0:07

Hello and welcome to The Political

0:10

Orphanage, a home for those who feel

0:12

homeless in today's political hellscape.

0:15

I'm your host, Andrew Heaton.

0:18

And as the host of a semi-prominent

0:22

political podcast,

0:23

I get a lot of requests from authors to come on

0:26

the show and talk about their new book. If

0:28

it's interesting, I bring them on. If

0:31

it's just a plemiscist screed, I

0:34

politely turn them down. For

0:36

example, there are plenty of

0:38

tomes that have titles like, Demon

0:41

Rats, Why the Democratic Party

0:43

is Ruining America and What You Can Do

0:46

About It, or

0:47

The Devil's Hand Towel, How Progressivism

0:50

is Literally a Satanic Institution

0:53

Literally. Stuff like that, it

0:55

always has a dumb title and it always

0:57

has a colon. There's always

1:00

a subtitle. Usually a ghostwriter

1:02

too, since the person writing it is

1:04

a talking head in the media probably doesn't have

1:06

the patience or maybe the skill to actually

1:08

write a book. For example, I

1:11

will not mention the person who were networked,

1:13

but a friend of mine is on one of these networks and they recently

1:16

approached him and went, hey, we wrote a book, we want to

1:18

put your name on it so you can go on shows and

1:20

we'll sell it and we'll cut a deal with you. He wasn't

1:22

even going to be involved in the process.

1:24

So I never bring on guests like that because

1:26

I find those books absurdly,

1:28

amazingly boring.

1:31

They are so boring. I never learn anything

1:33

from them. They're just saying, our

1:35

team is the good team, the other team is the bad team

1:38

over and over and over again for $12.99.

1:43

Recently, the PR team

1:45

for Cenk Uygur reached out with his

1:48

new book, Justice is Coming,

1:50

How Progressives Are Going to Take Over the Country

1:52

and America is Going to Love It. And

1:55

I thought,

1:56

okay, I'll bite. Let's

1:59

do an episode where I...

3:59

disagree with Jenk's definitions

4:03

of what constitutes progressivism, conservatism,

4:06

and socialism. I think his terms are

4:08

loaded, to say the least. You

4:11

will almost certainly disagree with one, if not

4:13

all, of those terms as he uses them. But

4:17

I didn't want to spend an hour squabbling

4:20

with him over definitions. I thought

4:22

that would be a waste of your time and my time and his

4:24

time. So early on, I try

4:26

out something novel. I don't think I've ever done this on the

4:28

program before either. I tell him, we're

4:30

going to let you define all of the terms

4:33

today. Whatever your definition is,

4:35

that is the definition we will use, so

4:38

that we can skip ahead to what you're

4:40

actually trying to do and what ideas

4:43

inform those actions, because that's ultimately

4:45

what I'm interested in. And

4:48

the weird thing is, I'm pretty

4:50

sure Jenk and I would disagree on a number

4:52

of economic and juridical positions.

4:54

There's plenty for us to fight over,

4:57

but less than I thought. If

4:59

Jenk had come on and kicked things off with, America

5:02

should be more socialist, and I yelled,

5:04

over my dead body, we would

5:06

have wound up fighting about two very different things

5:09

because he means something different than

5:11

I do. On my end, I've

5:13

noticed this recently, I

5:15

spend so much time in the creative

5:17

community. I'm a comedian, so

5:20

I hang out with a lot of comedians and actors. And I spend so

5:22

much time in that community talking politics

5:25

with people who care deeply

5:27

about economic justice and yet have

5:29

literally never read a book on economics and

5:32

think corporations are evil and

5:34

that poverty is caused by greed. And

5:36

if we could only outlaw greed and put

5:38

government in charge of things, that would solve everything.

5:41

And I become very defensive

5:44

of markets as a result. My antennas

5:46

are up, because I strongly believe

5:48

that markets have lifted billions

5:51

of people out of poverty in my lifetime,

5:53

billions. And if economic

5:55

illiterates succeed in smothering them,

5:58

they will immiserate billions more. And

6:00

much of the agenda I am pursuing is

6:03

to alleviate suffering. So

6:05

I'm kind of knee-jerk about that at this point. When

6:07

I start hearing people talk about markets,

6:10

capitalism, socialism, things like that, I

6:12

get kind of, my hackles get up.

6:15

What?

6:16

When Cenk and I in today's episode got away

6:18

from the definitions of capitalism and socialism,

6:20

we didn't fight about them, I could, I'm going to be

6:22

honest with you, I couldn't quite make myself to just wholly

6:25

accept this definition. I did at least have to provide a counter

6:28

definition. We don't fight about it. We

6:30

still disagree on stuff, but we at least avoid

6:33

arguing about stupid things that neither of

6:36

us believe. And I think a lot

6:38

of political conversations, that is a

6:40

regular feature, is that there's an

6:43

implication, there's baggage associated

6:46

with a term, and we wind up fighting about

6:48

dumb crap neither of us

6:50

actually thinks.

6:53

You're living in a really weird time right now

6:55

where people don't

6:57

really care what

6:59

you think.

7:01

They care how you say it. Are

7:04

you saying red team coded stuff or

7:06

blue team coded stuff? Did you say Patriot

7:09

or Justice? Most

7:11

people, when

7:12

they are arguing about politics, are not

7:14

arguing about a policy or

7:16

an idea.

7:17

They're arguing that their team is the good

7:20

team and the other team is a bad team,

7:22

and you used a totem of

7:24

your team the bad team. So I

7:26

am now going to attack you on behalf of my

7:29

tribe because I feel that my tribe is under

7:31

attack. You invoked a profane

7:34

belief, so I am going to respond

7:36

with my team's sacred beliefs.

7:39

Basically

7:41

on my end, I want to get to the country to the point where

7:43

we can have passionate, good arguments

7:46

about important things instead

7:48

of stupid arguments about fake controversies.

7:51

So today I am bringing on a

7:54

guest specifically calibrated to draw me a

7:57

into

8:00

a shouting match. And we're going

8:02

to see if we can avoid

8:04

doing that, if we can avoid getting

8:07

into a dumb rock'em sock'em

8:10

robots conversation. We're going to try to do

8:12

it right here on

8:14

the political orphanage.

8:18

My guest today is Cenk Uygur. He is

8:21

the founder and CEO of TYT

8:23

Network. He is the host of the Young

8:25

Turks, and he is the co-founder of

8:27

Justice Democrats whose ranks include Ilhan

8:30

Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria

8:32

Ocasio-Cortez. He is the author

8:35

of Justice is Coming, How Progressives

8:37

Are Going to Take Over the Country and America is

8:39

Going to Love It. Very excited to talk to you Cenk,

8:42

thank you for coming. Thank you, Andrew, I

8:44

appreciate it. So you're

8:46

on a show called The Political Wurf-Inage. I

8:49

am an independent. I have

8:51

voted Democrat more than I voted Republican

8:54

recently, but I'm not in the can for either party

8:56

and that could easily shift either way.

8:59

I found your book very polemic. I

9:03

found it to be a very, there are

9:05

two sides, one side's evil, one side's good.

9:07

And for people like me that have opted out of the

9:09

system, that's a big turn off. So

9:11

are it is kind of your work, are you just trying

9:14

to animate progressives to get out and vote and you're

9:16

not worrying about anybody else? Are you trying

9:18

to get people disaffected? Kind of what is your goal?

9:20

Yeah.

9:21

So Andrew, I'm curious about what you

9:23

thought about it because in parts

9:26

I'm clearly not in

9:28

favor of a Republican. I

9:31

don't feel like you're pulling the punches. And I should

9:33

say you're also kind of joking around too. So it's not

9:35

like you're writing like a screed, but

9:37

I do feel like the viewpoint is very clear and I found

9:40

it to be very red versus blue. Right.

9:43

But that's what I want to press on because at

9:45

the same time I would argue that I had

9:48

arguments in favor of conservatives that you

9:50

would never find in a Democratic book

9:52

or a progressive book, that the core

9:54

of the conservative voters care about

9:57

corruption and that

9:59

is the number one issue and they woke up

10:01

to the problem of corruption and

10:03

mainstream media earlier than

10:05

Democratic voters did and progressive

10:08

voters I think are about the same time if not earlier. But

10:11

for the core Democratic voters, I would say the core

10:13

Republican voters did better on

10:15

that issue and the top issue. I think

10:17

they got misdirected by Trump. But

10:20

I explained that the need for conservatives,

10:23

that you need to have a balancing act in

10:25

terms of where should taxes

10:27

be. They could be too low. They could be too

10:29

high. How much regulation should we have? They

10:31

could be too low. They could be too high. So

10:35

did that not assuage your

10:37

bipartisan need or

10:40

were you just so put off by

10:42

how anti-Republican I am was? Well,

10:45

two things. One of the things in the book that

10:47

I love that actually did gain a lot of credit with me

10:49

was you bring up AB5 in California, which

10:51

I think is a great example of governmental

10:54

overreach and I did

10:56

videos about it being a horrible idea. I was

10:59

doing it out of what I believe is very good motivation.

11:02

And you point that out. Look, this is a step

11:04

that went too far regardless of what the intent

11:06

was. AB5, this is the gig economy

11:08

stuff, right? Went too far, right? And you

11:10

do have a clause in there about how a functional

11:13

democracy would have the change makers

11:15

and the people that are keeping it from going too far. I

11:18

think the elements that I found

11:21

off putting more were I found it to

11:23

be very, very reductive

11:26

of both sides. So please

11:29

correct me on any of this, but you

11:31

define progressivism as expanding

11:34

the circle of liberty, equality of opportunity,

11:37

and justice. Justice for all. Yeah.

11:40

Okay. Justice for all, right? I

11:42

agree with all of those things. By your definition, while we can

11:44

quibble about the labels, I don't really want to do that today. Let's

11:47

just use your labels. By your definition, I am a progressive. You were

11:49

both, you were progressive. When you get into

11:51

conservatism, you define conservatism

11:54

or you use a philosopher and say that it

11:56

is the philosophy of upholding privilege

11:59

for the. elite or the upper class, and

12:01

then go on to say, being somewhat

12:03

pithy, come for the racism, stay

12:06

for the tax breaks. And then there was

12:08

a quote that the Republican Party

12:10

is a Frankensteinian coalition of

12:12

grievances. Hold

12:15

on, I got this. The resentful,

12:17

the willfully uninformed, and the greedy. Those

12:22

seem to me to be the much more frequent portrayal

12:24

in your book. You did occasionally have a clause

12:27

of there might be somebody who's decent,

12:29

but for the most part, it seemed to me that you were

12:31

almost waging religious warfare

12:34

on a political level of there's a good, holy

12:36

team and an evil team. And that is what

12:38

that kind of worldview of good

12:40

team, bad team, I found to be very off-putting.

12:43

Yeah. Okay, so let's tackle

12:45

that. So number one,

12:48

you're not wrong. Kirkus Reviews, one

12:51

of the biggest reviewers of books,

12:53

said that the Republicans come in for a shellacking

12:56

in the book. And they do. Okay.

12:59

Richly deserved. And

13:02

so you're not wrong that I do not religious

13:04

but political warfare. And I often

13:06

talk about that and confess to that,

13:09

which is that, and there's a reason why I do it,

13:11

Andrew. So if people

13:13

that know me in my personal life, I'm a pretty

13:16

easy-going guy, really happy,

13:18

you know, two, two, two, knock on wood, soap,

13:21

nothing, jankies, et cetera. But

13:23

when they see me on Twitter and they see me on

13:26

select clips where I'm yelling, screaming, et

13:28

cetera online, they think, wow, this guy's got to be

13:30

the angriest man in America, right? And

13:32

so the reason for that is, as I explained

13:35

in Chapter 4, Progressive

13:37

lost the Democratic Party. They're

13:40

now a corporate-ruled, corporate-dominated party, which,

13:42

again, find me a Democrat that

13:45

says that anywhere, right? So

13:48

acknowledging the massive

13:51

problems of the Democratic Party already

13:53

is way more open-minded than

13:55

anyone else you'll find on the left. So

13:59

since Once we've lost that party, all we

14:01

have is a bunch of paid weaklings

14:04

on the Democratic side whose

14:06

job is to go, oh, there is nothing

14:09

I could do. I have to give the rich

14:11

everything. The Republicans are so

14:13

mean. You don't understand. Okay.

14:16

So I have no use for those weaklings. And

14:19

so that leaves an empty

14:21

space for a gladiator

14:24

on the left. Okay. We

14:26

desperately, desperately need more warriors.

14:29

So you show me a left wing warrior

14:32

and I'm a fan of that person. So

14:34

Nina Turner, Bernie

14:36

Sanders, AOC originally, there

14:39

are some issues though. Okay. And

14:41

so we'll come back to those issues. So but

14:45

in terms of like what is wrong

14:47

with the Republican Party that I will not back away

14:49

from, okay, is, is

14:52

it obsessed with tax cuts for the

14:54

rich? Is it 98% of what the Republican

14:57

Party does? Yes. And

14:59

so I think that they, empirically, they could say

15:01

all they want, oh, we hate immigrants

15:04

or blah, blah, blah, or we're concerned about

15:06

it. Etc. Right. And

15:08

we're concerned about crime. Yeah. For

15:10

the voters, it's true. They are concerned about crime. They are

15:12

concerned about immigration and those are legitimate issues. Okay.

15:16

For the politicians, the leaders, the, the hosts, all 100%

15:19

full of crap. All

15:22

they care about is tax cuts for the rich deregulation

15:24

of giant corporations, maintaining

15:27

the status quo and corporate power. So

15:29

the right wing has heard the term uni-party.

15:32

It is real and I am confirming it for

15:34

you from the left. Okay.

15:36

So,

15:37

but did it, did the Republican

15:39

Party run the Southern strategy? Does

15:41

it still run the Southern strategy? Yes. Yes.

15:45

Yes. Is the Southern strategy, hey, racist in the South,

15:47

come vote for us instead of the Dixie Crats, the Democrats,

15:50

because they give you civil rights act, voting rights act,

15:52

and you guys don't like that. You, you will,

15:54

you like be on top. The Republicans will

15:57

be just as racist as you need to be. Okay.

16:00

true for the Republican Party. You're totally

16:02

and utterly lying to yourself if you think that's

16:04

not true. That's just a historical fact.

16:08

So two things. Actually, okay, like

16:10

with the Civil Rights Act, I look at the Civil Rights

16:12

Act from 1964, and what

16:15

I see is a civil war

16:17

going in inside the Democratic

16:19

Party with the Republicans coming in as the kingmaker,

16:21

because at the time the Democrats were preeminent.

16:24

They'd been running the country since right

16:27

after Eisenhower. And as you

16:30

point out, there's the Dixiecrats, right? There's

16:32

the Jim Crow South Democrats. There's also the

16:34

Martin Luther King Jr. is of the word. And

16:37

the debate's basically taking place within the Democratic

16:39

Party. The Republican Party comes

16:42

in and votes in favor of it. And Barry

16:44

Goldwater does not, but proportionally

16:46

more Republicans vote in favor of it than not. So

16:49

I look at that and I see, okay,

16:51

this is an issue that is not linked

16:54

lockstep between conservatives, Republicans,

16:56

progressive Democrats. There's more levels

16:58

to this. There's different levels that are going on. No.

17:01

Does that sound about right to you? It does,

17:03

but you're stopping the timeframe in the wrong

17:06

place. Everything you said is absolutely accurate.

17:09

That's not the issue. And God bless the

17:11

Republicans that voted for the Civil

17:13

Rights Act, voted for the Civil Rights Act. God bless Abraham

17:16

Lincoln and the Republicans that fought

17:19

the Civil War and kept the union together. Back

17:21

when the Republicans were the progressive party, Teddy Roosevelt,

17:24

terrific president in a lot of ways, Republican

17:27

and a progressive. So that actually

17:29

used to exist back in the day. But when you

17:31

go forward just a little bit more forward

17:34

in time, Andrew, as you know, Richard

17:37

Nixon then decided, oh, wait,

17:40

we shouldn't vote for his right.

17:42

He does the Southern. Let's do

17:44

the Southern strategy where we go

17:46

eliminate those Dixie Crats, pick up those seats

17:48

for the Republicans. And we do that by

17:50

being against civil rights. You

17:53

could be polite and say against civil rights. You

17:55

could be mean and say racist and

17:57

say, oh, by the way, if you're a Republican, now you're conservative

17:59

about. You're there in 1965 or 1968 or 72 when

18:01

they made these decisions. You

18:05

don't have to co-sign it. I was a Republican. I

18:07

was a Republican past that time, right?

18:10

But I didn't know. Once I found out,

18:13

oh, this is the party that is actively

18:15

against civil rights, well, I'm

18:17

for civil rights. So that's

18:19

why I, part of the reason why I left the Republican

18:22

Party. Okay, well then let's

18:24

break it down a little bit further. I guess one of the other things that

18:27

I do see a difference, and at least I think I do, is

18:29

for me, the Republican and Democratic

18:32

parties aren't really parties. They're coalition of

18:34

a bunch of other parties. So I

18:36

look at the Democratic Party and you've got Justice

18:38

Democrats that have AOC in it, and

18:40

then you've got New Democrats. So you

18:43

call them out in the book, you don't like these guys, but I like Colorado

18:46

Democrats, like Hickenlooper, injured, Polis,

18:48

and things like that. They strike me as pro-market Democrats.

18:50

But we can at least say there's different factions within the Democratic

18:53

Party. And I think we can also say that about the Republican

18:55

Party, that the Republican Party has the weird

18:58

evangelical groups, a la Asa Hutchinson,

19:00

but it also has the Rand Paul libertarians

19:03

and there's a tiny clutch of old liberal

19:05

Rockefeller Republicans that are still running around

19:07

like Governor Stott up in Vermont. So

19:11

summarizing the whole Republican Party is a monolithic

19:13

thing, or the Democratic Party is a monolithic thing,

19:16

strikes me as counterproductive to advancing

19:18

the progress you extol. So Adra, I hear

19:20

you on that. Those are all fair. There are definitely factions

19:23

within both parties. And I think the factions

19:25

that you laid out are pretty accurate.

19:28

But let's not leave out the

19:31

giant factions, which is

19:33

for Democrats, I would say 85 to 90% of

19:36

the party is corporate Democrats

19:39

that just do exactly what their donors tell them to

19:41

do. And for Republicans, if we're being honest,

19:44

it's about 99% of federal, not state, federal

19:48

politicians that are in the corporate

19:50

unit party. And by the way, a lot of Trump supporters

19:52

know that. And now we're talking about the politicians. I'm gonna

19:55

get to the biggest distinction in a second. That's

19:57

why a lot of Trump supporters, a lot of MAGA guys. is

22:00

munificent and wonderful and they've been deluded by bad

22:02

leaders and you do not take attack.

22:05

You take the fact that no, they're shitbags

22:07

a lot of the time and you're gonna hold them accountable for

22:09

it. Is that kind of the position? So yeah,

22:11

the Republicans have been tricked. They are bad. Yeah.

22:14

And so, and by the

22:16

way, if you're a Republican or a conservative out there,

22:19

aren't you tired of mainstream media patronizing

22:21

him? Like they think that

22:24

you're worse than I think you are, but

22:26

they don't say it. They kiss your

22:29

ass in some bullshit patronizing way,

22:31

right? Oh, it's really the heart of the country and

22:34

we really appreciate real Americans. We're not

22:36

talking about that. We're only talking about Trump.

22:38

Well, who put Trump in charge? You guys did. Okay.

22:41

So who are we kidding? Who are we kidding?

22:43

You had 17 choices. You pick Trump. Now

22:45

I know why you pick Trump and I'm more

22:48

generous about why you pick Trump than any other Democrat.

22:50

Okay. But, but I'm not

22:53

going to baby you. I'm not, I'm going to treat

22:55

you as adults and grownups. So

22:57

like where I think I see the race

23:00

issues, I'll point them out where I see the bigotry,

23:02

et cetera, I'll point it out and you

23:04

want to fight over that. Great. I'm a fighter.

23:06

Let's fight. Okay. But on economic

23:09

issues, we agree so much

23:12

like stop taking the bait.

23:15

Like go and fight me on trans

23:18

issues and all that stuff. Right. But

23:20

stop taking the bait to not talk

23:22

about the things that we agree on.

23:25

Right. And we agree on so many

23:27

economic issues at the Democratic

23:29

party and the Republican party, you're playing good

23:31

cop, bad cop. And, and

23:34

Fox news and MSNBC are playing good

23:37

cop, bad cop. And the whole point is

23:39

to distract you and get you to hate me and

23:41

me to hate you. And we never actually

23:43

get to paid family leave. So moms can take 12 weeks

23:45

off after they have a baby, which conservatives

23:48

definitely want and progressives definitely

23:50

want. Well, they're probably going to, Democratic voters wanted

23:52

in overwhelming margins. The only people

23:54

who don't want it are scumbag politicians

23:56

who get paid for him by corporations to

23:59

not do paid family. leave. I can give

24:01

you many other examples. So yes,

24:04

the voters have the good, the bad, and the ugly

24:06

on both sides, okay? And

24:08

yes, we can mix it up. But at some

24:11

point, if we don't unite on the things that we

24:13

agree on, we're being played for

24:15

fools by the UNI party. This

24:17

is great. I want you to elaborate on this because

24:20

I agree with you very much that mainstream media

24:22

is using

24:25

the politics of fear and hatred to accumulate

24:27

money and power. And I think the two major parties are

24:29

doing that too. I think that the reason that electoral

24:32

reform is so fought tooth and nail by both

24:34

parties is that it's a lot easier to

24:36

run based on fear and hatred than it is to run on

24:39

appealing to you. So I'm with you in total

24:41

agreement on that. That being said, given

24:43

how charged the book is, how

24:45

are you not playing into that by saying

24:48

that red team is this awful thing that must

24:50

be smashed and then we'll enter a millennial

24:52

period of progressive utopia? How

24:55

are you distinct from that? Yeah. So

24:58

I'm distinct from that in all the ways that, first

25:00

of all, that I've already explained, where I give credit

25:03

to the conservative voters on the things that they deserve

25:05

credit on. I distinguish

25:07

them from the politicians, which is very important

25:09

to do. And I talk about all the things

25:12

that we do agree about. So those are

25:14

giant, giant differences. Now,

25:16

in terms of the electoral battle, I'm

25:18

not naive. And so there are

25:21

some folks who are now what I call the fake

25:23

left. So that's, I would put Tulsi

25:25

Gabbard in that category, for example. So

25:27

Tulsi Gabbard goes on Fox News and goes, Oh my

25:29

God, I'm such a dev, I'm such a progressive,

25:32

but colleague, Gee, the Republicans are right about

25:34

everything. And you know what? I think you

25:36

should all vote for Republicans. And that's me

25:38

as a Democrat saying that that's bullshit. She

25:41

doesn't believe any of that. She's just looking for the money.

25:43

Okay. We're kind of kind of like Mac, Mac's boot at the Washington

25:47

Post might be like that. If like every article is I'm,

25:49

I'm a conservative, but the conservatives are evil.

25:51

That kind of person that's, that's yeah. Yeah.

25:53

So I got no interest in, you know, I don't know much

25:56

about Mac's food, but I hear you on that. And

25:58

I got no interest in that kind of person. etc.

26:01

But, and hence, in true,

26:04

I'm not going to vote for Trump. There

26:06

is no planet on which I vote for Trump. So,

26:09

like, the right wing thinks, a lot of

26:11

times their leaders do at least, the type of crosses

26:13

of the world think, hey, I'm going to give you

26:15

a little bit of fame and money here, so Tulsi,

26:17

come on here and kiss my ass and

26:19

tell everybody to vote for the Republicans. And

26:22

then later, the Republicans will be nice to you. No,

26:25

the Republicans do not have a track

26:27

record of being nice to any of you. Especially

26:31

on the left, minorities, etc. Let's

26:34

be honest, you could just catch feelings

26:36

over it, but the Republicans have a terrible track

26:38

record of that. Now,

26:40

if you say, hey, the Democrats have a bad track record, no,

26:43

Democrats since the corporate jig over

26:45

the party have a terrible track record on just serving corporate

26:47

dollars, right? But, but

26:49

they don't go around saying white

26:52

people are a problem, straight people are

26:54

a problem, we have to pass bills

26:56

against them, all the parents

26:58

need to know about these white people. We have

27:01

to stop teaching the history of white people, okay?

27:04

Because it's this, that, or the other thing. We

27:06

can't ever mention straight people, it's evil. Like,

27:09

that's the kind of weirdo stuff the Republicans do,

27:11

and just own it, just own it, fight me

27:13

on it, okay? But

27:14

then, let's agree on paid family leave, let's

27:16

agree on corruption, let's agree on taking

27:18

money out of politics. So, I'm not going to baby

27:20

you and I'm not going to vote for Trump or

27:23

any of these

27:24

right wing zealots, right? But

27:26

once we have the voting is done, will I vote

27:28

with Matt Gaetz? Would I counsel AOC

27:30

or Ro Khanna to vote with Matt Gaetz on his anti-corruption

27:32

bill? Yes, I would, because I'll

27:35

take yes for an answer.

27:37

Okay. I

27:40

still feel that from my perspective,

27:42

you're in a fairly polemic position, however, I

27:45

will move past that because I don't want to just relitigate

27:47

that the entire thing.

27:49

In terms of tactics, so

27:52

like if you ran for, no, no, extra, hold on, one last thing, sorry. Can

27:55

you name me an oddest Republican? Like,

27:57

name me an oddest Republican? voting

28:00

that I could vote for. Yeah. That

28:02

is not going to steal my money and give it to corporate donors

28:05

and that is not going to drive anti-LGBTQ

28:08

bills all throughout the country and

28:10

is not going to do this horrible rhetoric that

28:12

they do. Name me one decent person and

28:14

then we'll have a conversation. Okay. I

28:17

mean, like a few months ago I interviewed, I mean, it's a local

28:19

guy. Is that okay or does this have to be like a federal position?

28:22

Oh, I see. Well, the local guys, I'm not

28:24

going to know. Okay. Yeah.

28:27

I don't really keep a list in my pocket of like

28:30

honest politicians for this reason. I don't like to put

28:32

my faith in princes. So I do kind of think

28:34

that the back to that distinction we made

28:36

of voter versus politician, I think 99% of

28:39

voters deep down believe it's better for me

28:41

to make the compromise

28:44

to stay in office and be on the inside. So

28:46

people that didn't like Trump suddenly

28:49

like Trump over time. But

28:53

I do reject the premise that there's like

28:56

a good party and a bad party and it's monolithic

28:59

and we're like, I've talked to conservatives

29:01

and I've fought with them about this incidentally, where

29:04

I went on a big show about two years ago

29:06

where they were, no, it was four years ago now

29:08

because it was in the presidential elections. They were ranking Democratic

29:12

presidential candidates. And

29:15

like I came in with notes and stuff to talk about who I

29:17

liked and who I didn't like and it became very clear very quickly

29:19

that they were like, every single

29:21

Democrat is worse than the worst Republican.

29:24

And I was like, well, that's just crazy. Like there are

29:27

Republicans and Democrats that I would vote for. Like

29:29

right now there are Democrats, Republicans that I would vote

29:31

for. I'd look at it person by person, but the

29:33

idea that there's just kind of like the evil team that

29:35

must be stopped, that's the fundamental thing. Or

29:38

can I back up a little bit? Do you really think there's just two teams?

29:41

Like is it that reductive? Do you think there are more

29:43

than two teams? No. As

29:45

we talked about earlier, there are many teams, many factions,

29:48

and the biggest one is the UNI party and it's all a

29:50

fake fight to begin with. But guys,

29:52

like on the social issues, we're probably at an impasse

29:55

because a lot of conservatives

29:59

will not vote. for anyone who says

30:01

that trans

30:04

people should have equal rights, right? And so,

30:06

yeah, the hatred

30:08

of that group is so overwhelming

30:11

that it just clouds their judgment, in my opinion, okay?

30:14

And I'm not going to vote for anyone that says,

30:16

well, I'm going to take away some of your rights.

30:19

No, no deal, never. Okay?

30:22

So we are very much, I think we're probably

30:24

in agreement on all social issues, we're very close. We could

30:26

find some of the equivalent about, but you and I are

30:28

both very, very pluralistic,

30:30

tolerant, I

30:32

would say hedonist of like, as

30:35

long as you're not hurting anybody, do whatever you want. So I think

30:37

we're probably on the same board there. But like, I

30:39

do think you could make inroads with conservatives on

30:41

that. Like I'm from Oklahoma. Like

30:43

if I were trying to pitch a conservative on this, I

30:46

would be like, look, I'm

30:48

from Oklahoma. And it's very important

30:50

to me to treat people politely

30:52

and respectfully. That's part of our culture. And

30:54

part of that is that I'm going to identify

30:57

people however they want, because that's basic etiquette.

31:00

And if they're not hurting anybody in their own home, by

31:02

God as an American, it's your right to do whatever

31:04

you want. But I think that that's a better tactic

31:06

than going like, look, you're just fundamentally

31:08

a bigot, and you guys are evil, and you need to quit being

31:10

you and become us. I think

31:13

that there's a better way to bring them over to the

31:15

position that doesn't attack their core identity.

31:18

Yeah, Andrew, I actually totally agree with that.

31:20

And so let me give you a couple of examples of

31:22

how I'm balanced there that you, I

31:24

don't, some of your audience might be surprised

31:26

by. So, for

31:28

example, some of the trans activists online now

31:31

think that I'm a Republican and and

31:33

borderline Nazi because of my some

31:35

of my views on transition. So what

31:37

are my really controversial opinions

31:40

against trans rights according to them? One

31:42

is that even though I think trans girls should

31:44

be allowed to play in high school sports, I don't want kids

31:47

having their genitals checked by anybody,

31:49

any grownups, etc. I

31:51

think the professional leagues get to make their own

31:53

decisions. And if they want to exclude

31:55

trans women, for example, from the WNBA, I think

31:58

that's WNBA's purpose.

31:59

Okay,

32:01

and trans activists some not all

32:03

but some trans activists say how dare you you

32:06

Nazi? We have to force all the sports

32:08

leagues to take trans women.

32:10

Sorry. I don't agree I don't agree and

32:12

you're not gonna get me to agree

32:13

and by the way neither does 98% of America No,

32:16

that's not one maybe surround somewhere

32:18

between 70 to 90 percent on the other

32:20

one like my co-host Anna Kaczparian

32:23

said that Hey, I don't want to be called

32:25

a birthing person or a person with a uterus. I I'm

32:28

a woman and I want to be called a woman

32:30

and that apparently also meet her

32:32

and me by association Nazis,

32:34

etc. And

32:35

That's insane. So

32:38

in and I tell my left-wing allies

32:40

such as they are

32:41

If they consider me allies and that's questionable

32:44

at this point

32:47

Ninety-eight percent of Americans want to be called

32:49

a woman and not a person with a uterus and

32:52

if you call ninety percent of America's Nazis

32:55

One you're wrong Okay,

32:58

and number two you're kind of a dumb-dumb

33:01

and so you're gonna lose every election

33:03

and

33:03

and by the way You're not gonna protect

33:06

trans rights and Andrew to your point

33:08

two-thirds of Americans including a lot of decent

33:11

Honorable conservatives and certainly

33:14

tons of independence Say no

33:16

trans people should have the same rights. They should have the same rights

33:18

in employment housing all of

33:20

these things So we're disagreeing around

33:23

the edges and those edges

33:25

are what's like long Minuscule

33:27

issues that then drive

33:30

the hatred and that drive the division.

33:32

Yeah, right So I'm trying to get past

33:35

those miniscule issues now. They're

33:37

also large issues like crime

33:39

Where I do not have the standard

33:42

Left-wing position and I've taken

33:44

tremendous heat for that as well But

33:46

I believe in common sense that I believe in justice

33:48

for all not just some

33:51

and So what I tell conservatives

33:53

all the time is when we get when we fight for

33:55

higher wages for all Americans We're not

33:57

dirtbags. We're not gonna be like oh, but not right

33:59

wingers Don't give the audience any raises.

34:02

No, it's higher wages for everyone.

34:05

You can't have justice for some. It

34:07

creates an imbalance and

34:10

it creates conflict. You have to have justice for

34:12

all, and that means all of us. Great. So

34:15

let's move on. I want to move on to stuff that we agree

34:17

on, because I actually think there's a lot of overlap. But

34:20

I will say that I think that you've hit the head on

34:22

kind of the crux of the problem

34:24

that I have with the book is I think that

34:27

I would, I have a greater

34:29

range of good faith arguments that I'm engaging

34:32

in, in the same way that you bring up AB5 and

34:34

there were well-intentioned people that were

34:36

opposed to that, and there are people

34:38

that would identify as conservative that we would

34:40

view as pro-transgender or pro-equality.

34:44

I see that as much larger. And

34:46

I think you typically, or you

34:48

tend to conflate the Republican Party with

34:50

what I view as like the lowest 10% of

34:53

it, whereas I tend to tend to view it as the better

34:55

part. That being said, I want

34:59

to see how much we agree on, because I actually suspect it's

35:01

a lot. Let's talk about drugs.

35:04

I would immediately legalize marijuana

35:07

and all psychedelics, and I think I'd probably

35:09

decriminalize everything else and treat it as a medical problem.

35:11

What would you do? So

35:14

marijuana, obviously. All

35:16

the politicians always say day one, and they never do

35:19

anything, and it took Biden three years

35:21

to reclassify marijuana.

35:23

Yeah, and Schumer

35:26

wouldn't do it because it wasn't quite good enough, but it's like, you

35:28

could do it right now. You could do it right now, Schumer. Like

35:31

it's, and by the way, the Democratic

35:34

leadership is so wrong so

35:36

often. 70% of Americans want

35:38

to legalize marijuana, period, period, period.

35:41

What part of 70% don't you guys

35:44

understand? Like, I've

35:47

threatened to run for president. We'll see how that turns

35:49

out in a couple of days. And

35:52

if I run for president, I'm going to do something radical. I'm

35:54

going to say, I'm only going to do popular

35:57

things. So if you...

36:00

You know, if you're left wing and you want me to defund

36:02

the police, I'm not going to do it. And get

36:04

it to 70%, then great. We'll have

36:06

a conversation. You're a right winger and you want to

36:08

like, I don't know, put up electric fences and

36:10

alligators at the border. No, sorry, not going to do it. Get

36:12

it to 70%. Okay, I'm not going to do it. But

36:14

I'm going to do things that are super

36:17

popular and have been, no other politician does

36:19

because they're controlled by corporations.

36:21

So there's

36:22

a very interesting position

36:24

to only do things that everybody already

36:27

agrees with, which by the way, there's a lot. There's

36:29

so much stuff. Like, like there's a phrase, I think,

36:32

drink Lindsay used it, low hanging fruit

36:34

guarded by dragons. Like, there are a lot

36:36

of things like marijuana is an example of this where

36:38

like, if you were to do basic polling, the American people

36:40

are like, what? Like you could talk to Oklahoma

36:43

where I'm from legalized it. And it was

36:45

because you start to talk, you start to talk to like random

36:47

people at Oklahoma. They're like, is it my own guy's

36:49

own garage? And they're like, yeah. And they're like, is it

36:51

significantly different than alcohol? I have people are less

36:53

violent. Okay. Like, that's

36:56

the common position.

36:58

Yeah. So last thing on this. So

37:00

marijuana is a layup and these idiot

37:02

Democrats are problems that don't do it or afford.

37:05

And it's like we put millions of people in jail

37:07

to go away their freedom to go away their freedom

37:10

based on the equivalent of having a course like right?

37:12

Yeah. So it turns like the drug psychedelics

37:15

and the art of drugs that that I would then

37:17

see counsel if

37:19

I were the president. Okay. And

37:22

so psychedelics, I have in a similar place that you

37:24

do. But I would want to confirm that

37:26

I wouldn't want to see I would want to read more. The studies

37:28

should absolutely sure before we declassify

37:31

or reclassify. But I think that they've been

37:33

demonized in a way that is nonsensical.

37:37

So but I would want to confirm that in terms of

37:39

the art of drugs like Maffin federal, it's

37:41

literally killing us. And so I'm not sure

37:43

decriminalizing is the right path there. But

37:46

I would look at all solutions to actually attack

37:49

that scourge because they they

37:51

those things kill people and no

37:53

as ifs or buts. And we have to find

37:56

the best way to fight them as

37:58

yet some ways might be counterintuitive.

37:59

But but

38:01

I would need a lot more study of and

38:03

research to verify the right

38:05

path and again I think you probably have the

38:07

kind of median voter position I am an outlier

38:09

in that regard from my perspective It's not even

38:12

so much a deontological position that like

38:14

you should be able to like I do base I do think you own

38:16

your own body However, I look at it

38:18

and go I think the cure is worse than the the the

38:20

the disease at the moment with drugs Like people are still

38:22

dying from fentanyl

38:24

Okay, it sounds like we've got some overlap

38:26

there from from your perspective if

38:28

I am for Decriminalizing

38:31

everything and treating it as a medical problem. Am I more

38:33

progressive am I am I radical?

38:35

Like how would like it sounds to me

38:37

like you're the moderate and I'm the progressive on

38:39

this issue where I'm more progressive How would

38:42

you phrase that? Yeah, I think that it's

38:44

fair to say that you're more aggressive on that issue that

38:46

I am. Yeah, okay Let's

38:48

see here I think we probably have very

38:50

similar outlook on the military which is that we don't

38:53

need to be everywhere And we don't need to spend half

38:55

of the global defense budget that we could get by

38:57

on a much smaller military Yeah,

38:59

so there's a lot of devil in those details. So I

39:01

wouldn't miss the basis I would look at one

39:04

by one day, but I think I don't think that's

39:06

where the most of the money goes from I don't think that's where

39:08

most of the problem is. I think

39:10

the biggest problem is our wars of

39:12

offense Where we needlessly

39:15

start wars. We have no business being involved

39:17

in

39:18

and so we definitely have agreement there.

39:20

Secondly

39:21

The Pentagon never passes an audit

39:23

half their budget, which is gigantic

39:25

about 400 Some odd billion

39:28

dollars they go. Well, I don't know where it went.

39:30

No brothers. You're gonna fight You're gonna find

39:32

out you're gonna tell us where that goddamn money

39:34

went. If not, you're not getting it Okay,

39:37

there is no such thing as oops,

39:39

honey I lost 400 billion dollars

39:42

and I lost it every single year year

39:44

after year and I'm not gonna be accountable

39:47

to the American people and I'm gonna put their

39:49

money in a trash and I'm gonna burn

39:51

it. Of course. They about doing that. They're stuffing it into

39:53

their corrupt pockets The Pentagon is

39:56

easily the most corrupt part of the government.

39:58

I mean we would say Pentagon. We're also including like defense

40:00

contractors and just the military industrial

40:02

complex in general. Yeah, yeah. And guys, look,

40:05

the Pentagon is not the core of the problem.

40:07

The defense contractors are the core of the problem. Agreed.

40:10

Yeah. Okay. And so they co-off the Pentagon

40:12

by getting the generals fat

40:15

contracts the minute they retire, right?

40:18

So almost all the generals go work for

40:20

defense contractors, get paid millions of

40:22

dollars by them. And so when

40:24

they're in office, when they're in a, when

40:26

they're generally, to make up a

40:28

fun word, and they

40:31

know in the back of their heads, these

40:33

guys are going to make me rich. So

40:35

I better funnel hundreds of billions of dollars to them and

40:37

who gives a damn if the thing works or doesn't

40:39

work, or if we can keep track of

40:41

the money, who cares? These guys are going

40:43

to pay for my house in McLean

40:46

and Fairfax, okay? So

40:48

that's the corruption nobody in mainstream

40:50

media talks about. Okay. I

40:53

think we're probably in agreement on that, the military industrial

40:55

complex. We're probably very similar on like

40:57

prison industrial complex. A

41:00

lot of the things in the book, I think the vast majority of people,

41:02

including you and me, we agree on, which is that courts shouldn't

41:04

show preference based on skin color. I don't

41:06

think you use the phrase corporate cronyism, but what I would call

41:09

corporate cronyism of the government giving hands out

41:11

to large corporations are both very opposed to that. Command

41:14

economy. Do you think that the government should be saying

41:16

how much steel we produce, or we should be investing

41:18

more in solar panels

41:21

versus in natural gas

41:23

or something else? Like how active do you want top down

41:25

management of the economy to be? Okay.

41:28

Almost not at all. I'll

41:30

get to almost in a second. Okay. Okay.

41:32

But in terms of command economy,

41:35

hell no. Like the

41:37

no government has shown the ability to run

41:40

a central economy efficiently

41:43

over the course of time and set up the right

41:45

incentives and disincentives. It

41:47

almost always deviles into a dictatorship.

41:50

No interest in the command economy at all. I

41:52

call myself a democratic capitalist and

41:55

you're absolutely right about the cronyism and I did

41:57

mention it in at least one or

41:59

two parts. the book. You know, you bring up the concept

42:01

multiple times to be sure, to be sure. Yeah. Yeah.

42:04

Yeah. And in terms of the term, I mainly

42:06

call it corporatism. Right. Yeah. But it's the same

42:08

thing. Chronic capitalism and corporatism is the same

42:11

thing. Okay. And so I'm dead

42:13

set against that. I think the great majority

42:15

of the subsidies we have are horseshit and

42:18

are just nothing but corruption where,

42:20

you know, whether it's big sugar,

42:22

and that sounds funny, but it's true. Oh, no, for

42:24

sure. It's like two guys in Florida get

42:27

like $10 billion a year for a

42:29

substance that makes us know healthier that Almighty

42:32

God never intended to grow in America to begin

42:34

with. Like it's a ridiculous subsidy. 100%. All

42:38

those subsidies are garbage. The

42:40

oil companies still get to about $1

42:43

billion here. Why? They're

42:45

the most profitable companies in the history of the world.

42:47

And I have to take my tax money and

42:50

give it to those sons of bitches who

42:52

I happen to think are destroying the world.

42:54

No, I do not want to do that. The only

42:57

part that's the almost is sometimes

42:59

there are nascent industries, which

43:01

by the way, the oil gas industry was about 100

43:03

years ago. Okay. Where

43:06

you go, Hey, needs a little startup capital

43:08

here. And the markets are not perfectly efficient

43:11

in providing the startup capital. But

43:13

by the way, when Americans provide

43:15

the startup capital, we should also get equity

43:17

in those companies. So why we always

43:19

give the subsidies, but we never get the money back.

43:22

Then for the ones that don't work, all of our

43:24

money is gone. For the ones that do work, they

43:26

keep all the profits. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. That's

43:28

not how capitalism works. So the

43:31

government acting as a

43:34

startup fund.

43:36

So sort of an incubator in terms of industries

43:39

that don't have capital. Like I brought on the

43:41

former VP of NASA

43:43

and her take on it was that eventually

43:45

you actually want to hand stuff over to the private sector,

43:48

but there's an initial period where there's

43:50

not sufficient capital and NASA does a good job of

43:52

doing that. So 100%. And I'll give

43:54

you an even bigger example of this a little

43:57

bit adjacent here topic,

43:59

which is. the banks in 2008. I

44:02

would have nationalized all of them. Well, you would have

44:04

nationalized them? Like we'd have a national bank of...

44:06

Yeah, hold on. Okay, you lost me. Hold

44:08

on, hold on. Hear me out. Okay, sorry.

44:11

Okay, so I wouldn't nationalize

44:13

them because they were deeply incompetent.

44:16

They crashed the American economy, the entire

44:18

global economy, and maybe those

44:21

arrogant pricks demanded bonuses for

44:24

crashing the economy and costing us what, 14

44:26

million jobs?

44:27

But the only reason to nationalize them

44:29

is not to keep them. It's

44:32

to straight out the ship and

44:34

go, okay, once we are going to release

44:36

you back into the market, make it private again,

44:39

we provided the capital, the

44:41

American people did. So we're going to

44:43

own some percentage of it, solid partner, we got

44:45

no, I don't want any government officials, all you

44:47

gotta run your bank.

44:48

Okay. But

44:50

hey, American people put up all the money,

44:53

all the money, and where is it right now? It's a Goldman

44:55

Sachs hands, it's a JP Morgan, Chase's hands,

44:57

what the hell is our ship? Right? So

45:00

I would have cleaned them up, gotten a

45:02

huge percentage of the equity for the American people

45:04

because it's their money,

45:05

and then made them private again. So maybe like,

45:08

I don't know that I would have been in favor of

45:10

the bailouts because I'm worried about economic

45:13

term that escapes me this time. But basically,

45:17

like, look, we're going to give you the money, but what we're

45:19

in effect doing is we're buying, the American

45:21

government by giving you this money is buying shares in your

45:23

company. You don't have to take it. But if you want it, we

45:26

are now on the board and the American

45:28

government is going to play the stewardship role with the money

45:30

we are giving you that gives us buy

45:32

in at the table. And then once we get it to a certain

45:34

point, we'll leave something to that effect. 100%. And

45:37

I give you another example that's even more actionable

45:39

and very easy to do that we don't do. The

45:41

drug companies, we help them with their research

45:44

at universities

45:46

that American government finances, we give

45:48

them direct money from the US government

45:51

to finance research. And okay,

45:53

I love it. They create a lot of great drugs that we need.

45:56

But wait a minute, why don't we get any of the profits

45:59

if we paid for the

45:59

research and development. And we paid

46:02

for you to, quote unquote, create that drug

46:04

you didn't even created. After time it was government scientists

46:07

that created it. The American

46:09

taxpayer that pay for it doesn't get any money. The

46:12

drug company executives get all the money. Why?

46:14

Why does he make any sense at all?

46:16

So yes, we need the

46:19

reason I call it democratic capitalism,

46:21

Andrew is because democracy

46:24

needs to check capitalism.

46:26

Otherwise, it runs amok and becomes

46:28

corporatism, crony capitalism, etc.

46:31

They capture the government. No, the government has to be

46:33

in charge. And that but it has to be

46:35

an honest government, whether you represent

46:37

is actually represent you and

46:39

demand the equity from

46:41

those drug companies, banks, etc. when we endlessly

46:44

bail them out. So in the book,

46:46

one of the other things that I like that I was surprised by,

46:48

and I'm glad that you set the record straight with me because I

46:51

I was mis I was laboring under a misconception

46:53

about you. You say you are a capitalist,

46:55

you believe in free enterprise and markets.

46:58

You talk about human nature. And I agree with you that people

47:02

want to work the least amount of hours to maximize

47:05

the most of the money that they're going to get and that that's

47:07

something essential to human nature. And for that

47:09

reason, some things just work better in the private

47:12

sector. We're in agreement

47:14

on all of that. You've

47:16

I think when you were running for Congress, Bernie Sanders endorsed

47:19

you. He seems like he's kind of on your wing of things.

47:21

I do not get that vibe from Bernie Sanders.

47:23

Like if we were we're both

47:25

running for office or whatever, and you come in and you're like, Hey,

47:28

I'm a capitalist, I think markets work. I just want

47:30

to make sure that if the if the government's paying a corporation,

47:33

the American people get equity in it. And you

47:35

know, anti

47:37

competitive behaviors, the FTC regulates

47:40

that and fraud and things like, okay, great, negative

47:42

externalities. But like with with Bernie Sanders

47:44

and those folks, I get a very strong just markets

47:46

are evil. Markets are inherently

47:49

exploitative that really turns me off. Am

47:51

I missing something like like with Bernie

47:53

Sanders describe himself as a capitalist? No,

47:56

he wouldn't. But let me explain

47:58

the difference. So, first

48:01

of all, the word socialism is gravely misunderstood.

48:04

It's applied to everything and there's no

48:06

distinctions that are made. It's like the

48:09

conversation we had about Republican voters and

48:11

Republican factions in the beginning. So as

48:13

well as socialist, and I think it's a disaster. Finland

48:17

is socialist and I think it's a lovely country.

48:19

In fact, almost all Northern Europe is considered

48:21

socialist and Northern Europe has

48:24

the happiest countries in the world. So

48:26

at the beginning of the conversation, I said we were going to use

48:29

your terms and labels today, so I will accept

48:31

this definition. Although I would normally equivalent,

48:33

could you please define socialism for us at this

48:35

time so I know what label I am using?

48:38

Yeah.

48:38

So, so I think what Bernie is

48:41

advocating for is the same kind of what,

48:43

whether whatever label you put on it, he

48:45

puts the label democratic socialist on

48:48

countries like Denmark, Finland, Norway,

48:50

and their economic model,

48:52

which is in reality, of course, a mixed economy.

48:54

Yeah. Because if you don't have a mixed economy, you

48:56

either have out of control capitalism, which will last

48:59

a couple of years until the president of corporatism. Okay.

49:02

Or you'll have communism and

49:04

communism. There is no private property, complete

49:07

state control, et cetera.

49:09

So both socialism and what we colloquially

49:11

call capitalism

49:13

are some versions of a mixed economy.

49:15

And the question is how mixed, what

49:18

should be private and what should be public. Right.

49:21

And so

49:22

the reason I say there isn't much difference between

49:24

Bernie's democratic socialism and my

49:26

democratic capitalism is because as

49:29

things stand today in America, we both

49:31

agree to very popular policies

49:33

like paid family leave, where

49:37

the government helps a little bit around

49:39

the edges. You got a baby, you need 12 weeks

49:41

off, et cetera. Northern European countries

49:44

do that, universal healthcare, almost

49:46

all developed countries do that, but America doesn't. And

49:49

we want to get there. Where we would diverge

49:51

later if in this fantastical

49:53

world, whether I won or Bernie's

49:57

won and then we're having it disputes later.

50:00

is if Bernie went further,

50:02

which I suspect he would, right? And

50:05

said,

50:06

well, I think that the government can handle this

50:08

well a little bit better. I think that monopoly

50:10

should be broken up. And we might have disagreements

50:13

around the edges.

50:14

But I don't think I

50:15

know Bernie's not saying government

50:18

takes over, you don't have private property, I got

50:20

your car now. Okay,

50:23

no, they're not saying that. There are some

50:25

who say that, but not really in

50:27

standard American politics. Like even AOC,

50:29

et cetera, doesn't say that. While I disagreed

50:32

with a lot of the tactics in your book, I think the phrase democratic

50:34

capitalism is a much better one than

50:36

democratic socialism. The

50:39

economic definition that I have normally

50:41

is the government owns and controls the means

50:44

of production. So I would like, Northern Europe, I would say

50:46

is a market economy with

50:48

a social safety net. And so

50:50

if you were to say, I am a democratic capitalist

50:52

who wants a social safety net, I'm like, hey, me too, that

50:55

sounds great.

50:55

Okay, that is,

50:57

so it sounds like, I know we're about to run out

50:59

of time, and I know you're very, very busy man. So I

51:01

don't want to soak up too much of it. But I will say

51:03

you've indicated to me, you're flirting with

51:05

a run for the presidency.

51:08

First, can you legally do that? Like you

51:11

were born in Istanbul to Turkish parents, is there

51:13

a legal route for you to do it? Or would it be like

51:16

a protest thing if you go?

51:18

Yeah, no, no. So this

51:20

is an enormous misconception. And one of the

51:22

reasons I'm very seriously considering the

51:24

reality,

51:25

we have 25 million Americans

51:27

who are naturalized citizens. And every

51:29

one of us has heard, hi, you can't run

51:31

for president, right? And we probably

51:34

like just ask anyone in

51:36

that category, we've all probably heard that

51:38

about 200 times in our lives, whether

51:40

we come from Britain, or we come from,

51:42

you know, Cuba, or

51:45

Turkey, doesn't matter, we all hear the same exact thing.

51:47

And it's an interesting thing that unites us. And it turns

51:50

out,

51:50

I read the case law, it's not at all

51:52

true. It's the Schneider v.

51:55

Rusk says the Fifth Amendment

51:57

amended the earlier part of the constitution. institution

52:01

naturalized citizens have 100% of

52:04

the same rights

52:05

as natural war citizens. Interesting and

52:07

it is the case flows Overwhelming.

52:10

So what I'm gonna do is if I run I'm

52:12

gonna run and I'm gonna take it to the Supreme

52:14

Court and Very very likely

52:16

I will win and yeah, I win.

52:19

We partly liberated 25 million Americans

52:22

You know, I'm totally unfamiliar with the case law

52:24

so I can't speak to that, but I would

52:26

love that outcome I think it's a stupid activism

52:28

I think the original reason it was put in was we were

52:30

afraid that like a Prince would come

52:33

over young for president and like like

52:35

if I think it's ridiculous like like how

52:37

old were you when you moved To the United States I

52:39

was eight. Okay, so can you're

52:42

you were here as far as I've been here? There's absolutely no

52:44

reason there should be any difference between us in terms of our legal

52:46

abilities to run for office Yeah, and I'll just

52:49

like Larry like Arnold Schwarzenegger like if he wanted to run for

52:51

president right now I would put him well ahead of all

52:53

the other Republicans By the way, he does

52:55

want to run for president really? Yeah,

52:58

and so my guess is my two biggest

53:01

allies are going to be Arnold Schwarzenegger

53:03

and Elon Musk Both naturalized

53:06

citizens both think that they can't run

53:08

when in fact they can I don't want

53:10

to be long running Arnold other hands kind of an

53:12

interesting character. Okay But

53:15

but it doesn't matter what I want. What

53:17

matters is democracy the Constitution

53:20

and what is fair and I'll give you last examples here

53:23

Ted lose a congressman from California Colonel

53:26

in the United States Air Force Okay

53:28

came here when he was three years old and grew up in Cleveland,

53:31

right? Is he really loyal to the Taiwanese

53:33

government? That's insane, right? Yeah Rahm

53:35

Emanuel served in the Israeli Defense Forces,

53:38

but was born in America. So he's

53:40

allowed to run even though he served in a foreign

53:42

military

53:44

Patrick but David a right-ringer podcaster

53:47

Came here when he was around I think 12 years

53:49

old or in that ballpark 8 to 12

53:52

He's an Armenian Christian from Iran He

53:55

served in the hundred and first airborne,

53:58

but he's not allowed to run. Yeah Or

54:00

we could flip it, Winston Churchill and Boris Johnson

54:02

were both eligible to run for president because Winston

54:04

Churchill's mom was American, Boris Johnson's

54:07

mom was American. So they both, even

54:09

though they were clearly British and never lived in the

54:11

United States, had more legal rights than any

54:13

of the people you previously described. Yeah,

54:15

and the idea that Patrick B. David is more loyal

54:17

to Iran is hilarious and

54:19

not remotely true, right? So

54:22

everybody knows it's unfair, they just don't know

54:24

that the case law agrees with them.

54:25

So we're going to try to fix that.

54:27

That is fascinating and

54:30

I'll let you go, you've been very generous with your time, Cenk.

54:33

Cenk, I really enjoyed talking to

54:35

you. You're a big figure in media, you're an independent

54:37

guy in media. I

54:39

am very glad that we could figure out ways

54:41

to talk and kind of get along and I

54:43

feel the world's a little bit nicer having

54:46

us talk. So thanks for coming on. No

54:49

problem. So if people want to get the book, they can

54:51

go to tyt.com slash

54:53

justice. TYT is obviously short for

54:55

the young term. So tyt.com slash

54:57

justice. The book's called Justice is Coming.

55:00

And then stick around,

55:03

Google Cenk Uygur in a couple of days, see what happens.

55:05

And Andrew, it

55:07

was a lovely conversation. I love having

55:10

intellectual conversations

55:11

where we

55:13

agree on what we agree on and agree on what

55:15

we disagree on and we act

55:18

like Americans and sort things out with

55:20

our ideas. Hey, if you ever want anybody

55:22

to be that AB5 goes too far

55:24

type dude to come on and hang out and

55:26

explain my qualms about things from a benevolent

55:29

position, I'm happy to do that. If you're in Austin,

55:31

Texas, look me up

55:32

and good luck. Thank you, Andrew.

55:35

Appreciate it. Okay,

55:38

that went pretty well, right?

55:40

Patrons, I would love to hear what you thought of Cenk

55:42

in the comments.

55:43

I

55:44

don't think we would be in the same political party,

55:46

even if we get rid of all the labels and things. I

55:49

think there are some significant differences,

55:52

but maybe the show could have been more argumentative,

55:54

but at least it wasn't dumb arguments, right? We

55:57

didn't end up shouting each other over dumb stuff.

56:00

Non-patrons, real quick, do me a favor.

56:02

Google Cenk Young Turks, that's

56:04

spelled C-E-N-K, Young Turks. Try

56:07

to find an interview Cenk has done

56:09

where they didn't end up shouting at each other or

56:11

interrupting each other, because I think I

56:13

have actually accomplished something very novel today

56:16

in today's chat. If you agree,

56:19

please go to patreon.com slash

56:21

Andrew Heaton. You will not only keep the operation

56:24

alive and luminous, you will get bonus

56:26

episodes. Finally,

56:28

for anybody new to the program,

56:30

given today's content, given the kickoff

56:33

about plebiscism, I highly, highly

56:35

recommend you check out an episode of this program

56:38

called, Was Abraham Lincoln

56:40

Left-Wing or Right-Wing? In which I

56:42

interview Hiram Lewis on his book, The

56:45

Myth of the Left-Right Spectrum. I think that that

56:47

would, that largely countermands

56:49

most of the problems I would have had with the worldview

56:52

purported today. And I have linked to that episode

56:54

in today's episode description.

56:57

Okay, that's the show.

56:59

Thanks for listening.

57:01

Thank you, Eric Stipe, who edited today's

57:03

episode. Thank you, Cenk Uygur,

57:05

for coming on. Until next time,

57:08

I've been Andrew Heaton, and so have you.