Mark Levin — syndicated radio host of The Mark Levin Show, the Mark Levin Podcast, LevinTV on BlazeTV, and best selling author of "Unfreedom of the Press" — joins me to discuss media bias, Trump, China, the Constitution, federalism, education, why conservatism works, and much more. Date: 06-23-2019
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Autocracies, a bad thing whether it's practice, one on one in the playground or weather, is practiced by government, and that's why I started to say well I'd like liberty. I, like individualism like to be left alone, like that how to do what I want to do and if that's the way you think big government and left is not hey and welcome. This is the Ben Shapiro show Sunday special. I am super excited to welcome to the show the great one Mark Levin author of the brand new book on freedom of the press, we're gonna get to all of our questions. Marchal in just one second, but first something topics in life are uncomfortable to talk about. Sex is one of those things, but sex is also one of the most important things in life, especially in the context of marriage study, show that seventy percent of due to experience erectile dysfunction, don't get treated for it. For just that reason, it can be awkward to discuss, but sometimes things just don't work. The way they are supposed to it's. A medical problem and, something to get solved, not something to be ashamed of. That's where our friends at Roman, to come in, thankfully roman
create an easy way to get checked out by a doctor and get traded for Ed online with Roman and get medical care for a g, if appropriate, from the comfort and privacy of your own home. You can handle everything online in a convenient, discreet manner. Getting started is really simple: just go to get Rome dot com, Slash Ben Online visit. If your doctor decides treatment would be appropriate, they can scribe genuine medication. They can be delivered in discreet packaging direct your door with free two day, shipping dudes go talk to the doctor wreck. Tell dysfunction can be really tough to tackle it's a really important get it checked out with Roman it's easy to back to the doctor. Just go to get roman dot com, Slash bent online visit and free two day, shipping that is get roman dot com slash span for a free visit, get started at G, a t, r, o m a n dot com. Slash then get roman dot com. Slash band, go check it out right now. Mark thanks. So much stopping by it's a great honor, great pleasure. So even you book out on freedom of the press, talk about really the history of the press and obviously this is become hot topic. Probably hot topic number one in the country, given President
Trump's use of the phrase fake news. So often so, let's talk a little bit about where we are with the press. So obviously you look at the polls. People hate the press, they don't trust. The press aside from the obvious, which is that the press is left wing, why do you think that that true was undermined because twenty years go people didn't trust the press? The press was similarly left wing. Get a lot more competition in the press today got the internet. You've got your show, you've got my show. You've got other platforms that are out there, a citizen go on the internet and get news from anywhere in the world different block because they may follow different sites. They may follow and then they're watching CNN, not particularly bright people just pounding away, pounding away the same thing everyday and from one perspective, there's no diversity in the newsroom. There's no diversity on these stations, and also they combine news with opinion. You cannot tell who the news host is for the most point on CNN or MSNBC
The same. Blurring is occurring at the New York Times and the Washington Post between their news and editorial pages, and it's particularly crystallized now, because they so hate Trump. They can't control themselves and and I'll tell you they hate Trump and they can't control themselves. In many ways it's become. Political that is they play like to the Democrat Party base, that's where they play for the ratings and they're, not getting any that's where they play for their hits, and it's not that I just happen now this has been building. This is an ideology. That's also taught in many of the journalism schools most of the play didn't go to journalism school. Let him come out of the Democrat Party or Democrat Administration, some Republicans, but mostly the other and they come with an ideological point of view, and there's. This whole new movement called Social Activism journalism. They called public journalism community journalism, but it is what it is and they're pushing the progressive
agenda, and they say a lot of these guys, stop hiding this but trust there would have been a civil rights Movement actually there was, but for them. But for us you know women would have voted well, actually they would have an, but for us there wouldn't be Obamacare, so we should- badly say who we are and interpret the news and analyze the news and give it to the public who are number one too stupid. They think we're too busy to under and it anyway, so this whole notion of objective truth seeking for the most is dying on the vine. Do you think that it was better when people call themselves objective truth seekers there's sort of this weird bifurcation. In conservative thought about what the media should be. There's some of us I'm on the side. That says, don't even bother to pretend you're objective. Just give me who you are I'd rather listen to your show or my show, or even pod, save America where they say: okay, here's where we are democratic staffers, and this is what you think about the issues then have to hear for Chris Cuomo, on lemon, pretending that they represent some sort of higher objective truth, and then there folks say: well, you know the problem there
the inflation. What we do need is journalists going to get back to objective journalism ng What do you think is the solution here? Is it going back to sort of the founding era partisan papers or is it the pursuit of actual objective journalism? And this is the core of it? It's a great point I think they're fighting among themselves in their newsrooms? Do we come out of the closet fully and say who we are or do we continue to pretend that we're nonpartisan an objective in about a hundred years ago? The rise of the progressive movement also infected the so called press. We had the party press where they're very transparent. You had papers like the Arkansas Democrat Gazette in the Arizona at now, the Arizona Republic they aligned with political part season, candidates and ideologies really starting about one thousand. Seven hundred and eighty moving into the beginning of the civil war the beginning of the last century. You had this progressive and they were not going to leave the press alone John Dewey and others and so they decided, we will
decide really what the news is we of the masterminds and so forth. People going to run. The government run the economy, we're going to run the media too, and, clipping is very outspoken about this. He was iconic at the time reporter and he said so we're going to apply a scientific approach, a knowledge approach to all of this will gather. The information then will determine what the public needs to know will use her intelligence to tell very busy public with the news is so this has been going on for about a century, but the difference today is this fight. That's going on on the left, which really has pretty much been Control of news is as an aggregate and it's whether or not to be very blunt about it or not, and I think you can see that playing out on television too, and this the commingling of news and opinion you can see that playing out on television to the answer is technology. The answer is.
Progressive creativity, not ideology, progressive creativity, because what is technology technology is this technology is the brain technology is: is people trying to figure out how to do things differently? How to do things better to improve upon what is, and you can see some of that now on the internet, these new platforms- and I was George Gilder, who I had on my my fox- show not that long ago he said these current platforms, which in many ways our anti speech, Facebook, Google, what do you want to call. He said they're going to go by the wayside, because the Israelis and the japanese, air, working on new platforms- and this is why I have a problem. Sometimes when people say technology which puts Americans out of work. Technology is a threat to America. No technology is America, because the free of the country, the more technology, the more creativity, the more protein productivity. So we develop our ways out of these things. We think are ways out of these things. I make it
distinction between the modern mass media and a free press. A modern mass media is not upholding a free press there's nothing to the free press, other than government, not interfering, it's killing a free press, and that's why it's celebrate. Certain people who really know bodies like AOC, one of your favorites or tally borrow more Omar. These are really detestable people, but the media play them up. Immediate defend them and so forth versus others who they either ignore or they are they try to destroy. That's not free speech, so I think free speech is in good shape As long as we have technology development and no government interference, I think the mass media is in deep trouble. The New York Times would probably be of business today, but for a billionaire out of Mexico, telecommunications magnate about about twenty percent of it, Washington Post would be dead, but for Bizos buying.
CNN's ratings, are in the tank. Just a matter of time and MSNBC doesn't have a business plan after please, When you talk about the contrast between the media outlets and a free press- and you can certainly see that playing out even with the blade Stevie, where you do some more. You know fact, is that over the past few weeks, we've seen as box dot com openly and they they issued a letter to the editors issued a letter to you to be asking for them to re, write the rules to band Stephen Crowder, a comedian. Because one of their journalist was offended by jokes, that Crowder was making it's amazing to watch pseudo, journalistic outlets that are basically out. Let's call for the silencing of an enormous number of voices on the other side- and they don't- do it by going to the big tech companies and telling them to silence they don't just go to Facebook or Youtube. They also astroturf take again shows like yours, the Astro turf against shows like mine. They go after advertisers, they we do this routine, where Huffington, Post reporter will call up one of your advertisers and then say: do you agree with what mark within just sent on x? Well,
what is the matter of the advertiser thinks the advertiser advertises on lots of stuff, but there creating this. This pseudo journalistic patina, an activist court. I think that's. What's what's driving people up a wall, the greatest threat to free speech is this phony journalism? What is freedom of the press? It's attention of freedom of speech and really freedom of the press is sort of a commune, really the aggregate people communicating with each
Other I mean they're only press pushing for a revolution, pushing America's principles. Having debates having discussions, all that sort of thing the left has no tolerance for diversity of viewpoints has no tolerance for independent thinking. It believes in conformity and uniformity and so they're attacking these platforms, and these platforms are buckling if they don't believe in them themselves and promote that agenda. Youtube is going to die. If it follows box Youtube marginalize itself, Youtube will be viewed as just another left wing creation, another left wing, enterprise and half the country will leave it. Eighty percent of Republicans right now distrust the media. Eighty percent of Democrats, like the media, that's why I call it the Democratic Party meeting: that's what they are.
That's what they want to be. If you tube, wants to be an appendage to a crackpot, left wing, vicious individual and website, fine I'll, give you an example. I was absolutely flirting with the idea of putting my you're, showing you too. Now I won't do it. I want nothing to do with you to the way that they've treated Steven Crowder and please don't tell me you don't like what Crowder says or with the things he says I mean the left is embracing anti Semites. The left is embracing all kinds of cooks. You've come medians out there who said a hell of a lot worse and Crowder ever said two thousand and thirty forty years ago of comedians, who can't even go on college campuses anymore because of the speech codes and all the rest. That's going on. We support free speech. We support freedom of the press. We support competition because we think the american people are smart, they'll discern one, the other, what they like and what they don't like. What I think it ought to be done with some of these social media companies. There's a really interesting and sort of rich debate now happening in so
the conservative movement about Facebook and Youtube and Twitter particularly lot- folks saying these are monopolies now to be broken up some people suggesting that the government to come in and regulate them. I've made the argument in the past that either there former their publisher that they don't get to act like VOX dot com and then be treated. So there in Att phone line. Do you think that the government has any role here or will the free market should we just let the free market take its course, which is an argument certainly open to. I think the free market should take its course, but it's not. The government protects sites. So the government ought to remove the protection and now they're really in the free market. Let's see how they handle themselves with its litigation public opinion whatever it is, you too won't survive doing what it's doing. It's not going to survive, doing what it's doing it ought not be protected in any way. I feel the same way with the press since one thousand nine hundred and sixty four the Solomon case, you know we had a free. We very free, robust press before the Supreme Court jumped in
and when the even when we had the first amendment, originally, you still had they live a loss and so forth. You could still be sued under state libel laws, so there's no check whatsoever not on a free press. For an absolute outrageous comments, that's fine! So let that system play out that our legal system play up. I don't think these entities should be protected by federal law in any respect. Let them be out there with the rest of us and deal with the rest of the issues and figure out their business model that way the government's going to step in and do what exactly who's going to step in to do it. I get very nervous when Congress steps and it's filled with knuckleheads who do not respect the constant to Shin. You can see them today. Um you've had a number of ah of administrations that have wanted to kill talk. Radio you've had presidents, like Obama that wanted to kill fox you've. Had this nonsense about net neutral
those are the people who are now going to manage. I don't think that's any better. The market works no protections and let him die or live so in a second. I want to ask you about sort of broader ramifications of that conversation, particularly in the conservative movement. The battle between the so called nationalist, populist and sort of free market flash libertarian. Folks, now about then just one. Second, first, the fact is going to the post office a lot of good stuff at the Post office, but you know it's not fun actually being at the post office. Last time I was at the post office, I got a one hundred dollars ticket. Let me tell you something about LA you. Stop outside the post office for five set and you're in the red zone at all. They can clean up the most problem, but they will give you a traffic ticket like nobody's business. Who's got time for all that traffic, parking, lugging, all your mail and packages, it's a hassle, which is why you need stamps dot com, one of most pop your time, saving tools for small businesses, stamps dot, com, eliminates trips to the post office and saves you money with discounts. You can't even get at the post office,
stamps dot com brings all the amazing services of the Us Post Office, direct to your computer, with your small office, sending invoices or an online seller shipping out products, even a warehouse. If you're sending thousands of packages a day stamps dot com can handle all of it with ease with stamps dot. Com get five cents off every first class stamp it up to forty percent off priority mail, which is a heck of a deal not to mention it's a fraction of the cost. Those expensive postage meters, stamps dot com, no brainer time! That's your money! Right now. My listeners get a special offer that includes a four week: trial, plus free postage and a digital scale. No long term commitment just go to stamps dot. Com click on the microphone at the top of the home page type in Shapiro that stamps dot com enter shipping, I want to talk a little bit about this. This division that's broken out inside the republican Party. It seems like a almost a tripartite division, there's sort The libertarian contingent people who say govern should be as small as humanly possible. It shouldn't be involved in nearly any way in american life social fabric. Fill in the gaps leave everybody to their own. That's the only way we're going to get along. Then there are folks,
who are sort of social conservatives who say, listen, government was left alone and government then start cramming down leftism. So we need to retake the means of production effectively and start promulgating, a virtuous reform. On agenda. We have to have to try and create certain incentives for people to get married. We have to start teaching certain values from the government side and then use the tools of government in order to promulgate certain messages and then there are our group of folks who have come about who really suggest that the government ought to radically structure the market in pretty major ways, they're afraid of technological development. They believe that the Market has led to the emptying out of the american family, they're afraid that that market forces of hyper individualized the country and that only government regulation can put all of this back together. Eddie come down in this debate. What do you think the role of government lies a couple of things here? It's a great question: it's very complex, first of all, the constitutionalist when it comes to the government, I'm not a libertarian when it comes to the government
to me that's a way of life. Okay, you you want to live that way in many ways. I do we believe in a free market economy fun when we're talking about the government, I'm a constitutionalist and what does the constitution say? Basically you're the powers of the federal government? No more, you want expand them. You amend the constitution, that's where my head is as a gentleman. That's why I start from as far as libertarianism goes. I don't interpret the constitution from a libertarian perspective. I interpret what it says and I try to apply what was intent. At the time. There's history or there's not history and there's not the best job you can best in terms of libertarianism pretty much Lib. Turn when it comes to economic matters, so I can be convinced that this matter of that now, depending on what the situation is, but that's where I start from. I am not a national populist because there's not a dime's worth of difference between national
Elizabeth Bernie Sanders and somebody on the right, because I can't define it. Neither can they matter fact they like to quote each other like the embrace each other. It is an odd thing to say that I am a constitutionalist, but I'm also a national populace. What does that mean? The frame is rejected both nationalism and populism, the credit federal, as, moreover, they rejected populism because we don't have it in my, We have a republic populism scares the hell out of me, you're, tell me my neighbors could devote if I run a lambo rights, my neighbors get the vote on my property rights. My neighbors got to make decisions like this or, if that's not, what populism is? What is populist, mother, certain politicians to get to tell us what the american people think and what the american people feel? I don't think so. So what I tell my audience is look at the declaration of independence. That's not about populism, it's not about nationalism! It's about Americanism, there's! A difference between nationalism and American is Americanism. Is patron?
right Americanism is supporting our culture supporting the principles of the revolution. I can't even the so called NASH Just can't really define nationalism, and yet they tell us they're concerned about the central government and big government in their disconnected from the people. Well, how do they think this is going to work going to plebiscites every week? No those same people are going be making those same decisions in lieu of us or in lieu of states Blue of towns are in lieu of fan in lieu of so forth and so on. So nationalism clearly is not the answer. Populism is ill defined, that's clearly not the I don't believe, a Chrissy, so we have to do a better job, perhaps of explaining constant socialism and capitalism, and all these things that have made us such a magnificent country. Any country could be nationalist, populous country, but that's not what our constitution is. That's not what I found so with that said. What do you think that the role of government is when you talk about the role of government under the constitution? That really applies to the FED
government. Obviously, what do you think the role of government, let's say state and local e automate your constructing the ideal market in society? What would government, in what government not probably a mix of Idaho, Utah and Florida, in other words, that that is a great question, separate question. Okay, so what kind of state like this magnificent state of California is gone, the hell and it shouldn't the resource? Is it has the geography? It has the people that has, but the government is horrendous and you have one party government. I lived here briefly when the Republicans were in control, which was pretty good as a matter of fact, I think it was PETE Wilson and then uh on a fairly republican legislature. So what is the role of state government? Well again, I would look at the constitution to see what the role of the government is there as well, but it has
bigger role than the federal government. It's supposed to have a bigger role in the federal government: roads, bridges. All this. This I'll give you another issue. Where have people going to the prom with me? I don't believe in two dollars trillion infrastructure program. I think that's nuts, all that does is feather bed, the states and localities, and they send it a big list and all it allows is the Democrats to put in about eight hundred billion dollars worth of on road stuff and so forth. I joke in my MIKE they a road from two to four lanes. Now we have more traffic than ever before, because people- oh there's now four lanes, and so they so some. My attitude is even at the state level the less government the better, but it depends I mean I want law enforcement. There are other things that the state government does that are important to me. Maybe they should be doing more rather than a federally p ay. Let's leave it to the state equivalent of the e p, a s ah
when it comes to states? Maybe they'll have more of a say in immigration, particularly on the border, then they should in Washington the sea with a largely unaffected even benefit from from open borders in the politics, and that comes with that. So I am the belief that the states to get it wrong, a lot there is some terrible, terrible states places where I wouldn't want to live. But that's the point isn't it? I don't have to live there, but why did states is a country and one of the things that's been happening, and it's it's really. I think a problem is the nationalization of local. So you see this with abortion law, particularly, is that I haven't seen a lot of people from Georgia threatening not to go to New York because New York Liberalize is abortion, lots of the ultimate extreme, and yet I'm seeing businesses across the country say that they're, not going to do business with the state of Georgia. Are the state of Alabama because of abortion law. Every local decision now becomes a national for random. On the issue itself, it's federalism. I mean, I think, that it's probably dying. They may be well dead. Where do you think
we stand in terms of federalism and if it falls apart, do you think the country can stick together? First of all, I think the Supreme Court has largely nationalized the social issues and it's very troubling to may you know. For a lot of people in a lot of communities, they quote unquote, evolve on these issues. You know like the Anti sodomy laws that was used as an excuse in the nineteen sixties, for the the government again for the Federal Supreme Court again ran a lot of these cases. Even though there were only fourteen states that had them and they were dying on the vine anyway, I always want to use some event to make the case. It's like same sex, marriage, there's no constitutional basis for same sex marriage, I'm I'm sorry to upset people uh. That is a state issue, but over time- and you can see it with Lawrence and other cases they went through,
Anthony Kennedy in particular, they work their way through. They knew they'd, be there two thousand and twenty five years on the bench and they decided to nationalize that issue and what people need to understand is there's winners and losers. When that happens, and it it can change and they may nationalize an issue. You don't like- and it's just hard for me to believe that a five to four decision with one justice the sun could determine what a fundamental right is and what a fundamental right isn't depending on whether the justice votes this way votes that that way, the abortion, initial my view, there ought to be absolutely a state issue. Everybody knows ROE V Wade is a jewish joke. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks it's a judicial job. If want abortion on demand nationally, then try and get it through an amendment if it is that popular in every corner of the country
and if every woman in the country believes in this then go get your amendment, they don't even try because they can't abortion is one issue, but there's a whole host of issues that are being nationalized. Centralized imposed on the american people and the problem with that is your right. It undermines the whole notion of diversity in this country. One of the things that have kept has kept this diverse country together. People with different religions and backgrounds and histories and all the rest is the fact that you have states that have different approaches to be like the death penalty. If they eliminate the death penalty, all across the country, they may one day. That means the death penalty in
states had happened aggressively like Florida and Virginia, and I might add, I have homes in both, thankfully um that will change the landscape of these states, and I think the message: why is it that we don't leave people in these states alone to make these decisions? In other words, is it cause they're dumber? Is it because, because they don't agree with us, so we're gonna force are well Willingham and when it comes to the Hyde Amendment as an example, which is a question of whether the federal taxpayers should pay for abortion was not reach, the point where they're saying we must pay for the abortions? Even if we disagree with them and it's even gotten worse, I think Kamala Harris has made a proposal where she says like the Voting Rights ACT, the federal government should look get it in advance and I'm gonna whoa this. This is tyranny and it's close to fascism. Quite frankly, so federalism which allows mobility, which allows diversity, is the glue that keeps the country together. Ironically enough centralization, you know
formally is what tears us apart and will destroy this country yeah. I also noticed that come out here is proposal, and I I thought exactly. The same thing talked on. A show it feels like what's happened. Is that all Authority has now been sucked up to the federal level and then delegated from the vestigial organ. That is the legislature over to the executive, which base quickly runs like a dictatorship, regardless of which party is in charge of the bureaucracy. Does everything you know it's interesting about this, rather with their sanctuary cities. So they don't always support federal control, and so it really is. The end justifies the means for the left. They'll talk about free speech for Nazis, marching in Skokie and then we'll try and shut down. Stephen Crowder,
they don't like his speech in particular, he's effective, but really are they really do? They really believe in the vote? They say every vote should count. They believe every vote should count when they win. They don't believe every vote should count what they lose. Then they turn to the courts, but they turned to the bureaucracy. The unelected parts of the government. To impose their will. If the present United States says you know what I'm gonna get rid of Dhaka and then we have a federal judge. Appointed by Obama says no, that's the law. No, it's not the law, it was the that the Department of Homeland Security issue that that ruling or that rule? So how is that Well, one president, is the law in the next president can't remove that law. You can see it in the immigration field scene in the environmental field and so forth, so for the left, it is pushing towards their ideology. Their utopia, which is really hell and if it's federalism, one day great, if it central government one day great, if it's elections, one day great, if it's a fiat by the Supreme Court, great whatever it is,
is it do you think that the country is going to hold together, because I mean I'm seeing I talked recently with parents, men who owns Arlene's flowers up in Washington, state she's, basically being shut down because as a this person living in a liberal state, she's being for to cater same sex weddings where they're going to shut her down and talk with her lawyer in one of the things that I said is I don't even understand why this is a freedom of religion case. This seems to me like there should be a basic freedom of Association case, meaning why I have to serve anybody and, of course the answer is that we have broadened out the provisions of the Civil Rights ACT to include pretty much everything now so the government tooted segregation and then the federal government came in and said how about this? How about we not only overrule the states on this stuff? We also inject ourselves into private businesses and then control that top down. How can
the government. How can the country stick together under the circumstances? I think we're all of our will scan and open areas, read reviews or difficult. There's no question about it because you're attacking one of the strengths of the country, which is you know that the the left likes to talk about diversity, but they don't support diversity. It is their way or the highway, whether to KE cases or whether it is what we've been talking about and so forth, and this is a problem and I am not sure how to fix it and I'm not sure if it can be fixed, but we need to keep talking about it and keep keep expose it because more more people are going to feel like they're, not part of society, so so destructive of the culture. What is it exactly? Where exactly do they want to take us? I would say you know we have our constitution, that's our blueprint, what's their blueprint. Where is their blueprint? When is this, and how do we know that we have utopia when we know that we've achieved Paradise and this one of things I wrote about in my book, America, in the first chapter, which is
they never are wrong? That is, we just haven't tried? enough. We haven't had enough resources or people are just too intransigent or the wrong person was running. It's like a bomb That's what Obama care was going to deliver everything we want it, but even talks about Obama anymore? It's not medic. Air for all you know, which is a single government, are infested soviet style I'll scare from the top down uh. You know Milton Freeman once said it's what I'm on a national populace. You know he once said most of the problems. We have is with big government he's a we have problems in our lives and problems are the big problems we have mostly are with government, and I agree with that and so people who believe there ought to be more of it. I just rejected on a hand, so Obviously, President Trump controversial figure not just now, but was in two thousand and sixteen you voted for him. You supported him, you
Support in the primaries obviously supported cruise in the primary right and you and I had many discussions over the course of the election cycle specifically see on this issue. I think that you know you said you'll vote for him in two thousand and twenty. I said that I'm highly likely to vote for him in two thousand and twenty as well. At this point, what make of his overall performance. What do you? What are you happy with him? What are you disappointed with I'm happy with a lot and as a cancer? There's a lot he's done that actually, like I look at this because the courts, I strongly support what he's trying to do the courts. I look at our ally, Israel. I strong, I mean he's done things that I don't think any Republican would have done when it comes to the state of Israel. They've talked about it, but here actually did it. I like what he's doing with our military he's trying to strengthen our military. I, like his support for law enforcement,
law enforcement isn't always right, but they've been brutalized over the last ten years and he's making it clear that that he is a rule stands with law enforcement spending is completely out of control. But you know the spending bills come to him and, unfortunately, even when we had Paul Ryan in the house, I think Mitch, Mcconnell. My opinion has been a disaster when it comes to the bud. And I'm not a great fan of hiss uh and the president has to make a decision sign it because he's worried about the military or veto it. I would have vetoed it, but I'm not president, so I disagree with that. I think there needs to be something done it done fast cause. I think the dead is a massive issue in this country. When it comes to tariffs, I don't agree with him, except in two cases. China is number one. China is the enemy- I don't think, there's any question about this in the south Hennessy its provocations in Africa, which building basis its provocations, even in our own hemisphere. It now controls both ends of the.
Panama Canal, that was one of the things that Ronald Reagan was very concerned about the Panama canal. It's got killer saddle lights up there. Now we don't, because Obama wouldn't fund them. China is a grave threat every bit as dangerous as the Soviet Union and they're getting worse and worse and worse. So I support tires, not because I I believe that somehow there's this imbalance of trade, because I don't think people understand what that means. It doesn't count like money that flows into this country and a very very successful country needs raw materials and other things from other countries, so they we import them. Why to satisfy my needs. Your need everybody's desires. That's the way the cookie crumbles. So I'm not the reason I support these terraces. I want him to do the chinese economy. What Reagan did to the soviet economy? Now it's gonna cost us tow, because you and I both know tires- are attacks on us, but also it limits their ability to ship things tow us. So I'm not doing it for economic purposes, because I think it's so so
smart in Mexico. I may be in the minority on this to the five percent tile Mexico is an obligation. I think two or the president has an obligation to secure that board. He's done everything he can you know when you have Democrats, who are of a different mindset, we're not gonna, allow him to do anything and Republicans when they control both houses. They did nothing about it. When you, see that we're gonna have one dot one or one dot, two million illegal aliens in this country, the cost of these border states in California's a border state, the cost of the school district's law enforcement. These of these hospitals and so forth- I remember when I was in the Reagan administration all the way back. Then they were saying we're being overwhelmed now. Imagine today, I mean we're really overwhelmed. I think it's important and I look at history as you look at history and is Trump really doing anything truly out
just you know when Dwight Eisenhower was president uh he's considered sort of a moderate republican president. So far he had operation. I didn't name it. He named it what the and they rounded Up- one million illegal aliens in period of a year or so, and it was school buses and and and trains and trucks. And move them into the carrier, Mexico, and so them rounded them up. He didn't care about going you're round them up. Is that yeah? Actually, we are any any put out this military directive and that's what they did and I compare that to a five percent tariff. I think Eisenhower laughing right now. So again I don't view it as wise. Economically, have you. It is wise because we're trying to secure the border and he's run out of options. So one of the things said that I've said about President Trump. Is that on policy like you, I'm very happy with a lot of his policy and short I think we agree on. I have been incredibly disappointed with spending, but he never played she was going to do anything about entitlements. In fact, it pledged the opposite that he was going to do
thing about entitlements. You know there are other areas of policy like some of the other tariffs that that he's put in place that I think are mistaken and regulations on judges. I'm happy there's a second job. The president does- and this is where I've been very critical of the president for a couple of reasons, one because I think the president, unfortunately in some ways, is sort of tag put this job and two because it actually makes a difference to the future of conservatism, and that is the job, of conveying ideas and I think, a lot of, conservatives. People like you, people. Like me, who see him as a vessel for policy were very happy happy with him is a vessel for policy. Generally speaking, the idea that he is promoting conservative ideas I will say on the mild end, I have been disappointed with that. Especially because the guy does have a unique capacity to draw cameras. I mean they. The bill to draw spotlight for him is unbelievable, and yet the the sort of material put out into the public view, is, is rarely conservative very often
It's alienating for a lot of folks, and my great fear is that we will get a lot of good policy and then he will have alienated so many people, particularly people who are of my generation and younger that, we're gonna be in the wilderness for a while. This is an interesting point you raise. I don't think Donald Trump is a philosophical conservative. I think he's come to his conservatism as a matter of practicality and in some ways, principle, um, and so I don't think he's anymore, a principled or philosophical conservative than George W Bush, George H, W Bush. I think they're really been too in the last little over century. I would be Coolidge and Reagan but other than that, I can't think of any just off the top of my head. Uh, not Nixon, not Ford, not Eisenhower. Certainly not Theodore rose about Harding and so forth. So I don't really hold that against him. Um in terms of
him uh promoting that kind of an agenda from a philosophical point of view, but I think it's kind of the not our job but our responsibility to try and explain that to a lot of people, what these policies are, our philosophy and so forth. I even think a lot of so called conservative websites and magazines have lost their way. Ah, we're fighting with each other, what conservatism means uh, where they've abandoned in some ways, because they hate Trump or they'd loved her. Whatever the situation is, I I feel right now. The intellectual conservative movement is very weak. I really do I think you- and I and others try to try that case but case, but from a broad based perspective. It's quite weak and I think that's a problem because some people are abandoning it. I'm not sure why one hundred percent
I'm very troubled by some who've, talked about conservatism all these years and all of a sudden say well, what are the? What is it ever done for, and I said, let me tell you it's time for nine o'clock tonight. I want you to go into one of the supermarkets where I live. They have a place called white men, so I don't know if they have in California it's as big as a football field, and I want you to walk down every aisle ten different types of toothpaste. He can get battery operated tooth, brushes are hand held soft, medium or, and I want you to go to the meat section, and I want to see how many types of meat the check in section go to wine section wine from all over the world. Just look. Stop telling me conservatism. Doesn't work in capitalism, doesn't work. We we are the have more material things in this country.
King or queen had two hundred years ago we got on the airplane we fly across the country. That's not socialism, let's not big government as a rare plants. Its technology, it's creativity and we complain whether they have peanuts or pretzels on the plane or whether we're sitting on the tarmac for an extra half hour right. We need that. We need to put things in perspective. The things we have in this country, almost no other country, has certainly two slash three of the world doesn't Why do you think millions of people are trying to claw their way into this country? Because why? Because because the middle class is is under attack because we have systemic racism because we're not social Just enough now it's because of all the other reasons, and so
is the responsibility, the individual citizens. Honestly, I don't look to the President of United States or a senator or politician of a kind of tummy. This is what you need to think, one of the things that we need to continue to teach people. Let's think for yourselves. That's a good thing. Learn freedom most of the stuff. I've learned about the constant, I sure is hard and learned in public school that since I've been in school and that's a good thing, the learning process goes on and on and on, but not again, the first chapter libyan Liberty, hearing. I said one of the reasons why we don't really appreciate labor day cuz, we're surrounded by and one of the reasons we don't appreciate. What we have is cuz we're surrounded by, and so we get caught up and really stupid argument stupid things I didn't exam last week in the whole debate on cable tv was over the word nasty when the president said nasty, referring to comments that the princess made okay, three days of this stuff,
Is this a joke? He mean? Did he mean she's nasty? Did he mean the stuff, though? he said, was nasty and I'm thinking media is nuts, for they are nuts. Our focus is so off um, and then we had D day anniversary 75th, one hundred the other day, and I play these old clips from World WAR two and you really yeah. Your patriotism is just through the roof, and you see how tremendous this country's and the sacrifices people have made for this country. So I think it's really on each one of us more than a president, they're really explain liberty and conservatism and constitutionalism, and this president doesn't do that anyway, most president Don't do that, like I said I can think of to who basically did. But I will say this strongly support the present. He doesn't preach the other two. How rotten America is. You know how racist America is the wage gap
in America I mean I, you people can't get health care in America, so he's not one of them and so at its core. I know he loves country. I do wonder still about the possibility that his personal, the alienates a lot of people, and I I was at it's interesting. I speak to a group of older publicans groups younger Republicans lot and when I critique the president in front of the Republicans they start to get a little uptight. They start to get a little upset because I'll say what I think of his character and, frankly, it's not country generally, and then I'll. And I love a lot of his policy and I both form and a lot of older folks get a little upset with this, and if I say it's younger people the only reason they would even consider voting for Trump is because I'm hangs them what I think they believe to and what I've said is. I think the reason for that is when you're older, you basically look politicians, and maybe you have the perspective. Okay. Well, you know, listen he's a guy, he does stuff. I want good. What do I care about is what he says and when you're younger you spend enough lot of time. Considering what other people think of you, and so,
how you view President Trump has now become a lens that other people view you with. So, if you're, twenty one- and you say that you, like President Trump or that your vote for President Trump people immediately go to well, that's because you're, a terrible person who supports everything about him, and so is the only way to talk to a lot of those folks is to say: ok, like. I I like some the stuff he's doing, but am I going to you know, justify how he treats women is not is not a thing to do. Well, you know, what's interesting about that. I've thought about that. Some of the most foul mouth comics, the younger people, and not to older people, seven allows this movie's front. You know the younger people and
not older people um. One of the things I write in this book is address this issue of character and in this context, how the press covered it. But let me dress it in your context. Since Donald Trump's been in the oval office, I don't know of a single hint of immoral conduct, not a hint of a moral conduct. When John Kennedy was in office to his constant when Lyndon Johnson was office, it was constant plus and the media covered it up, but it was all known. So we can look at the life of somebody and all these very, very in perfect people. But since he's been president terms of his conduct,
in the oval office. We have an indian term. Problems have been any whispering, none of that kind of stuff. So I I want to point that out to maybe it's the way he speaks and tweets and people say you know, I'm not used to that and so forth and so on in people cringe. But here's another thing I'll point out he's been called Hitler by the media, he's been called Stalin. By the media. A white supremacist erases, an anti semite he's been called. All these things been. The meeting he's never called anybody any of these things now he'll say like that: Nancy Pelosi, a horrible person and ask ethnic group with agree with of cars. At a nasty person of this setting in oh you're presidential. You shouldn't act that way, but no, he didn't have a honeymoon one hundred a honeymoon, the transition between one administration, the other. It seems
The Democrats didn't really want a transition from one administration to the other. So to me I see this battle. That's going on now is a constitutional ban, has the Democrats wanting to remove a man who they never wanted an office in the first place and and and then go to poker. They showed look at look at my hand, and this is what we're going to push hold on whether we can ride Muller, whether we can ride impeachment, whatever it ISS and S O. Maybe it's me is a Philadelphia, maybe that's the instinct. Maybe this way I was it I don't like that kind of stuff. So, when you're trying to remove a duly elected president and disenfranchise sixty three million people, tweets a very secondary to me. I don't know how other people feel young people feel it's like it's it's. Okay, all hands on deck. That doesn't everything that's done. I agree with that. You know I showed too, and I explained where I agree and agree, but it means this is a top issue if you're going to remove a president or try to remove a president
based on the argument you're making that is damaging to this country, its timing to the constitution, so he calls Nancy Pelosi, horrible or or talks about somebody's looks because they've talked about his looks it almost at this point it's just it's just bounces off. So let's turn to the other side of the aisle. So we're approaching two thousand and twenty a lot of speculation about who the democratic nominee will be or whether President Trump wins reelection. So first let me get your odds on whether President Trump wins reelection at this point. Obviously, all the smart folks, including me, had Hillary Clinton winning in two thousand and sixteen this with the data sort of suggested, not sore largely almost entirely suggested and now betting, on anything. Ever again, I lost ten thousand dollars in that election, so I've had in the bank on politics business if you have to. If you have to estimate the president's chances in two thousand and twenty, how would you put those first, one finish to you even his campaign?
mean wasn't sure I don't know and I'm not trying to duck. It's gonna be very, very tough. I saw polls, but it's really early for poles, but still they're taking in people look at it in Michigan and Wisconsin. Ah, he's double digits behind Biden and Bernie Sanders, and I look at politics almost as military operations in terms of getting votes sneaking up, hitting them where they're not ready stuff like that they weren't ready for him in Michigan and Wisconsin. They didn't campaign in now they got teams people in these heavily Blue Collar Union states because they don't want to happen what happened before their target in the suburbs, like the retarded the suburbs before the present has a pretty damn good record on the economy and and on other things, as well as national security that he can run on and in one of the things he is also go
form what would be his opponents. I mean, let's be a ninety percent of our not fit just absolute crackpots and Bernie Sanders. I mean you can only hide outs it from your marxism for so long he's got the fifty year hit his all red from Brooklyn. As you know, we will well familiar with who he is Joe Biden. I mean Joe Biden is the bubble man they trying to protect him as much as you can from himself, because he says dumb things because he's not particularly bright and fact: Obama with some point, man dorsen, but even a bottle on the doors and when George H, W Bush was running, it was challenged in the republican primary. I think by Pat you Buchanan sort. Ronald Reagan endorsed his vice. President Obama won't endorse his vice president. You know we gotta, take notice of that and look what he just did he flip flop on abortion. Abortions have fundamental issue Okay. Well, I want. I don't want the government to fund it and he takes heat for forty,
Okay, I mean I do want the government after forty six years yeah, it's incredible. So I don't know what to make of this election. I really don't um. I'm very very hopeful trump wins re election, because if he doesn't it's going to give. Further motivation to our media to continue to do what they're doing, which I think is very destructive of this republic, let alone freedom of the press. It's going to continue to motivate the kook left in this country and they're they're crazy agenda, which would fundamentally change the country. You know
As I think about this question. You know early on in our before our country, the colonies, the press. They wanted to fundamentally transform government. That is, you, know the monarchy. They wanted representative representative government, limited government so forth the Progressive movement light government. They want to fundamentally transform man and fundamentally transform the civil society. That's the great difference and weather president is making that statement or not he's the man. We have to defend one kind of a society and the Democrats are pushing another. Kind of society and they know what they're doing they know. The specifics of the plant they know where they're pushing us. They don't have a plan for us to show us the than ever never going to, but that's the direction they're pushing us in and so
I don't know who's going to win, but I'm going to be full throated for this president against any other nominees. I don't even see a so called Centris running and let me know either- and I don't even know if there any so called Centris left in the leadership of the Democrat it is supposed dividing but no fairness to him. Alyssa Milano did call him on the phone and that changes everything apparently apparently one call from the star of charmed, and you just shift where you work for fifty years. That issue, but don't worry, he's a solid rock he's person. You can trust in times of trouble this is one of the things that's been troubling me so much about the Democratic Party. I make a distinction in my language. Routinely between leftist and liberal liberals people. I disagree with on politics leftist or people who want to shut down the debate or interest polarizing people specifically on the basis of race for political gain. And and seems like the left has taken over completely. The democratic party is interesting watching with my wife, an old movie. The other night movie called born yesterday with Judy Holiday and Broderick Crawford, and the movie is from one thousand nine hundred and fifty it's an incredibly patriotic
film in the entire film is basically William Holden, showing Judy Holliday around the city of Washington D C, and she brings her to see the constitution and declaration of independence. They go to the Jefferson Memorial he's telling her all about the wonderful founding philosophy, and I turn him out. Wife and I said, there's no way this movie gets made today, because the entire narrative of left has shifted, even in my lifetime, I'm old enough to member when the traffic party actually still at least paid lip service to the foundations of the country and talked about how wonderful in philosophy was, and now so it seems that the narrative is dominant in the Democratic Party that the founding philosophy was effectively just racism, sexism, bigotry and homophobia dressed up in fancy clothes and then sold to people and that We really have to do is cleanse the palate, get rid of all these documents and start afresh. Obviously,
where's the hell out of me and I'm seeing young people who don't know anything about history buying into it. How do you combat all of that? You know the institution that is that they really needs to be dealt with in one form or another is education, a public education and universities It is in your life on the American. People are finding our own demise. Some help people get tenure, not all, but too many vast majority in our public schools, the any of the a f t and our colleges universities they get tenure and they are people who reject our founding principles. I mean I I always wonder how many battles of the civil war actually taught my school? Each battle is so incredible, so you many battles in world war, two, how many
LT's the revolutionary war, your kids, do they know what Lexington and Concord swill about um. These are things that would inspire patriotism and support for the country instead, you're right, the founders had no positive characteristics, they were slaves, so they must be dismissed and it was Abraham Lincoln who did the greatest job of explaining the foundling in the founders and did more for african american slaves in this country than any left wing, professor or any leftist on tv that you can imagine, he led the civil war and what Lincoln said in one thousand eight hundred and fifty eight and beyond and he loved the founders. He said those men wrote the declaration of independence, there's not a word about slavery in the declaration of independence,
every individual is created by God, unalienable rights. He said so the men, those men, knew that slavery was wrong, but they also could not create a country because certain states, Georgia and South Carolina Carolina going to go for it, but they knew that their children and their grandchildren would have to address this. That's why they wrote the declaration of independence, the way that they did, and he says it's their writing their constitution. That will enable us to smite this, because otherwise we wouldn't have had a country and you still would have had states or colonies, was slavery in states and colonies without it um. But history is not taught it certainly wasn't in. When I was in high school, I still got the same problem: the same left wing agenda. They have managed the progressive movement to really control ideologically virtually every
the mentality of our culture right now. That's why, with these cultural wars, whether it's the courts, whether it's, whether it's the bureaucracy, whether it's education, whether it's the media, we always start with the Progressive Foundation and we're always on defense, not trying to respond to these things. We've got to do something about colleges and universities, and I think we, the people, need to start speaking with our wallets and state need to start withholding funds. You're gonna be subsidized, will not be subsidized, so much make sure when you send your kid to college if you're involved. In that this, vision that you don't send them to an indoctrination. You know just because it's an Ivy league school doesn't mean they have to go there. There's other schools out there with a get a more traditional education and so on, but this is something I've been thinking. What about maybe one day I'll write about it and give it more focused thought. But it is a huge huge pro I mean so you spent an entire lifetime, isn't trying to educate people about all of this stuff is written, is bevy of philosophically linked
books and going all the way back through american history. So if you had, you can give a beginner's reading list for people. You you're the history professor now so what what's the well one of the books that you would recommend? Aside from your own, I too young students who are may be interested in this stuff, kids, who are ten eleven, twelve years old, who are first getting introduced to american history. While I would do it, the way I did it, which is there, wasn't one book, our one author, if I ever read a book and they would refer to the stamp act or something like that, I go read the Stamp ACT and we have, but it's it's right over there, our finger. I go to the Avalon project to look at original documents they're out there, and I would do those sorts of things so there's certain professors highlight certain books I like, but what I would encourage people to do is go. Do it yourself? It's actually entertaining it's actually interesting. So if you want to learn about the press, you could take a bow,
like many of a four hundred notes in there. The reason I do that just so you can look at the end notes and go look yourself, there were historians at the time. Ramsey is an example. Most people have never heard of before. He was a real time historian about a revolutionary war, which is why the later progressive historians attack him because they want to change the history of America from a battle over government toe a battle between classes, which is what they do. So I would suggest that people go look at the original document. You don't need people to explain the declaration of independency read it. You don't need people. Well, you might help you with
constitution, but first read it. I think in many ways I don't care what the Supreme Court says. I read the cases like you do because we need to explain the, but those are lawyers justices they have they make they have an effect, but that's their opinion on what the constitution says. I want to read the constitutional, why it says what it says: look at the history, english common law, other things, Montesquieu, that separation of powers lock when it comes to the declaration of independence, go back and read those people. You'll, be a lot smarter and I think a lot more fulfilled film. So I'm gonna ask you a tough question that I often get rinsing at college campuses, question that I get pretty frequently as a follow up to the kind of what you recommend you is there. Anybody on the left that you read is there: are there any liberals that you think it's worth reading or that you enjoy? I think, are interesting out there, not really I mean some of them are very smart, but, like I'm bombarded with this every day, and if I'm
Trying to read a left, a salaried, an old leftist I'll, read a John Dewey for awhile, with these guys at the push, the progressive movement or Wilson. These other guys, they are the founding fathers of the modern day, Democrat Party there, the founding fathers of the progressive movements, if you really want to understand what Obama saying or or what their progeny are saying, read them, there's a lot to read and they're, not the only ones but they're the ones that provided the so called intellectual basis for modern day progressives or even go back further, read Marx and Engels and Hegel and Russo, and these guys, because that's what Bernie I'm dying to have Bernie Sanders on one of my programs. I'm sure you are too he will will not come on any of my programs, because I want to talk to him about it's and angles and Haglund Rousseau and and doing all these other guys who people who he embraces rather than the shows he goes on a health care for you
the great sphinx. Overall, if we put it in these superficial interviews where you just saying you have a right to this. Let's talk about this, what do you mean by that? You know I would love to do it, but the only way I'm able to do this 'cause. I read those things. Not people who've read those things telling me what those people said. Just read those people it's out there. So many people who listen to you may not know kind of how you got into the commentary business in the first place and following you, since I was old enough to listen to talk radio but for a lot of people who have only hurt you that way. How did you even get into doing this sort of thing? We'll start in a log cabin? No, not really! Well I, when I was a kid, I would listen to talk. Radio, listen to guys like Bob Grant in New York and others, and I was mesmerized by and I'd listen to it. Midnight two in the morning. Actually, listen to. Post anyone agree with I just let that whole format was fascinating and then
about sixteen years old, I contacted our local radio station was dub see ya, you know W Pht, it's a big fifty thousand watt stations and I asked if I could do a show and of course they blew me off, but then they did bring me in said just one Sunday and I did it, That was that I thought that was fine and Went on with my legal career and then you know I heard rush. I heard Sean I used to listen to other talk radio throughout, even though I was writing briefs and doing other things and so forth kind of, up with Russia he hooked up with me. I don't really exactly remember how that happened, but I will provide him with legal information, constitutional information. Then he dubbed me F Lee live in his legal director and then Sean same thing. And then they would have me sit and from now and then and then uh w a b c s me of how does Sunday Sha for nothing. I said: okay, I'll do
it's pretty cool to test out on Wabc in New York and that's what I did and after about fourteen months of that, they asked me to do a show, which is how I got so. What's your concern of origin story, I mean: how do you get conservative in the first place, cuz you're into talk radio from when you were sixteen, but have you always have these politics? I've always held these years, and I and I wondered because my parents always wanted and by the way they were always conservative, but I don't mean in terms of philosophical conservice and one thousand eight hundred and sixty four people voted for Goldwater and their jewish. There were conservatives, and I asked my dad back. Then you voted for Goldwater. Why did you vote for he said I knew the b s there,
how cold water was wrong and I started to think about that said. I have that gene. I don't like people pushing me around, I don't like bullies and I don't like authoritarians and that's what the left is all about, believes and authoritarians. So I don't like being pushed around whether it's a regulation attacks I'm talking down to me a government telling me I can't think for myself and by the way I think this is how we appear the younger and younger people, because I don't think they I like it either. So it's not so much anti authoritarian and Anti Authority, it's anti authoritarianism, and so, in other words, when I'm saying is autocracies, a bad thing, whether it's practiced one on one in the playground or whether it's practiced by government and that's what I I think, that's what I reject. That's why I started to say: well, I'd like Liberty, I like individual, is um,
like to be left alone, like to kind of do it. I want to Dio and if that's the way you think on big government on the left is not your answer. Okay, so, and second I wanna ask you one final question- I ask you for your top five present. And your bottom five presidents 'cause it's kind of a fun thought experiment, but if you want to- Michael Levin's answer. You have to be a daily wear subscriber to subscribe head on over to daily wire dot com click You can hear the end of our conversation over there? Well. Thank you so much for Stop, it has been. A blast was great to see you Ben Shapiro shows Sunday Special is produced by Jonathan, hey, executive producer, Jeremy, boring associate producer, Mathis Glover edited by Donovan Fowler Audio is mixed by my core. Amina hair and makeup is by Jessica, Olvera, title graphics by Cynthia and grew up. Ben Shapiro shows Sunday. Special is a daily wire production. Copyright daily wire, two thousand and nineteen.
Transcript generated on 2019-09-15.