166] and then let's do their finish for the Taliban like we're going to finish.

[167] Yeah, Taliban are terrible.

[168] And they haven't changed one bit.

[169] If anything, they're emboldened and ruthless.

[170] Look, the Haqqqqani network, again, a ruthless, ruthless terrorist organization and drug running operation.

[171] You know, the head of that, I think, is the second in command for Taliban right now.

[172] The people in charge, you know, there's groups that we have intel.

[173] They're groups in charge of security around the Kabul airport, the Taliban groups.

[174] we're suicide bombing experts.

[175] I mean, these people all come, they're all cut from the same cloth.

[176] Nothing has changed.

[177] We're seeing plenty of videos of them hanging people, murdering people, executing people, rounding up women, selling them off, you know, women are under attack in Afghanistan in a very serious way.

[178] So unfortunately...

[179] Yeah, and yet the State Department is calling on them to be diverse, inclusive, and equitable.

[180] And it's infuriating.

[181] I'm treating something nasty about that.

[182] It did.

[183] I think I remember it.

[184] It's just, look, I mean, I'm not opposed to working with, you know, questionable characters around the world.

[185] I mean, I come from the special operations community.

[186] I also come from the intelligence community.

[187] This is what you have to do sometimes.

[188] But this isn't necessarily one of those cases.

[189] This was this was a time to put your foot down and refuse to let this happen.

[190] Now, when you let it happen and the question is, what do you do after the fact?

[191] Because we're not going to go back in and invade.

[192] So you do have to work with them to an extent, and it was the sort of deal with the devil.

[193] And I do understand that, but you don't have to speak so favorably about them either.

[194] I mean, come on.

[195] I mean, there's, there's at least some, there's at least some dignity that we might preserve, I would hope.

[196] But our state departments.

[197] Well, you also maybe might not, you might also not say things that would lead them to overtly mock you, like diversity, inclusivity, and equity missives.

[198] That's a bit on the, let's call it, naive side to say, absolute least.

[199] Yeah.

[200] It's how wickism has infected serious people.

[201] I mean, to say the least, it's, it's infuriating and it's it's caused, you know, quite a bit, quite a bit of angst in the United States.

[202] People on both sides of the debates and both sides of the aisle are deeply unhappy about it.

[203] And we feel deeply embarrassed.

[204] And as we should, especially because it was so preventable.

[205] one of the key takeaways from the hearings this week where General Millie is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense were testifying before the Senate and the House in front of the Armed Services Committees.

[206] I'm not on those committees.

[207] I didn't get to ask them questions.

[208] But one thing that really came out and that I hoped would come out was, you know, our Defense Department told them very clearly, you need to leave at least a few thousand troops there.

[209] there's a very it's almost guaranteed that if we go down to zero because you know slogans right this is this is where i get very upset with the debate about all this because i feel like the the push to remove troops it's effectively based on a slogan an emotional slogan maybe two slogans you know what slogan means the derivation of that word it's very interesting it's from sluag garum it's welsh sluag garum it means battle cry of the well that's interesting and it yeah yeah perfectly and if it's perfectly with how i'm using the word slogan now because it i think it caused these i think these emotional slogans were effectively political battle cries that caused death and um when you say you know this emotional cries to bring the troops home as if i need your help right as if i is if i'm not a a smart individual that volunteered to go and and defend america as if i need somebody's sympathy i don't don't.

[210] And the other slogan, no more endless wars, you know, and it just, it just, it just reduces a very complex and important topic into a very foolish debate.

[211] And I think that's how we ended up in this place where, where the number had to be zero.

[212] It couldn't be $2 ,500, couldn't be $5 ,000.

[213] Couldn't be something reasonable, right?

[214] Because I'm not saying we have 100 ,000 troops there.

[215] Like when I was deployed in Afghanistan, it might have been 120 ,000 troops there.

[216] and, you know, maybe as a surge, it's debatable whether that's necessary or not, but it's certainly not sustainable forever.

[217] And I think what people became unable to do is distinguish between this enormous resources being expended on nation building, let's call it.

[218] I think that, again, I think that's an overly simplistic term, but they don't like hundreds of thousands of troops there indefinitely.

[219] Fair enough.

[220] I mean, why would you?

[221] I totally get that.

[222] I don't think we should do it either.

[223] And I also don't think that we should be trying to export democracy.

[224] But that's, but that's been a bit of a straw man argument or a red herring, really, obviously related terms.

[225] But it's, you know, this whole idea that we're trying to export democracy, that was never the point.

[226] You know, and it's an unfair criticism of the Bush administration.

[227] Their goal was not to export democracy.

[228] Now, you might make a different argument on Iraq.

[229] I think they got over their skis on that one.

[230] But let's set that debate aside.

[231] Well, Afghanistan, it was never the point.

[232] It was just that on day two, like I said, you have a question.

[233] Do you try to build some semblance of a government that you can work with?

[234] Or do you just let the Taliban take it over?

[235] And then you're right back to where you were right before September 11, 2001.

[236] And what have you gained?

[237] So what do you think would have happened if you would have left 5 ,000 or 10 ,000 troops there?

[238] We'd be in a very good situation right now.

[239] The Afghan government would still be up and running.

[240] And there'd be little skirmishes, little combat operations for a while.

[241] They're just would.

[242] Yeah.

[243] Why do you think that that small number of troops, sorry, we have a bit of a leg, so I'm being a bit rude here.

[244] But why are you convinced that a number, 5 ,000, 10 ,000, something like that?

[245] Why are you convinced that that would have been sufficient?

[246] Well, because it's sufficient enough to hold certain airfields, commit certain air power to our Afghan partners, and honestly, give them the morale boost that they need to go fight it on their own.

[247] It also provides logistical support to them.

[248] I mean, a true, truly modern army is, you know, 5 % combat, 95 % logistics.

[249] That's what makes the American military so unbelievable, is that we can deploy anywhere in the world, and our logistics are second to none.

[250] And, you know, that's something that's not quite realized.

[251] And we're also, it's not obvious.

[252] I watched an extensive series on World War II that concentrated, and it was narrated by Eisenhower, It concentrated a lot on logistics, which I found absolutely fascinating, and it stunned me as well.

[253] Just the sheer difficulty of supplying tanks and men with gasoline once the English Channel was crossed.

[254] That was amazing operation.

[255] They built these huge spools out of, with as much steel in them as battleships and unrolled pipelines across the English Channel.

[256] It's like, and that was like one of them.

[257] It's amazing.

[258] It's about absolutely beyond comprehension and that it was possible and that it worked.

[259] the logistics, the supply of the army, all of that, that's, that is really something.

[260] And people don't know how complex that is.

[261] So, so you figure five to 10 ,000.

[262] And, and that was killed by slogans.

[263] It was killed by slogans.

[264] It was killed by emotional slogans.

[265] Because, I mean, like you say, you can't overstate the importance of logistics.

[266] And if you, you know, and people say, well, we've been there for 20 years.

[267] I mean, why can't they handle it?

[268] I mean, you, you handle it being a new country after 20 years.

[269] That's not exactly a, a, a longstanding long time you know it's it's difficult um you know give give these guys some slack i mean they've been trying to build a plane while it's falling through the air uh for years and it's not easy and um and you've got an insurgency that's ruthless and doesn't play by the same rules you know they've got iED set up everywhere you know this this stuff is hard and it takes time you got to remind people we are in south korea since the 50s they didn't have an election until the 80s You know, it takes a while.

[270] And would anybody say at this point that it wasn't worth it, that we should have just left and let that fall to communist China control the way North Korea is?

[271] I don't think so.

[272] I mean, South Korea seems like a pretty good partner.

[273] Yeah, absolutely.

[274] Look at it.

[275] Thrive away, man. And that would have never happened without our presence there, just never.

[276] And it's not like they ever stopped the war either.

[277] They're technically still at war.

[278] So I just think the arc, now look, are we losing Americans there?

[279] no. But we also haven't lost an American in Afghanistan for a year and a half until these Marines were killed just a few weeks ago.

[280] So, you know, and before that, and people are like, well, that's because of the treaty with the Taliban.

[281] It possibly, possibly got, you know, they have time on their hands.

[282] They're their strategic thinkers.

[283] But before that, when we didn't have a treaty, we had an average of six to seven deaths in Afghanistan every year.

[284] I'll tell you what, the U .S. military loses a hell of a lot more than that, suicide and random accidents.

[285] so you know it wasn't i wouldn't call this a war in the traditional sense it was not like what i was dealing with and even what i was dealing with in 2012 was certainly not like 2010 uh it was you know it's war is relative um and i don't see what was going on since about 2014 as a full -blown war by any stretch it's a okay so let me summarize what you said and see if i got it right so you think that 20 years of involvement kept terrorism at bay pretty effectively now that's done with and whatever was there before is is mounting again and has been emboldened that was your word and emboldened by what exactly well by the fact that they took over the government of Afghanistan instantly and and are back in control and then i have some parallel questions along with that, if I got that right.

[286] What is this endless war that we're in, apparently, about, and who's underneath it?

[287] Because I have been watching American foreign policy for a long time, and I keep wondering about Pakistan, and I keep wondering about Saudi Arabia, which has all this immense wealth, and has the proclivity to fund rather radical ideas all around the world continually.

[288] And so I know those are terrible things to ask you about.

[289] or even to talk about, but.

[290] And I'm not like an expert on this, but I know enough.

[291] You know, what we're dealing with is Islamic extremism that really originated from Saudi Arabia, the madrasas of Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi Islam, which is a very extreme form of Islam.

[292] And that materialized over time.

[293] And I think what's interesting is, and I'm going to get the year wrong and the exact attack wrong, but there was a major Islamic extremist attack.

[294] in Saudi Arabia decades ago.

[295] And ever since that moment, the Saudi Arabian government sort of had this deal with the devil with them.

[296] Leave us the hell alone and will at least harbor you.

[297] Right.

[298] So that's why people kind of look to Saudi Arabia as this culprit, even though at a governmental level, they're an ally.

[299] And again, it deals with the devil.

[300] Yeah, so it's very strange.

[301] It's, and it's, you know, why are we allies with Saudi Arabia?

[302] Well, because they're the only geostrategic deterrents, to Iran and they're worse.

[303] This is life.

[304] This is, this is, this is realism, as opposed to who we wish people were.

[305] But that's sort of where it came from.

[306] And this has been around for a while and they hate us because they hate us.

[307] You know, and Westerners are always looking for this sort of this, this logical reasoning.

[308] Why do they not like us?

[309] It must have been something we've done.

[310] Must be our foreign policy.

[311] And so I asked, I'm like, okay, well, let's take, let's take our biggest example.

[312] Let's take Osama bin Laden.

[313] What exactly did we do to this guy?

[314] I mean, was it, was it us aligning with him and the Majahedin and Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 80s?

[315] And we helped him.

[316] Or was it when we defended his homeland of Saudi Arabia from invasion, from Iraq, from Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War?

[317] We stopped Saddam Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia.

[318] And that was actually, he, so he claimed that our mere presence there was enough to radicalize him and start al -Qaeda, that doesn't make any logical sense, right?

[319] Because we're always looking for this sort of transactional relationship to help us understand as Westerners, but they're not Westerners.

[320] They don't operate off the same logic.

[321] They think we're infidels and they hate us because of who we are.

[322] And you need to accept that.

[323] And that's why it's an endless war.

[324] They will always be at war with us.

[325] And we'll never snuff it out.

[326] It's a reality that we have to live in.

[327] And do you think about it as a religious struggle or as a criminal enterprise that's essentially organized against the West, U .S. in particular?

[328] I mean, it certainly seems to me like a religious struggle.

[329] At least that's how they paint it.

[330] And, you know, I can only go off of how they operate and how they, that's an interesting question.

[331] I mean, I don't know that I distinguish too much.

[332] I mean, you know, in a sense, it operates like an organized crime enterprise for sure.

[333] I mean, that's how we track them.

[334] We track them through financing.

[335] We track them in all the traditional ways that you might hunt down an organized crime unit.

[336] So in practical purposes, we kind of see it the same.

[337] And, you know, the religious side gets into it because it goes back to the old adage, you know, winning hearts and minds.

[338] And, you know, it turns out that that ain't that easy.

[339] And we're never going to win over Muslims in this.

[340] sense.

[341] It's just not going to happen when we're over there.

[342] I mean, the alliances that we get when we're in a place like Iraq or Afghanistan, they're based on practicality.

[343] And look, the vast majority of Muslims there are just not that extreme.

[344] So they don't, they're fine aligning with us.

[345] They don't necessarily subscribe to this idea that you can't even speak to a Christian.

[346] So it's complicated.

[347] Life is complicated.

[348] So tell me about life is a complicated.

[349] So tell me about life is a You've been a congressman now for three years, and I spent some time in Washington, and I was surprised by many things and overwhelmed by many things and impressed by many things, but what's your day -to -day life like?

[350] So I guess maybe what we first should do is describe the difference between a congressman and the senator for everybody that's listening, and then I'd like to know what you do day -to -day and what your fellow congressman do.

[351] Mostly senators are just much older.

[352] Look, the American system, and I guess I'm just, you know, and I'm speaking to the whole audience because, you know, there's probably not a lot of Americans that quite understand the origins of our system, but it's not a parliament, you know, and the reason being our founders in creating a republic, they wanted it to move slowly.

[353] They didn't like this idea, this notion that the decisions over an entire country could be made very easily.

[354] So they created sort of these national structures and federal structures.

[355] And the House is a national structure, the Senate's of federal structure.

[356] And we've kind of changed that over time.

[357] And we've sort of destroyed that by changing the Constitution.

[358] But it was originally intended where in the House really represents the people.

[359] It's the people's house.

[360] Your election is every two years.

[361] It's very emotional.

[362] The majority rules, absolutely.

[363] I mean, Nancy Pelosi only has four votes.

[364] a majority, and she just kicks our butt.

[365] We can't do.

[366] We have no power in the House because it's majoritarian and it's emotional and it just, it's the people.

[367] It really is the people.

[368] Senate was supposed to be this sort of kind of, it's like the House of Lords sort of in the Great Britain, the UK.

[369] And it's supposed to be this sort of slower or methodical decision -making process.

[370] And the Constitution was actually written where there is no popular vote to elect your senators, where your state legislatures actually choose your senators, because the entire point of the senator, you get two per per state.

[371] And this is important, too, when I say federal and national, right?

[372] Because national implies that you're representing the people, so you represent just based on numbers of people, but the Senate isn't like that.

[373] You know, there's two senators per state.

[374] And the reason it's like that is to, well, give more power to states that are less populated so they don't just get run over by everybody else because the foundation of our country, the United States of America, the foundation of our country is this idea that we can all kind of live together peacefully if we leave each other the hell alone for the most part and let states do what states do.

[375] I kind of like that idea.

[376] I think it would have this out of a lot of our problems.

[377] But the idea was then that states have representation and then they choose that.

[378] Now that got changed in the early 1900s in an amendment.

[379] So now it's a popular vote.

[380] So the Senate got a little bit more populist.

[381] It got a little bit more nationalized, but still a federal entity, still two votes per state.

[382] That matters.

[383] The other big difference in the Senate, a senator has more power.

[384] Individual senator has more power to block legislation than say I do in the House.

[385] And with that power comes more responsibility.

[386] So you hope that senators believe in that responsibility.

[387] One of the worries I have is that we're, we're, we're we're getting a little bit more of a kind of a Wild West type of senator getting elected to Congress and a little bit more radicalized, the kind of people you see in the House, because it's easy to be, it's easy to be a purist, it's easy to be a little crazy when you just have no responsibility.

[388] And it's easy to kind of, the diffusion of responsibility is quite significant in the House.

[389] There's 435 members, but in the Senate there's only 100.

[390] So your status actually matters there a little bit more and you need to act like an adult.

[391] And for the most part, that's how it's operated.

[392] You also, that's a four year, that's a four year term.

[393] Six years, six year term in the Senate.

[394] Oh, sorry.

[395] So you've all, it's a lot of people don't know this.

[396] It just allows you to kind of escape the political ramifications, you know, the emotions of the people for a while and just kind of make adult decisions.

[397] And that's, maybe that's a good thing.

[398] And I think the house should probably be a little bit more.

[399] You know, if I were to change something, I'd say the House should be three years because we're running for election constantly, it seems like.

[400] Yeah, well, that is something I wanted.

[401] That's something I really did want to ask you.

[402] But I just, when I went to Washington and met a number of congressmen, congressmen, both Democrat and Republican, the first thing I thought was there is no way I would want to have this job.

[403] And part of it was, well, when are you not running for office?

[404] And that's really hard and it's really expensive and it's really demanding.

[405] but you're also supposed to be working but then also you have to fundraise constantly and that was really shocking to me my sense of it was that congressmen were spending like 25 hours in an office that wasn't their primary office on the phone raising funds for their party and so that's like 20 hours a week and then you have to campaign for like who knows 10 and then you have to fly because you know you don't live in Washington necessarily and well then there's your job so that that's going to take up a few hours as well.

[406] So I have no idea, I have no idea how you do it.

[407] And can people do it?

[408] This episode is brought to you by Elysium Health.

[409] Elysium was founded by MIT's Dr. Leonard Guarante, one of the first specialists in aging science with over 30 years of research in the field.

[410] They have dozens of the world's best scientists working with them, and eight of them are Nobel Prize winners.

[411] A science dream team come true.

[412] You've probably heard me talk about Elysium's product basis in the past.

[413] Their second supplement Matter is a brain aging supplement developed in partnership with the University of Oxford.

[414] Matter does what no other product does.

[415] It slows the shrinking of our brains.

[416] Yeah, I know how it sounds.

[417] I actually full on refuse to read that part of the ad because I couldn't believe it.

[418] But then they sent me their research, their peer -reviewed studies, and it actually checks out.

[419] Their tri -vitamin complex matter is patented and clinically proven to slow the age -related loss in the brain's memory centers by an average of 86%.

[420] Many matter customers have reported improvements in memory and cognition because, again, starting in our 30s, our brains actually begin to shrink.

[421] It happens to all of us, even if we're healthy.

[422] It affects memory, learning, and even physical activity, although lifestyle factors like alcohol consumption smoking, high -carb diets like the standard American diet and poor sleep habits can accelerate it.

[423] Keeping our brains healthy is at least as important as taking care of our bodies.

[424] Kind of goes hand in hand.

[425] So why not invest our own neurons or our loved ones as a belated Xmas gift?

[426] And conveniently, you can do that with a leasing special offer for our listeners.

[427] Go to explore matter .com slash Jordan and enter code JbP10 at checkout to save 10 % off prepaid plans for matter plus their other supplements.

[428] This episode was sponsored by Lucy nicotine.

[429] Nicotine is addictive and probably something to avoid.

[430] However, I know some of us choose to use nicotine to relax, focus, or just unwind after a long day.

[431] Whether or not it's a good idea, Lucy is a modern oral nicotine company that makes nicotine gum, lozenges, and pouches for adults who are looking for the best, most responsible way to consume their nicotine.

[432] It's a new year.

[433] Why not start it out by switching to a new nicotine product you can actually feel better about.

[434] Lucy was created to help people find cleaner alternatives to cigarettes.

[435] With their latest product, slim nicotine pouches, you can get the same satisfaction as nicotine without any tobacco at all.

[436] You can pick one of three strengths, four, eight or 12 milligrams, and one of three flavors, spearmint, mango, and cool cider.

[437] If you have more flavor ideas, though, Lucy is taking suggestions right now.

[438] Switch to something healthier this new year.

[439] Check out Lucy's products at Lucy .co. That's L -U -C -Y -D -C -Y dot CO, and use promo code Jordan at checkout.

[440] Again, that's lucy .com with promo code Jordan at checkout.

[441] Warning, this product contains nicotine.

[442] Nicotine is an addictive chemical.

[443] Enjoy the rest of the episode.

[444] It's not, it's definitely not glamorous.

[445] And people ask if I enjoy it, and I say, well, what do you mean by that?

[446] Because I don't enjoy it.

[447] the way I enjoyed the SEAL teams.

[448] I mean, I got blown up in the SEAL teams, and I still rather enjoyed it quite a bit.

[449] This is not enjoyable in the same way.

[450] Now, I personally, people who follow me, they know I do a lot of fun things associated with my campaign that make it enjoyable.

[451] Like, we throw big parties.

[452] We have a big Fourth of July celebration.

[453] We do a youth summit, which, of course, you were guesting at.

[454] I do fun things to make it enjoyable.

[455] And the reason I say it's not quite as bad as people realize, you are correct that a lot of A lot of folks would say it's about 20 hours a week and I might spend on the phone fundraising.

[456] Now, for me, it's not correct.

[457] I don't do that at all.

[458] I might spend an hour.

[459] How do you get away with that?

[460] And why do other people do it?

[461] If you can get away with not doing it, why does anyone do it?

[462] Because I put so much effort into just trying, I try to be somebody that somebody just wants to donate to.

[463] Does that make sense?

[464] So I put a lot more effort.

[465] It makes sense if it works.

[466] And if I was under the understanding that Congress people were under, congressmen were under tremendous pressure from their party brass to do that sort of work.

[467] And you can understand why because it's so expensive to run.

[468] Maybe it doesn't have to be, you know, that is a question.

[469] And that gets into a whole other set of questions.

[470] So to answer you, it does work.

[471] Now, I'm very, it works for me. It's hard for, it's hard to replicate it, to be perfectly honest.

[472] Um, it works for me because, uh, hell, I don't know.

[473] I, I know how to use social media pretty well.

[474] Um, I do things like this, right?

[475] Like I have my own podcast.

[476] I know.

[477] Well, that's, I want to ask you about that too, because you wrote a book and just a couple of years ago while you were doing all this.

[478] And then you have this podcast as well.

[479] And so you are using this new media to speak directly to people.

[480] And so that begs one question, which is how in the world you have the time to do all that as well.

[481] And, but I would like to talk, ask you about your, experiences with social media.

[482] It's like, how is that working for you politically?

[483] And what do you think it signifies, let's say, for the future of politics?

[484] Because who needs the legacy media and 30 -second soundbites?

[485] It doesn't look to me like anyone does.

[486] Yeah.

[487] And look, the entire point of being a representative is to, well, there's a couple points to it.

[488] Craft legislation, vote on that legislation.

[489] So I'm in the minority, which means I'm not really crafting any legislation.

[490] I mean, I have legislation I'd like to craft, but I have no power.

[491] So my duty is effectively just to vote on it.

[492] That doesn't take up a whole lot of time.

[493] And I think a lot of members are going to mislead the public a little bit when they say, I don't have any time to read anything.

[494] Look, there's ways that we digest these massive bills.

[495] We're following their development over time.

[496] Staff is combing through it.

[497] you know, the reason they're so long, too, they're filled with legal jargon, you know, and then you have to break apart the substantive part of it.

[498] But there's ways to, there's ways to absorb it.

[499] So I never use that as an excuse for why I'm voting against something because you basically know what's in it.

[500] Anyway, that's sort of a side point.

[501] But anyway, it's a relief, though.

[502] That's true.

[503] Yeah.

[504] Yeah.

[505] I just, I don't like using that as an excuse.

[506] It could be an excuse.

[507] I just don't like using it.

[508] But another big part of your job is simply to communicate with people because you're representing them.

[509] So you need to communicate both up and down, right?

[510] You need to communicate their voices, what you said you would run on.

[511] So obviously, you don't perfectly represent everybody.

[512] There's lots of Democrats in my district.

[513] You don't feel that I represent them.

[514] That's fine.

[515] But I represent a majority of the people in my district.

[516] And so I represent them based on what I ran on, a set of values, instead of conservative limiting principle values.

[517] And my job is to explain things better than they can themselves, which is sort of why they elect you.

[518] They're like, they kind of want you to be like them, but just explain it better.

[519] And I knew that's what I wanted because I wasn't, I was never political.

[520] The first moment I got involved in politics was the moment I declared running for office.

[521] And I always knew, so I was a normal guy is my point.

[522] Like I think being involved in politics and being an activist can kind of, change the change the way you think about politics and i think gets you detached from regular people who just aren't thinking about it all the time but i was just one of these regular people not really thinking about it all the time i was very interested in policy which is slightly related but different than politics and so so when i so the point is it was kind of right of a regular guy and i knew what i wanted and i just wanted people to to explain why the hell they were doing what they were doing and don't talk to me in talking points so And to do that, you do need long -form discussion.

[523] And then you've got to communicate with people where they're at.

[524] So why do a podcast?

[525] Well, so I can dive deep into issues and be willing.

[526] And know things well enough so that you can have a long -form conversation.

[527] A lot of people will struggle with that.

[528] And so that's number one.

[529] But not everybody listens to podcasts and not everybody wants to listen to anything for an hour.

[530] And so you also have to be able to communicate your points on Twitter.

[531] And that's not great, but it is something.

[532] and that's what some people follow you on.

[533] So communicate something there.

[534] Instagram is probably one of my favorites because I can kind of do everything on Instagram and it's the biggest following there.

[535] And, you know, you put out videos.

[536] I put out explainer videos.

[537] And I'm not giving you a 20 -minute, you know, informational episode on issue X. But I'm trying to do it in a couple minutes and go a little deeper than just Democrats are bad.

[538] You know, and they want to kill jobs.

[539] Well, why do they want to kill jobs?

[540] Let's just explain it a few layers deep, just a few more layers.

[541] And that's what people are looking for.

[542] And it's been very successful.

[543] And so I can spend my time doing that, which is also my job, because my job is to communicate.

[544] I can spend my time doing that and being creative with that and being good at that.

[545] And that takes away all those hours of fundraising that I have to do.

[546] It's not like I don't do any.

[547] And I'm like one of the number one fundraisers in the house.

[548] Oh, so that's part of the reason you can get away with it because what you're doing is very effective.

[549] Right.

[550] Right.

[551] Yeah.

[552] So tell me about this Youth Summit, more about the Youth Summit and how that got started and why you do it and what you saw there.

[553] I know I did this Q &A, but my staff give me things and I do it.

[554] And I don't know the context as much as I would like to, especially with something like that.

[555] I wish you could have been there.

[556] I love to get you there next time.

[557] We'll do it every year.

[558] And it's a very cool thing.

[559] if you're a conservative, you know that one of the biggest electoral problems you have is young people.

[560] And this isn't all that surprising.

[561] I think the promises of the utopian left are very deering to a young person.

[562] And to a certain extent, you'll never escape that.

[563] But my goal is to give them the tools of conservatism.

[564] There's a lot of youth groups out there.

[565] You're probably familiar with.

[566] You've spoken at a turning point event.

[567] And you, maybe you, maybe you, maybe you, you've dealt with Yaff too, so Young America Foundation, both good organizations, but this isn't what I'm doing.

[568] I'm not doing either one of those things.

[569] I'm trying to do a mix of both because what Yaf does is, is very intellectual.

[570] It's Ben Shapiro's pretty much their main headliner.

[571] Of course, you know Ben well.

[572] And so it's a bit more intellectual.

[573] There's not a lot of fanfare to it.

[574] It's just somebody on a stage and let's give a speech and let's answer some questions.

[575] And then you got something like Turning Point, which is a very high production.

[576] It's like a kind of a concert, like very much a rally.

[577] And what I try to do is a mix of both.

[578] So I want to give you that experience.

[579] And I'm also 100 % only focused on high school and college kids.

[580] So that's, and you have to have an age limit.

[581] And so mine was 24.

[582] And I want to give them both intellectual tools that they can come away with, which is why I invite somebody like you to speak.

[583] And, and I want to also give them a good time because I know I need to grab their attention.

[584] I need them to have fun.

[585] I need to, I need them to come away with an experience that they're not going to forget.

[586] And so we just, I mean, it's, it's a high production, fun event.

[587] And there's like, there's even a concert in the middle of it.

[588] You know, yeah, I don't know what's going on with you conservative types, because you've got comedians now and you've got entertainment.

[589] And, you know, you're talking to young people.

[590] It's like, this is very.

[591] strange.

[592] So hey, I've got a question about this issue of young people, because I've been talking to lots of conservative folks in Canada, because we have a conservative party, and they're about as popular as our government, but not quite.

[593] And I've mentioned that I believe that their fundamental problem is that they can't figure out what they have to offer to young people, but it seems to me that what they have to offer is this notion, it's something like encourage, something like paternal encouragement.

[594] It's like, we really think you could be something if you behave properly in some essential sense.

[595] And we really believe in you as an individual in alignment with your traditions more than we believe, let's say, in the utopian promises of government per se as a problem -solving enterprise.

[596] And I think one of the things I've really noticed, and I get a lot of letters from people, is that, and this just about killed me when I was on my tour, because I'm offering people words of encouragement as individuals.

[597] And I had no idea how much starvation there was for that.

[598] And that was particularly true of young men, but not only true of them.

[599] And that is something conservatives can say.

[600] It's like, look, you know, we really believe in you.

[601] And we are skeptical of the claims that big organizations per se, especially government, can do what they promise.

[602] Whereas you, as an individual, especially if you get your act together, man, you're really something deadly.

[603] So in the best possible sense, and that's a really attractive message, especially the young people, now because they don't really hear that.

[604] You know, they hear that they're despoilers of the environment or some guy wrote me. I just opened his letter today.

[605] He'd been in prison.

[606] He'd been suicidal.

[607] He wasn't a good guy.

[608] And he sorted his life out when he was 30 about.

[609] He said he encountered my lectures and he stopped regarding himself as intrinsically, like an intrinsically bad despoiler of the planet, something like that.

[610] I'm not exaggerating.

[611] And he had no idea that maybe there was something to the idea that he had intrinsic value and he quit all his idiocy, stop drinking and stop taking drugs and he got married.

[612] He had a kid and he's got a job and, you know, conservatives have something to offer young people and they just don't know how to get it across.

[613] There's something about what you're doing that does that.

[614] It's partly why I'm so interested in talking to you.

[615] And why do you think the turning point thing is working?

[616] Exactly.

[617] You know, it's just, it's different than what I do.

[618] I mean, what turning point does, what Charlie does is they just, they just were the first ones to give conservative kids a place to go hang out with each other, frankly, which is pretty meaningful.

[619] I guess people are just looking for, especially in a university setting, people are desperate to find like -minded individuals who feel the way they do.

[620] They give them that.

[621] You know, and the Republican clubs were just kind of outdated.

[622] You know, young people don't go joining these clubs anymore.

[623] So we sort of just look for different ways to do it.

[624] And I think that's, That's what it gives them.

[625] I mean, I don't think it's much more complicated than that.

[626] But to jump off of what you were saying about what conservatives deliver, when somebody asks a question like that, it kind of depends on my audience on how I want to answer it.

[627] But jumping off of what you said, you know, because you said, you used the phrase paternalistic.

[628] Encouragement, encouragement, which is different of course, which is different, of course, than paternalism.

[629] which is, I think, a leftist attribute.

[630] But what we do, and what I want to jump off of there is what I often say, and actually it was a speech I gave to that U -S summit, was because I'm always trying to explain to kids, like, how can, I'm giving you a tool.

[631] I'm giving you a way of explaining something simply so that when you're confronted by your classmate, you can have this tool.

[632] Now you've got a tool in your toolkit that you can use.

[633] So I'm like, here's a way to think about the difference to be conservatives and liberals.

[634] And like, it goes something like this.

[635] the conservative ideology is like it's about love okay and it's it's about the kind of love that your parents give you and that's a little different than say the kind of love that you're like crazy aunt gives you she loves you but she kind of wants to just spoil you right she just wants you to love her it's really important to her she doesn't really have a lot of responsibility over you either so your parents create rules around you and they tell you that your actions matter they tell you that you're accountable they tell you that you better work hard if you want to succeed.

[636] And they're not always that nice about it.

[637] You know, it doesn't feel like love, but it is in a very profound way.

[638] That's love.

[639] And then your crazy aunt's like, you're perfect the way you are.

[640] You know, you don't have to change.

[641] You know, you're fine.

[642] And it's not your fault that you got a bad grade.

[643] And I want to do things for you.

[644] Like, let me take you to the shopping mall.

[645] It doesn't mean she's a bad person.

[646] It just means that it's, that's not.

[647] There's nothing worse that you can tell young people.

[648] especially around 16 or 17 that they're fine the way they are.

[649] It's like, well, they might as well just die right there and then then because they've hit perfection.

[650] It's like, no, you've got lots more to learn.

[651] There's way more to you than you've explored.

[652] And it's really necessary that you find that out and develop it.

[653] And that's way more encouraging than you're okay the way you are.

[654] But, you know, I get it in some sense because it's associated with the idea that people have intrinsic value.

[655] And if you have children, in some way, they are just perfect the way they are.

[656] But in some way, they're not, because they're not everything they could yet be.

[657] So, yeah, so the message, it's easy to get the message mixed.

[658] Yeah, and it's like there's a difference between not being perfect and being bad, you know, and we shouldn't tell kids that they're just bad.

[659] But you also have to give them some room to grow and something to aspire to.

[660] Yeah, well, that's the thing right there, that issue of something to aspire to, you know, and part of the woke, what would you call it, pathology that we're all in, grossed in at the moment is the idea that, you know, that there's something wrong with judgment per se.

[661] And that's such a preposterous idea because to do it, and I could speak about that psychologically, because to do something like look at a room, you have to make judgments about what you're looking at and why.

[662] You can't do anything without judgment.

[663] There's a hierarchy of values.

[664] It's tied to our perception.

[665] And there has to be something at the top in some sense that unites us.

[666] And we should strive for that.

[667] And that is the sort of thing that conservatives can, along with warnings about the overreach of government, because people who are conservative tend to be more concerned about that.

[668] And so I think the two things that I like to say are foundations of conservatism, one we just hit on, which is effectively personal responsibility, a sense of accountability.

[669] It's a very, I think that's an important bedrock for any civilization.

[670] I would also say that it's the precursor to freedom.

[671] I don't think you can be a free society if you don't at least have this sort of sense of personal responsibility ingrained in it.

[672] I don't see how it's possible, right?

[673] Because for the simple reason that freedom requires a sense of responsibility, otherwise you're just asking other people to be taking care of you.

[674] And if you're asking other people to be taking care of you, a definition you're infringing on their freedoms or you're asking a politician to infringe on their freedoms.

[675] So these are necessary foundations.

[676] And this is what concerned as up to authors, is freedom.

[677] And we kind of, you're also depriving, you're also depriving yourself of the adventure of your life.

[678] Because one of the things that's been so successful for me, in some sense, is to draw a connection between responsibility and meaning.

[679] It's like you want some meaning to set against the suffering.

[680] Well, where are you going to find that?

[681] Well, reliably, one place to find it is in responsibility.

[682] Because that means you're shouldering something worth shouldering.

[683] and it's a burden that's actually somewhat significant.

[684] And you can, you know, you can comfort yourself with some sense of your own utility in the face of all your sins and stupidity.

[685] And that's, that's, you can't, how can you live without that?

[686] It's not possible.

[687] Yeah.

[688] One of the struggles I have is, is how that's not more persuasive.

[689] Because there's, there's just a lot of people who just, I think, fundamentally disagree with what we're saying right now.

[690] They would disagree that freedom as a virtue in and of itself is even a virtue in and of itself.

[691] They would also define freedom very differently.

[692] They would say, well, it can't be free unless you have housing, unless you have free health care, unless you have at least some living wage, then you can't go be free.

[693] And so we're like defining the word freedom completely differently, right?

[694] Because I would define.

[695] It's troublesome on edges too, because, you know, you can certainly see that there are levels of absolute privation that are so severe that your freedom is restricted in many ways, not in all ways, and maybe not in the most important ethical ways.

[696] I mean, I read a lot of literature written by concentration camp survivors who were in pretty damn rough situation and still insisted on their own, what would you say, ethical responsibility.

[697] Certainly Solzhenitsyn's conclusion.

[698] In some sense, he thought that was all you really had when everything was stripped away from you.

[699] And Victor Frankel, who I wouldn't regard particularly as a conservative, he pretty much came to the same conclusion and those are pretty powerful books it's hard to read through them without being you know somewhat convinced so and and and and i think that one of our challenges is convincing people that freedom is actually a good thing and and maybe not just not libertine freedom i mean like ordered liberty freedom you know freedom within a moral framework which is what makes me a conservative and not a libertarian and it's just difficult it's more difficult than you might think to convince people well i don't know i think you i think you understand it i think it's a conversation you have pretty often.

[700] But it's convincing people that freedom is indeed, even though it's risky, and even though it's messy, and even though it can allow you to fall on your face sometimes and even in due suffering, even in suffering that you might think is unjust, it's still, in the aggregate, improves things.

[701] It improves everything.

[702] And it's harder to see that at the moment.

[703] And so what people are swept up by is the sort of false promises of immediate action, immediate action to save something, to fix something, and to take that paternalistic government view, that status view of something.

[704] But the thing is, if we actually took a step back and saw the forest for the trees and looked at the long span of history, it is always true that more freedom leads to more prosperity over time and less of it leads to less, if not complete another decay, in fact.

[705] Well, I think the diversity argument is actually a weird, what would you call it's a weird warped version of that in some sense because speaking as a scientist I hope part of the reason that freedom works is that we don't actually know what problems are going to come up next because things actually change and they change in an unpredictable way and so we have our traditions to guide us and thank God for that because we'd be making endless decisions all the time otherwise and we wouldn't we would be in complete disunion but we still that's not a perfect structure for moving ahead into unknown territory.

[706] Okay, and so you don't know what the problems are, and you don't know what the damn solutions are, because you're not that smart, so what do you do about that?

[707] Well, biologically, what has happened is that human beings are possessed of very diverse individual temperaments, and that's the diversity argument.

[708] That's why diversity is necessary, but it's temperamental.

[709] So there are creative and non -creative people.

[710] There are extroverted and non -extroverted people.

[711] There are compassionate people, and there are tough, minded people, there are conscientious people, and there are people who aren't burdened down by duty, and sometimes that frees them up to be artists, let's say.

[712] Who's right?

[713] Well, the answer is, it depends on when.

[714] And so, okay, so how do you cope with that structurally?

[715] Well, you let these diverse people be free so that they can think up ideas that might be appropriate for the next problem, and then you let them talk, which is why free speech is so important.

[716] It's like, Without that, we do not have a problem -solving mechanism.

[717] We can't capitalize.

[718] This is biological diversity.

[719] This is the manner in which organisms themselves have adapted to the entire structure of reality.

[720] You don't mess with that.

[721] You certainly don't do it politically, and you need free speech.

[722] You know, and part of that is also opponent processing.

[723] You know, if I want to move my hand as smoothly as possible this way, I put this hand up to stop it and push.

[724] And then I can do it.

[725] And a lot of the processes that occur biologically are like that.

[726] Opponent processes, they make for precision and control.

[727] And a lot of our political structures in the West, because we allow for free discussion, our opponent process, their opponent processes.

[728] And so we have a problem.

[729] We get a diverse range of opinions.

[730] God only knows which is right.

[731] And then we can talk them through.

[732] And then maybe we don't implement something, you know, catastrophically stupid.

[733] And I think the other point to extract from what you said is it's diversity.

[734] It's also the decentralization principle.

[735] Yeah, right, exactly.

[736] This is a key, key elements of conservatism is this, first of all, a sense of humility.

[737] Conservatism is about a sense of humility, sense of humility about what you can really know and what you can control.

[738] And in my experience, dealing with my colleagues, Democrats side, they have no, they have no such humility.

[739] They do believe that they can solve every problem.

[740] And sometimes I think that's well intentioned and sometimes it's not.

[741] I think it's just important to kind of extract what they want, but then let us figure out how to get there.

[742] Yeah, well, that actually, that works out temperamentally.

[743] That's exactly how things should work because liberal people all, you know, insofar as psychologists have been able to determine this.

[744] And it's not exactly accurate because psychology as a field is prejudice against conservatives.

[745] So some of the scientific measures, are biased.

[746] Yeah, it's terrible, especially in social psychology.

[747] But the people who tend towards those more liberal, utopian and grand scheme views are, they tend to be high in openness, and that's creativity, divergent thinking, and low in conscientiousness.

[748] They're not very detail -oriented, whereas the conservatives are the opposite types.

[749] And so what you see happening in businesses is the open liberal types tend to be entrepreneurial, at least in their vision, and the conservative types implement.

[750] And if you don't get that right in your business, then it doesn't work.

[751] Because the open people, they're everywhere.

[752] They can't settle down.

[753] They can't even catalyze an identity easily because they're interested in everything.

[754] And they're full of wild schemes and great, because, hey, some ideas.

[755] But if you want implementation, and then the other problem with the grand scheme thing is, and conservatives always say this, and it's really hard to teach young people about this, but it's really important.

[756] And that's the law of unintended consequences.

[757] It's like, why are you so sure that your stupid idea will only do what you think it will do, and not a hundred weird things that you don't predict at all that are worse than the original problem.

[758] And this could lead us into a discussion of climate change politics, for example.

[759] I've been watching the spot price of oil and natural gas as well in what's happening in China, which has just cut power to millions of people because coal prices have gone through the roof and they're trying to meet their carbon targets.

[760] So it's like, yeah, well, that's a solution, is it?

[761] Well, let's talk about that a bit maybe if you don't mind because I see you're on that committee.

[762] You just talk to Bjorn Lomberg.

[763] Yeah, we just don't have a podcast.

[764] It's a subject I primarily deal with.

[765] Most people probably think I'm on Armed Services Committee and primarily deal with national security issues.

[766] But my two issues are health care and environment.

[767] Mostly, I don't know, I've always tended to have to gravitate towards weaknesses.

[768] And I feel like those are the two subjects that conservatives are weakest on in our messaging, even if I think we're correct about our assessments of them.

[769] Can I say one more thing about the decentralization part of conservatism?

[770] And then let's move into climate change.

[771] We've got a lot of say about climate change.

[772] But one of the reasons I think this is so important, this sense of humility.

[773] It also helps people understand.

[774] I'm always trying to help people understand what the philosophical underpinnings are why you're a conservative because I think there's a really rich tradition there and I don't think there is one on the left right I think the left is about what you want right now and I don't see it guided by any kind of principle or especially and if there's no governing principles in there either no limiting principles and so the decentralization argument's important and it gets to the diversity argument because it's it's really why we come it's why it's why we end up supporting the free market all right it's why we think that is important because like while it will never be perfect.

[775] And while you can always imagine a utopia where the centralized thinking just makes things better, it never works.

[776] And there's a good reason it never works.

[777] And in the entire point of that diversity, and then the free market that underpins it is the ability to do something and then test out whether it's creating value or not.

[778] Because, yeah, you can be that whimsical artist if you want, but if nobody cares about it, then it's a good indication that you're not creating any real value.

[779] But of course, some people do when they find a way to do that.

[780] And I just think that's, It's as good an indication as you can get, and that's the thing that makes it so tough, is that we produce these decentralized processes, and they're actually cognitive computational devices.

[781] The environment's unbelievably complex, it's impossible to keep up with it, so you distribute decision -making, and that is a fundamental conservative principle, in the most diverse possible manner, right, right down to the level of the individual, because you're too damn stupid to know what's coming.

[782] And so you need to build a computational machine.

[783] And that's really perhaps how conservatives should talk about it because that link is very seldomly made.

[784] How do you keep up with an infinitely complex environment?

[785] With a infinitely complex mobile economy that's so diverse that you can't predict what it's going to do.

[786] You certainly can't control it.

[787] And you shouldn't.

[788] And maybe someone somewhere will keep up a bit.

[789] And then you can copy them.

[790] That's a deal, man. And I think it's a good one.

[791] And it's actually a good, it's a good segue into the climate change debate.

[792] So, so, because what the left will say is, okay, well, there's market failures.

[793] Free market seems nice, but there's market failures.

[794] You have to admit that.

[795] And I would say, yeah, I can admit that.

[796] It can happen.

[797] And that's where environmentalism comes from, right?

[798] There's, there's externalized costs and, yeah, yeah.

[799] And, and that's, that's effectively the arguments about climate change.

[800] But then, but then you got to put your conservative hat back on and say, okay, again, a primary tenant of conservatism is assessing tradeoffs.

[801] Because I would say conservatism is a governing philosophy.

[802] It's a process -oriented philosophy that seeks to solve problems within a set of limiting principles.

[803] Limiting principles means we ask questions like, what are the second, third order consequences, what's the cost -benefit?

[804] And that's really what the climate change debate should be about.

[805] Unfortunately, it's not about that.

[806] It's about you're a denier and a killer, or you want to save the planet like a good person.

[807] Which one do you want to be?

[808] they moralize over us on it.

[809] But it really is fundamentally about tradeoffs.

[810] And so, you know, the Republican mainstream position on this isn't denying climate change, right?

[811] It's just assessing the facts and saying, okay, there's certainly some warming going on.

[812] There's certain some loop warming, I would say.

[813] I'm just going to use the same data that everybody else is using.

[814] Let's use the UN data.

[815] Let's use the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

[816] And let's see what they're saying are the costs are going to be.

[817] And so their costs, the simplest way to put this is, yeah, there's a cost.

[818] And how do we quantify that cost?

[819] Well, we can look at it this way.

[820] According to the UN, again, the scientific consensus, we're going to increase global GDP by 450 % in 100 years.

[821] Well, by 2100.

[822] With climate change costs, it's going to look more like an increase of only 434%.

[823] so it's a cost but it ain't that much okay and so again we're not denying it but we are saying look whatever actions we take need need to be in somewhat proportional to that cost and that would be a good place to start um well that's why like lomberg so much is he was the only in i'm really interested in environmental issues i studied them for a long time and tried to figure out you know what what bothered me about most of the environmentalist discussion was there was no rank order of priorities.

[824] And that's a real problem if you want to implement some solutions.

[825] And I came across Lomberg and I thought, hey, look, this guy, he's got a sensible way of actually generating policy out of this, right?

[826] He put his teams of economists to work and does cost benefit analysis and tries to build something approximating what would be a policy generating machine.

[827] He takes projections of precisely the sort that you just made into account.

[828] And that market failure idea, we could talk about that a little bit.

[829] It's like, well, of course the market fails because even a decentralized cognitive machine made up of all these millions or billions of human brains isn't going to be perfect.

[830] But that's not the issue.

[831] The issue is what makes you think that you can jump into that gap with your theory and fix it?

[832] If the bloody market can't do it, why in the world do you think you can't?

[833] Well, because I have an ideology.

[834] It's like, well, yeah, you and everyone else.

[835] And dealing with market failures is essentially what politicians are supposed to, it's why we create a government to deal with market, so deal with poverty.

[836] I mean, you could argue that poverty, excessive poverty might be a market failure.

[837] Like, it's just not getting fixed.

[838] Now, you really think about it, you know, there's always going to be somebody at the bottom, but you don't want them to be too far at the bottom.

[839] And so this is, this is where you have a value -based judgment and you have a political argument about it.

[840] And you to figure out what to do.

[841] But, you know, the problem with what the left does is say, this is an indication that the entire system is bad and we need to throw out the foundations.

[842] The conservative says, it's an indication we might need to take some action and we should be very careful about how we take that action and we should do so within a set of limiting principles.

[843] And it's, that's a difficult cell because, and it gets back to the climate change debate because it's a difficult cell because the liberal will say, what do we want?

[844] Action.

[845] When do we want it?

[846] Now.

[847] What does the conservative say?

[848] What does the conservative say?

[849] What are we going to we want incremental change?

[850] When do we want it in due time?

[851] Yes, exactly.

[852] It's just not that exciting, especially to young people.

[853] So, you know, there's that principle in science, Occam's razor, right?

[854] Do not multiply explanatory hypotheses beyond necessity, which is the simplest solution, is by default the most appropriate.

[855] Now, the same thing might apply with regards to problems, and that's another conservative advantage in some sense.

[856] It's like, no, no, the smallest possible change that will produce the end result.

[857] Because you don't know what the change is going to do.

[858] And that uncertainty, that's part of that humility of conservatism that you describe, that is something that's communicable to young people.

[859] It's like, it's not like we don't think there are problems, but we're also quite skeptical of grandiose solutions and even more skeptical of the people who put them forward.

[860] And that's not foolish at all.

[861] I'm much more afraid of the people dealing with climate change than I am of climate change as you should be because what we're I mean well so this week we're debating um this reconciliation bill and reconciliation just means that you can pass it to the senate with only 51 votes and sort of the 60 vote threshold required to overcome the filibuster and that means it has to be related to budget items okay so that's not that anybody cares about that but that's what we're debating and within that big 3 .5 trillion which is actually closer to 4 .5 half trillion, depending on how you estimate it.

[862] There's a lot of, you know, let's call it Green New Deal provisions.

[863] And what a Green New Deal basically is is massive subsidies for solar and wind, massive incentive structures for only solar and wind and renewables.

[864] But renewables, they really just define as solar and wind, okay?

[865] They don't like hydro.

[866] They don't like nuclear.

[867] And we'll get to that.

[868] So it's that and also a full -on attack against the oil and gas industry, which should also trouble Canadians.

[869] Hey, we're plenty troubled by it, that's for sure.

[870] I mean, when even Trudeau is like, hey, why did you guys cancel the X -Elth, the Keystone pipeline?

[871] Yeah, but he's secretly happy about it.

[872] Yeah, that's true.

[873] So this simultaneous attack is unbelievably dangerous dangerous for the well -being of people across the globe.

[874] It's going to, so right away, you're going to see increases in energy prices.

[875] you already see it in places like how much what are we going to see in two years what do you think 300 bucks a barrel oh oil geez no no no i don't that the data i see doesn't see that but you could get up to 90 i just read a wall street journal article today some estimates are at 90 by the end of the year just pretty damn high i don't know about 300 i mean but but i don't know if they passed this bill and it was and implemented their natural gas tax which would put a lot of our medium -sized producers out of business.

[876] Yeah, just exactly that.

[877] And also take away, take away the one thing that has decreased carbon emissions back in the U .S. back to 1990 levels.

[878] That's fracking.

[879] Ha ha, ha, fracking.

[880] Now, which Democrat would have predicted that?

[881] Zero.

[882] Nobody.

[883] No one predicted that, man. And it just, you know how that.

[884] Nobody.

[885] That's right.

[886] No. Because it just kind of happened.

[887] It just kind of happened.

[888] And it happened because of.

[889] government action, but the government action was just liberalizing it.

[890] It was just, it was just, it was just removing a barrier to it.

[891] And the export ban that even Obama signed, when we removed the oil export ban out of the United States, what did you just create?

[892] Well, you created a powerhouse of energy in the United States.

[893] And why is that a good thing?

[894] Does that make climate change worse or better?

[895] Well, the question isn't, that's the wrong question, really, because the question is, what is demand for energy around the world?

[896] And so it turns out demand for energy in the next 20 years is going to go up almost 30%.

[897] That's a guarantee.

[898] So who's going to provide that energy?

[899] It's not going to be solar and wind.

[900] All estimates show it's going to have about its same proportion of the energy mix.

[901] And so it's either going to be the United States and Canada that actually care about environmental regulations and put all these restrictions on a per unit basis.

[902] and this is a scientific estimate, it's not the EPA that did it.

[903] It was one of our national labs that did this estimate.

[904] A unit of natural gas is 42 % less emissions than a Russian unit of natural gas.

[905] So we're cleaner.

[906] We're like, we're objectively cleaner when we're giving you oil and gas.

[907] And yet this administration, counterintuitively, in an effort to reduce gas prices, wants OPEC to increase production.

[908] So we're attacking U .S. oil and gas and trying to get OPEC to increase their production.

[909] This is, if you're trying to solve the problem of reduction of emissions, this is the opposite of.

[910] They're not exactly our friends always.

[911] No. And they want to put Texas oil and gas out of business.

[912] Yeah.

[913] And so it's just, it's just if we're trying to.

[914] Same thing's happening in Canada with regards, sorry, sorry.

[915] Well, I'm just saying if we're trying to solve a problem, you know, of reducing emissions, then fine, let's solve the problem.

[916] And the other thing as Republicans were always wondering is, wait a second, if you really think this is an existential threat and we're done and we're cooks in 12 years, the world was on fire, as they always say, well, then why not just, instead of the trillions of dollars towards a bunch of nonsense, why not just build a bunch of nuclear plants?

[917] Really, why not just build a bunch of nuclear plants?

[918] Why don't you have just government funding?

[919] So what's the answer to that?

[920] Yeah, why not?

[921] Like France did it?

[922] their answer is well there's there's the truthful answer there's the public answer and there's the real answer that I think is true but so their public here you know their answer is well it's expensive there's safety issues I'm like yeah but on a per unit basis it's it's still a better deal again if you think I thought I thought no cost was too high because we're in an existential crisis and so I would assume that you think it's priority to have reliable energy and you don't get reliable energy from solar and wind and you never well it's impossible and I don't care how far along the battery technology comes, it'll never meet where we need it to meet.

[923] It just won't.

[924] It's physically not going to happen.

[925] And so you need nuclear and you need gas, but they're against it.

[926] They're shutting down gas nuclear plants in California and New York.

[927] And it's just, it's really mind -blowing.

[928] So it leads me to believe that they don't actually, one, they don't actually think it's a crisis.

[929] And two, that they're mostly driven by special interests in the solar and wind industries that have really captured them.

[930] And again, I'm not against solar and wind.

[931] I just think I just think they should fit in where they fit in.

[932] I don't think they should be oversubsidized at this point.

[933] I think there should be technology neutral subsidies for carbon reduction that involve nuclear and it also involved carbon capture for oil and gas.

[934] I mean, if the entire point is reducing carbon emissions, and let's make that the technology goal, as opposed to just renewables because it makes us feel nice.

[935] And it really is about feelings.

[936] I mean, I don't think there's any other reasoning behind it.

[937] Oh, there is another reason, I think, is that the ideological morass out of which such ideas emerge is extraordinarily confused, and it's, you know, 30 % anti -capitalism and 20 % what would you say, resentment about the nature of humanity itself, and then 40 % concern about the environment and our depredations.

[938] And so you have that mix.

[939] You can't think clearly.

[940] It's like, well, are we saving the environment?

[941] it?

[942] Yeah, but what about capitalism?

[943] Because it's actually the problem to begin with.

[944] And so then you get these sorts of solutions emerging.

[945] And a lot of them are tainted with this terrible, destructive anti -capitalism, which seems to be often a more important crisis than the environmental crisis itself.

[946] Yeah, I mean, you look at the Green New Deal and what AOC wrote up in this sort of like children's science project.

[947] It was very little about the environment and much more so about the substantive change in health care and the economy.

[948] And it was kind of saying the quiet part out loud, which we all suspected that this was mostly about, you know, the sort of great reset that people talk about it.

[949] It's kind of more about that than it is climate change.

[950] But for you to get you to agree to these really substantive reforms to the sort of revolution and thinking, they need to scare the hell out of you, which is why they use terminology, like the world is on fire.

[951] And it's why they point to every hurricane and wildfire, like, this is what climate change looks like.

[952] I mean, I hear that all the time.

[953] But it's, it's really, as if we've never had hurricanes, as if we'd never had wildfires.

[954] And as if there's not actually a much better explanation for California wildfires, which is poor forest management, which every study shows, right?

[955] And it's like, let me get this straight.

[956] If we all drive electric vehicles today, if we, if the United States stops producing carbon today, are you telling me there's no more wildfires.

[957] Are you telling me all of our weather starts to look like San Diego?

[958] Are you telling me Houston's not going to have hurricanes anymore?

[959] That's a nonsense.

[960] I mean, that's complete nonsense.

[961] And it's not data driven.

[962] It's not fact -driven.

[963] And truthfully, again, go back to UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change data, if the Western world, believe all developed countries, if they stopped emitting carbon right now for good, you might get a reduction in temperature of, I think it's like 0 .8 degrees Fahrenheit, high by the year 2100.

[964] Right, right.

[965] And that's what that's actually within the error bounds.

[966] So one of the problems with these climate projections is that if you go out 50 years, you can't even tell if what you did 50 years ago had worked because the error bars are so big at that point.

[967] And that's actually a huge problem because what it means is there's no way of testing whether your damn solution, your large scale solution, had any effect whatsoever.

[968] So how in the You're supposed to solve a problem like that?

[969] You can't.

[970] But I mean, you can't.

[971] Like, it's like we don't want to do anything, right?

[972] I mean, I listed some things that Republicans are in favor of.

[973] And primarily nuclear energy and gas.

[974] I think that's a healthy, that puts us on a healthy glide path towards reduction in emissions.

[975] And look, the other truth is, is the more a country develops, the more you industrialize it, the more concern they become about the environment.

[976] That's another truth.

[977] So maybe focus on.

[978] Yes, definitely.

[979] Well, also, you know, With the lefty types, you think, well, they're concerned with poverty reduction.

[980] Okay, well, how to do that?

[981] Well, how about you make energy real cheap?

[982] How about that?

[983] Because energy is what does work.

[984] And so if you give that to poor people for as close to nothing as possible, then they can do almost everything free.

[985] How would that be?

[986] So are you so sure you're concerned about those poverty -stricken people?

[987] If you look historically, can you really imagine anything that has done more for them than cheap energy?

[988] And how would that even be possible?

[989] Even metaphysically.

[990] Energy runs everything.

[991] So cheap energy means wealth, directly.

[992] Virtually no intermediation.

[993] So now you're going to make every energy all more expensive to produce these trivial changes in climate that you won't even be able to measure.

[994] It's like, what's up with you exactly?

[995] Yeah.

[996] It's true.

[997] It's such a frustrating conversation.

[998] I do think we're winning the debate on this because it's not a winning argument to say there's no such thing as climate change.

[999] The environment doesn't need our help.

[1000] That's just people don't want to hear that.

[1001] But they would just want to hear something.

[1002] And so I think that's what we're offering at this point.

[1003] And so I think we're on a healthy track as Republicans.

[1004] I am still very worried about this bill.

[1005] that has the potential of passing.

[1006] But, you know...

[1007] Hey, let me ask you about that infrastructure bill, okay?

[1008] Because, I mean, I've thought and talked to many people about this, that, you know, if the Democrats need something to do, because they need something to do, and they're in power.

[1009] And, well, maybe infrastructure isn't such a bad preoccupation.

[1010] There's something real about it, hopefully, at least maybe 30 % of it, which might not be bad, given, you know, large projects waste a lot, always.

[1011] And so pros and cons of the infrastructure project, as far as you're concerned.

[1012] Yeah, so there's two things for people's understanding.

[1013] There's this reconciliation package.

[1014] You hear the number 3 .5 trillion associated with that.

[1015] So that's one thing.

[1016] Then there's the infrastructure, the bipartisan infrastructure deal, which is like 1 .2, 3 trillion.

[1017] It's still a lot of money.

[1018] The bipartisan infrastructure deal substantively is not bad.

[1019] It has a lot of good things, right?

[1020] Like what?

[1021] Like what?

[1022] What do you see that's good?

[1023] It's just your typical boring infrastructure stuff, like highway funding, like port funding, sewage treatment, this kind of stuff, okay?

[1024] Yeah, it's boring when it works.

[1025] It's legitimately, yes, exactly.

[1026] It's legitimately decent infrastructure.

[1027] Our opposition to it, again, it's not everybody's opposed to it, but my personal opposition to it is it's about four times, three to four times too much money.

[1028] Yeah, that's about what you'd expect, though.

[1029] Yeah.

[1030] And, you know, it's just, if it was cut in half, at least you could get me scratch in my head, like maybe.

[1031] But it is important for people to know the substance of it is not bad.

[1032] It's, it's the price tag is just too much, considering we've spent $6 trillion on getting our economy back on on track after COVID, which frankly was mostly money well spent.

[1033] It's probably some of the best work government has done in crisis, to be honest, especially with the small business loan program that we instituted here in the U .S. it's um in any case it's not the time to just be throwing money out the door you know with hyperinflation coming about it you just need to be more careful uh is is really our only opposition to the infrastructure bill so that's and what about the three so now you separated out the 1 .2 trillion which you're speaking reasonably positively about for you know a suspicious conservative type and then there's the 3 .5 trillion so let's talk about that and and you know because the fear was that everything would be put into that basket, right?

[1034] Of course, that's going to happen.

[1035] So tell, detail out that.

[1036] Yeah.

[1037] So the reconciliation package is a series of tax hikes, about two, over two trillion dollars in tax increases, three quarters of which will indeed, despite what the Democrats say they're lying about this, because we have liberal think tanks that have done assessments and it will increase taxes on at least three quarters of lower to middle income people, will increase your taxes.

[1038] Is it?

[1039] Because there's so many different types of tax increases.

[1040] And it's going to hit you somehow.

[1041] And if it doesn't hit you there, it's probably going to reduce your wages.

[1042] So we've already seen.

[1043] How much?

[1044] How much are people looking at being hit by?

[1045] About 1%, which is, it's not a ton, but it's something.

[1046] But I think what's worse about the way Democrats do economic policy, it's not like it's going to make your wages noticeably decrease immediately.

[1047] But I'll tell you what, they're not going to increase.

[1048] And I have proof of this.

[1049] And if we look at the last 15 years of data post, so let's look at two major recessions, one COVID and one's 2008 financial crisis and two different types of, two different types of economies, two different types of governing philosophies.

[1050] And the first time was under Obama, we need more tax, we need tax the rich, and just spend money on infrastructure.

[1051] They had this nearly trillion dollar infrastructure package back then.

[1052] Turned out everybody agrees now, that turned out to be a waste and did not contribute to the economy the way we'd hoped it was the shovel ready myth.

[1053] Okay, that's widespread agreement on that in hindsight.

[1054] At the time, I can understand why you might think that stimulus is important, but in hindsight, it didn't work out.

[1055] Okay, but you're also increasing taxes.

[1056] You're a threat to businesses because you like to regulate them, and they tend to see businesses as more of a bad actor than a good actor that creates investment in jobs.

[1057] Okay, and so what did that create?

[1058] Well, it created plenty of wealth for the top.

[1059] Everybody's mad about inequality.

[1060] Under that system, the top still get richer because they could figure it out.

[1061] but the bottom quintile of earners was stagnant.

[1062] So that's not a myth.

[1063] That was true.

[1064] Now, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, this is Trump's major accomplishment, obviously, anyway, tax cuts and jobs act.

[1065] So what do we do?

[1066] We cut corporate tax rates, cut everybody's taxes everywhere, right?

[1067] Tax cuts for everybody.

[1068] And what happened to wages?

[1069] Well, if you look at wage growth, the bottom quintile of earners, skyrocketed.

[1070] Now, it doesn't mean that it, like, drastically reduced inequality, okay?

[1071] But as far as the proportion goes, a percentage goes, the bottom people were growing much, much faster than the top.

[1072] No, in absolute terms, obviously not.

[1073] And that's what everybody looks at, right?

[1074] They want to take the data that they care about, and it makes their argument stronger.

[1075] So they'll say, yeah, but they made $100 million more.

[1076] Well, okay, well, they were a 50, they had $50 billion.

[1077] So percentage -wise, they didn't make that much more.

[1078] But the lowest quintile you know, doing this particular job, which, you know, I don't know what a universe you could imagine where that particular job is making that much more, but they were growing.

[1079] Why?

[1080] Because, well, pro -growth economic policies create a tight labor market, right?

[1081] Where businesses have to compete to hire people.

[1082] We're in a very tight labor market now.

[1083] Wages are, no thanks to Biden, but mostly because of the pandemic and a few other things, but wages are pretty high.

[1084] I mean, it is still hard to hire people.

[1085] You know, this bill could reverse that.

[1086] Because, look, the reality is, is that Biden economics has not really hit the United States because they haven't done anything.

[1087] They haven't passed anything.

[1088] All right.

[1089] They've created this sort of, their general view on business that it's bad and the increase in regulations has, I think, decreased investment.

[1090] But that's hard to measure.

[1091] I think it's intuitive and obvious.

[1092] But other than that, there hasn't been a major shock to the system.

[1093] A lot of the shocks are maybe too much spending and also supply chain problems.

[1094] which are more related to the pandemic and maybe a refusal of this administration to do anything about it and loosen certain restrictions.

[1095] So it's a long, anyway, point is, is pro -growth works and it actually helps increase wages for the lowest quintile burghers.

[1096] That's just a data -driven fact that we could look at over the past decade or so.

[1097] So getting back to this reconciliation package, it's just doing the opposite.

[1098] It's just doing the opposite.

[1099] You're going to reduce wages, more importantly, reduce their potential growth because you're also creating an environment, because you're raising corporate tax rates, so businesses are just going to hire less, right?

[1100] It's never the CEO that gets hurt because of a corporate tax hike.

[1101] It's an absurd notion that you're just like taking it to the, taking it to these mean corporations.

[1102] Yeah, what, these corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of people?

[1103] What is it, you know, it doesn't mean they should just do whatever they want.

[1104] No, it is the inequality in some sense that bothers people.

[1105] But one of the things I have trouble with with regards to leftist policies is that they actually underestimate the severity of the problem of inequality, and they assume that restructuring capitalism would remove inequality, and there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that that has ever worked in any way other than the opposite, because inequality is not a consequence of capitalism.

[1106] It looks like it's almost like a physical property of reality itself.

[1107] There are physicists who model the unequal distribution of money using the same equations they use to describe the dispersion of gas into a new environment.

[1108] Like, it's really something fundamental.

[1109] It can't be overstated.

[1110] And it's a real problem, right?

[1111] Because who the hell wants terribly poor people?

[1112] Like, that's such a catastrophe.

[1113] But it's not like, it's a consequence of capitalism.

[1114] It's like, come on, guys.

[1115] The other thing about inequality, it's just, look, let's look at the following math problem.

[1116] If you and I are the sole citizens of country X, you make $50 ,000 a year and I make $100 ,000 a year, well, there's a delta between us of $50 ,000.

[1117] Now, let's both double our income.

[1118] So now you make $100 ,000 and I make $200 ,000.

[1119] Well, holy crap, inequality just doubled because now there's the $100 ,000 delta.

[1120] So it's just not always what people think.

[1121] I mean, the question isn't necessarily about it because I don't care that there's a lot of people who are way, way wealthier than me. It doesn't necessarily bother me. What would bother me is if I have no chance of ever being them, if I was the most talented, smartest person on the planet, it would bother me if I had no chance of ever being that person.

[1122] And I'm sorry, but that's just not the world we live in.

[1123] You know, if we look at what keeps you out of poverty, and I think this is from the Brookings Institute, there's like three things.

[1124] It's like finish high school, have a job, any job, and don't have kids before you're married, and you've got like a 97 % chance of not being in poverty.

[1125] So it turns out we do live in a society where choices matter and you're and the value that you provide matters.

[1126] And that's the society we want to live in.

[1127] Is it perfect?

[1128] No. Is it the best we can do?

[1129] Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.

[1130] And should we have a safety net for those who just can't make it.

[1131] Yeah, there should be a safety net.

[1132] But, you know, we should argue about how much of a safety net and the fundamental.

[1133] And about the negative consequences of that potentially as well.

[1134] Because, you know, safety net doesn't make things worse.

[1135] say, it makes you dependent and makes you unable or on wanting to find more work and be productive, right?

[1136] That would be the fundamental question of a safety net.

[1137] And I think their Democrat policies just generally don't care about that.

[1138] So can I dig into the weeds on the three?

[1139] I still don't understand the differentiation between the $1 .2 trillion and the $3 .5 trillion.

[1140] Oh, yeah, yeah.

[1141] I got a long way to go on the left here.

[1142] So let me do it more generally instead of getting too much into the weeds on the on the taxation stuff so okay so a lot of increase in taxes a lot of increase in spending a lot of that increase in spending is on things like expanding medicaid right expanding medicare like making medicare benefits more generous um even though like 96 % of the medicare population already gets the dental and vision and whatever so it's just it's a lot of it's to me it's a lot of bribery okay it's like we're giving you stuff um we're going to fund like the pre -k we're going to fund all of these things to the government we're just going to do so many things any wish list they've ever had, they're sticking in this bill.

[1143] Again, the subsidies, subsidies for solar and wind, just a new climate bank, whatever the hell that means.

[1144] I mean, with tens of billions of dollars in it, it's stuff like that that is, you know, some of it is extremely threatening, I think, because of a policy perspective, and some of it's just incredibly wasteful.

[1145] So that's where you see the over -inclusiveness of the infrastructure development project.

[1146] That's where everything is being shoveled into, Yeah, yeah.

[1147] So, again, it is separate from the infrastructure bill, what we call the infrastructure bill and the reconciliation package.

[1148] I remember when, if people remember when the Democrats were talking about human infrastructure, like everything is infrastructure.

[1149] Right, right.

[1150] They put all the human infrastructure into the reconciliation package, and we kept the real infrastructure in the infrastructure package.

[1151] So again, substantively speaking, I think the infrastructure package is good.

[1152] I just think it's too expensive.

[1153] And substantively speaking, I think the reconciliation The humiliation package is complete insanity and dangerous.

[1154] Okay, well, let's close that off there because we're going to run out of time here.

[1155] There's some other things, if you don't mind, I wanted to ask you about.

[1156] We'll pop out of the political domain to some degree to begin with.

[1157] You have a book.

[1158] You wrote a book not too long ago.

[1159] And so maybe you could, well, tell everybody what the book is and then talk about that a bit if you'd like to.

[1160] Sure.

[1161] I appreciate it.

[1162] Fortitude, American Resilience in the era of outrage.

[1163] And came out with this book.

[1164] in April of 2020, interesting time to come out with a book, as you can imagine, because that was the start of the band.

[1165] I never really done a book tour.

[1166] But it's done pretty well, and I think it's done pretty well because it's sort of, you know, I'll be honest, I kind of describe it as like a Jordan Peterson 12 rules for life, but like the JV version.

[1167] Okay, it's like the, it's like if you're the, if you're the post grad level, like I'm trying to give people a bit more of a high school level of the similar thing.

[1168] And I've very, and specifically, trying to guide people through how to build more fortitude, more mental fortitude.

[1169] And I use a combination.

[1170] So every chapter is a different lesson, sort of a different concept that I'm trying to ingrain.

[1171] And it's a, those lessons and concepts are imparted to the reader through a series of stories from the seal teams.

[1172] There's some philosophy, through some Bible verses, and through some pop culture.

[1173] You know, it's a mix of everything.

[1174] I think it's multidisciplinary.

[1175] And I think it's interesting.

[1176] I think it's unique, and I think that's why it's sold pretty well.

[1177] And it's, it's, so where did you learn, where did you learn to, to be resilient?

[1178] I mean, after you were terribly injured, you went back and continued in your military operations.

[1179] I mean, that seems to be, I mean, some resilience, you know, it's, it's, you're healthy and you're tough.

[1180] And that's part of what's built into you.

[1181] It's a gift in some sense.

[1182] But then there's the rule that attitude plays.

[1183] and education and all of that.

[1184] And I was fortunate enough to meet a number of Navy SEALs in California and got to know some of them quite well.

[1185] And, you know, they're very respectable characters.

[1186] And they go through hell to become Navy SEALs.

[1187] That's quite interesting.

[1188] They told me some pretty hair -raising stories.

[1189] And where did you learn to be resilient to the degree that you learned it?

[1190] Was that mostly military?

[1191] Was that mostly a military consequence?

[1192] Of course, like any development, I think it's a consequence of a lot of experiences.

[1193] But what I write about in the book, my first experience, and this experience is laid out in a chapter called Perspectives from Darkness.

[1194] And I'm made itle that chapter because one of the first foundations of fortitude being, you know, if we define fortitude, is resilience to it, the ability to overcome adversity.

[1195] And perspective is a pretty good place to start because if you think everything is worse, than it is, you're going to have a hard time mentally coping with it.

[1196] If you have a sense of perspective, you're able to see, you know what, this isn't that bad.

[1197] Like one of the one of the things, one of the things instructors in the buds, this is seal training, repeat to students constantly is look, there's 10 ,000 men who have done this before you.

[1198] So stop your complaining.

[1199] You can do this.

[1200] And that's a that's like a quick gut check.

[1201] Like, I don't want to be one of those who just quit.

[1202] I mean, there's 10 ,000 that have done it before.

[1203] It's probably more than that, to be perfectly honest.

[1204] And so, but what I write about is, is my mother because, you know, I think that was my first real interaction with some kind of fortitude.

[1205] She, she, she lost her when you were 10.

[1206] Yeah, right.

[1207] Yeah.

[1208] And I also, you know, I watched her deal with breast cancer for five years.

[1209] And I had trouble recalling, uh, real suffering on her part, mostly because she hit it from me. And I have trouble recalling her complain.

[1210] I have trouble recalling her have a bad attitude.

[1211] I have lots of other recollections of her being funny, of her being nice, of her being a good mother.

[1212] And it sort of begs the question, like, how on earth can someone do that?

[1213] It's extremely difficult and not show that kind of resentment and bitterness and just raise your kids.

[1214] And so that's sort of, that's my first hero.

[1215] You know, first hero to look up to have a whole chapter on heroism.

[1216] And frankly, I got some of that philosophy from you on how to build.

[1217] hero archetypes and the proper way to look up to people as a way to develop yourself in a better way.

[1218] And I say, like, don't take an individual, like you don't want to just be like Jordan Peterson.

[1219] You want to see what makes him successful and see how he's done well in his life and maybe copy some things from him.

[1220] Like, how does he talk to people?

[1221] How does he think through things?

[1222] What's the thought processes he use?

[1223] And how does that apply to the hierarchy you want to be better at?

[1224] Because it might be different.

[1225] Like, you know, you might be an academic or you might be in media, might be in sports.

[1226] It's different.

[1227] So you got to look up to people within your own genre, really.

[1228] And in the SEAL teams, there's no different because what am I trying to be a better seal and a better leader?

[1229] What makes somebody something that I want to follow?

[1230] So that's like, that's chapter two, for instance.

[1231] One of my favorite chapters, because I think it's a good way to start.

[1232] Because you got to know what you want to, if you want to be somebody who lives with fortitude, you got to know what that looks like first, right?

[1233] You got to know what you're aspiring to.

[1234] It's a really important.

[1235] Well, and you can look at what you admire spontaneously.

[1236] Like obviously you admired your mother spontaneously.

[1237] And so that's an instinct.

[1238] That's not rational exactly, although it might be hyper rational.

[1239] You know, and we all have that instinct to admire.

[1240] And that does point us in the direction of what is better.

[1241] Yeah, exactly.

[1242] And it's just in a practical way and kind of a materialistic way, it's like, well, just what works?

[1243] Like, what are the outcomes that actually work for people and what don't?

[1244] One of the problems with postmodernism is trying to make the things that don't work, make them work.

[1245] Socialism hasn't been tried.

[1246] It's like that kind of thing, right?

[1247] Because it feels good.

[1248] And so, you know, then my second real interaction, I suppose, of fortitude, yeah, would be the military.

[1249] I mean, Buds is a trial by fire.

[1250] You come out a different person than you went in.

[1251] How were you different?

[1252] How were you to begin with?

[1253] That's the first question.

[1254] And then how are you different?

[1255] I just, I think you come.

[1256] I mean, look, I just, I think maybe I'll, maybe I'll take that back a little bit.

[1257] I guess I'll say, because one thing we say in the SEAL teams is, you were a SEAL before you got here.

[1258] We just made you prove it.

[1259] And then we trained you.

[1260] But that mental capacity, it had to be there because you wouldn't make it through hell week otherwise.

[1261] So you had it, but you hadn't proven it to anybody and you hadn't proven it to yourself.

[1262] And once you prove it to yourself, that's something.

[1263] I mean, you become something a little different.

[1264] It's not too different, but it's a little different.

[1265] And some people can become cocky, right?

[1266] You don't want to be too cocky.

[1267] You want to be confident.

[1268] So you definitely become more confidence.

[1269] I don't think you've met many SEALs who aren't very confidence in themselves.

[1270] And so that's a good thing.

[1271] They weren't cocky.

[1272] Most of them were unbelievably funny.

[1273] They're unbelievably humorous.

[1274] I think I'm very funny.

[1275] And I'm not being overly confidence.

[1276] I think I'm very funny.

[1277] I'm just humility is not an attribute that we have very much of.

[1278] And so it's, yeah, it changes you.

[1279] I mean, there's a culture.

[1280] Like, I can identify a team guy really easily.

[1281] And first of all, there's definitely a look, right?

[1282] And it's, but there's a way, there's something in their eyes.

[1283] Like, I can just tell, like what you've, I can just tell.

[1284] And I don't know how to describe it, to be honest with you.

[1285] And because we all kind of come from the same place where we wanted to do this particular job.

[1286] We wanted to go through the hardest training we could find and be in this elite team.

[1287] And so that, I don't know, it just makes you similar in some way, even though there's, I think, a decent amount of diversity in the teams, as far as backgrounds go, as far as backgrounds and wealth come from, I mean, it's, it's very, very difficult to, it's also very difficult to see who's going to make it through it.

[1288] This gets to another chapter, which I call No Plan B. and you can't get through buds unless you decided that you would die before you quit.

[1289] You have to, you have to have given yourself no choice in the matter.

[1290] That's the only way you make it through.

[1291] If you're like, you know what, I'm going to do my best.

[1292] That's like marriage.

[1293] Well, okay, that's a funny story.

[1294] Because one of the sayings in the sale teams is the only easy day was yesterday.

[1295] And that, that motto is plastered on the buds grinder.

[1296] and so what me and my wife did knowing and understanding that there's so many so many good parallels between seal trading and marriage we went and took some of our wedding photos right in front of that sign the only easy day was yesterday um and it's it's it's sort of this no quit attitude and this understanding that look it's only things get harder so what deal with it um it's and and embrace it embrace the suck i'm just kind of using slogans from the seal teams at this point but but they have they have quite a bit of meaning associated with them embrace the suck and what does that mean fundamentally well they have meaning because people are actually acting them out right they're not empty slogans it's so they might be comical represent oversimplified representations but there's something actually happening and i like that particular one embrace the suck because it actually gets to another chapter in the book which is simply called do something hard and the whole point of of this discussion is embrace suffering i'm not saying you embrace like swimming with sharks because you can suffer swimming with sharks and getting bitten like that would suck.

[1297] But I've been self -imposed suffering, right?

[1298] And so like buds and how weak and everything we do and it all is self -imposed.

[1299] Like you do you do have it in the back of your minds.

[1300] Like I'm not going to die.

[1301] I'm not actually going to die.

[1302] Feels like I'm going to die.

[1303] It feels like they're trying to kill me. But I know I know that they're going to save me if I start drowning and people do drown.

[1304] But we save them.

[1305] Okay.

[1306] it's funny but it's it's it's horrible but it's funny um but but there's a but there's a real value um to seeking out challenge and suffering this is why people do spartan races this is why people come together and they love group suffering too this is why people go go organize themselves at crossfit gyms and and and do these crazy things why you go climb a mountain right like is it for the view did you climb the mountain for the view no no no you did it the means were the entire point.

[1307] Like the path that you took was the entire point because it's hard.

[1308] And I think that's pretty normal and intuitive.

[1309] And I think that's been a really fundamental tenant of Americanism for a very long time.

[1310] And I think we're losing it, which is why I felt I had to write about it more and just kind of remind people of why these things are important.

[1311] I don't think there's anything novel in my book at all.

[1312] Well, you are a conservative.

[1313] Yeah.

[1314] Right.

[1315] I just think it's a, I just think what I did was take all the best ideas from history and try to lay them out for people because, you know, if you're trying to come up with something novel these days, it's a good chance that you're probably just wrong about it because it hasn't stood the test of time.

[1316] I think it's very rare that there's going to be really new insights in today's world.

[1317] And it might, I think the new insights are really just the old ones, like personal responsibility and doing hard things and challenging yourself and just in feeling good.

[1318] about a challenge, even if it sucks, even if it's an injustice.

[1319] I dive into that quite a bit in that because that's people's next question.

[1320] It's like, well, how can you say all suffering is good?

[1321] Like even injustice, even things that happened to you, like, what if you lose your eye and go blind?

[1322] I mean, like what, you know, well, then just look at the silver lining.

[1323] I mean, it's, I'm oversimplifying it quite a bit.

[1324] There's a much, I think, deeper discussion in the book, but it really does just simplify to look at the silver lining.

[1325] just because there's an injustice done against you, doesn't mean you have to tell yourself that story.

[1326] Doesn't mean you have to tell yourself a story of being a victim.

[1327] You can be a victor, even if it's false, like even if you really are a victim.

[1328] Now, I think people over -victimized themselves these days to an extraordinary degree.

[1329] I think they either lie about their victimhood or they associate victimhood with bad luck.

[1330] And then there's a difference, right?

[1331] And in either case, though, it doesn't actually change how you should react.

[1332] react to it.

[1333] And you can react like a person with fortitude and tell yourself a story of being better for it and being a victor.

[1334] Or you can tell yourself a story of being a victim and see where that leads you.

[1335] And I promise you won't lead you anywhere good.

[1336] I think that's a perfect place to stop.

[1337] There's a bunch more things I would like to talk to you about.

[1338] But, you know, we've we traversed a lot of ground and you can have me back anytime, you know.

[1339] You thanked me for coming on, but I'm pretty sure I was like, can I come on to your podcast, Jordan?

[1340] That's actually what happened.

[1341] So I appreciate it.

[1342] I'm really pleased to have you on it.

[1343] I really appreciate it talking to you.

[1344] And there are other things I'd like to talk to you about in the future.

[1345] I didn't talk to you about, you know, potential political ambitions and many other things.

[1346] But this, this was good.

[1347] So, and that ended well.

[1348] So, look, thanks a lot, eh?

[1349] And I really appreciate it.

[1350] Yeah, and thanks for your service.

[1351] You know?

[1352] Well, thank you.

[1353] Thank you.

[1354] Yeah, really.

[1355] I know academics were protected by a ring of people who put themselves on the line to make sure we have the freedom to complain.

[1356] Well, you know, I never really saw the SEAL teams of service because it was this adventure for us.

[1357] If you look at, if you know Matt Best, he was actually the part of Black Rifle Coffee familiar with them.

[1358] He wrote a book called Thank You for My Service.

[1359] And I think that actually gets really to how a lot of veterans feel about their service.

[1360] They're like, I got to go jump out of airplanes and go, you know, blow things up with my best friends.

[1361] I don't understand how this is service.

[1362] This is great.

[1363] And yeah, sometimes you lose an eye, but he signed up for it.

[1364] I will say politics feels a lot more like service.

[1365] I will say that.

[1366] There's zero glory in it.

[1367] But it's important.

[1368] And, you know, that's, it's fulfilling.

[1369] That's why I do it.

[1370] Hey, man. Thanks a lot.

[1371] And for the invitation to the Youth Summit.

[1372] Yeah.

[1373] Hey, we're going to keep, when we get dates for next year, we're going to keep bugging you about it.

[1374] So we'd love to see you there.

[1375] How's your health?

[1376] Are you feeling better?

[1377] Yeah.

[1378] I'm still like running about 70%, but that's better than two.

[1379] It's a hell of a lot better than two.

[1380] Yeah, it is.

[1381] Yes.

[1382] So thanks for us.

[1383] 70 for use a lot more than most people.

[1384] Well, we need you.

[1385] The world needs you.

[1386] Please take care of yourself.

[1387] Good, good luck with your political duty.

[1388] and hopefully we'll talk to you all right yeah i need it thanks jordan