People are not willing to concede that intelligent people of goodwill can be on the other side of them from an issue. It's very easy to think of a kind of faceless abstraction of conservative or liberals and they're all terrible, hey, hey welcome this is the Ben Shapiro show Sunday special. We are joined today by Ramesh Ponnuru, his visit well at the American Enterprise Institute, he senior editor at National Review, he's an opinion columnist for Bloomberg. I can't wait to get started with the conversation, but first, if you look at the economy right now. What you'll notice is that central banks are taking heavy toll on the economy. Last week, China devalue its currency and markets tanked one consequences that Bitcoin prices rose it's time to consider, including some crypto in your portfolio. Now I know that crypto it's kind of scary, but what crypto really is is it is a limited commodity like something like gold is kind of like digital gold, it's protected by blockchain there now

creating any more of it is protected from hacking. It is a resource they can't be manipulated by central government. If you're interested in getting into looking at crept up. You should be taking a look at each while it is smart, crypto trading, you can access the world's best crypto currencies. They have fifteen different crypto currencies available and you can try before you trade with the virtual portfolio, one hundred thousand dollars budget. You can actually try out and see how you like it you never it's a trading trend with charts and pricing alert, so you're learning how to crypto in real time sign up today at eat or dot com, slash appear the t t o r o dot com slash. It should be if you're, fearful of the Hermans, manipulating currencies. If you're worried about the vacillation of the markets, maybe you should be looking at something like Crypto and the best way to do that. Try it out over at Etoro dot com, slash apparel, and they give you the opportunity again to try it out before you or even spending any of your own money go check them out at e toro com. Slash appear that is Etoro DOT, com, Etoro dot com, Slash Shapiro,

thanks, so much for stopping by your welcome or it's Dinesh. You're telling me Anderson, Cooper, common confusion actually does Anderson Cooper is among many. Illustrious people have made that mistake. So I'm so much better. Looking too so I mean I've met the national, I must agree, I must agree. So, let's start the spicy stuff. Your perspective on President Trump's we've talked before about how you think the President Trump has affected the Publican Party and the perspectives of Americans going forward on politics. Do you think that he is a benefit or net negative for conservatism and conservatives? Well, I mean you have to say that he's accomplished a lot that conservatives want, so he got two appointees to the Supreme Court, who are pretty conservative. I'd, say just Gorsuch has been a more solid conservative, an originalist then just Kavanaugh so far has shown himself to be. We got, I think, tax reform, that is on balance, pretty good. We've seen a lot of deregulation, and so I think a lot of good things have happened.

I think that there's a lot that is to coin a deplorable in the president's conduct and the way he filled the role of the presidency. But the thing that really strikes me about Trump is the extent to which it often seems that the goal his presidency is to make himself the center of every conversation in America and to a surprising degree, he succeeded in that ambition, and so what I think is a problem for conservatism, whether you're, an anti trump conservative or pro trump conservative or somewhere in between all thought, has been sort of paralyzed, and Everything just gets sucked into a conversation about the president's personality. I mean there's no, that's true in terms of general politics and migrate about President Trump from freezing and certainly during his term has been. Maybe political.

I've been much more conservative than I thought he would be. It's really been about the poisoning of the well, particularly with young people in America, and there must be a certain level of sanguineti that has that has arisen. Among a lot of conservatives that, because he the odds in one in twenty, sixteen that Republicans are going from here on out, despite the fact that two thousand and eighteen went very poorly for conserve Republicans, there's this sort of feeling that Trump is the mass of a wing of american politics that nobody knows about that Son Pullable, that sort of out there in the ether and that he's going to be able to draw from that going forward and trance from the country along those lines. What's your assessment of what sixteen was actually about and the durability of the Trump coalition going forward, so I think you separate the primaries and the general election both of them very interesting stories. I think primary had a couple of things. Go you had on the fact that the Publican party elite to try to foist on the party a consensus on immigration that republican voter share, and he is the most visible opponent of that.

So something like seven percent of Republicans in a poll around that time wanted more immigration and fifteen of sixteen republican presidential candidates wanted more immigration and Trump was the sixty. The one who said no to that and was really advertising and unmistakable way that he would do what it takes, that he would be tough in a way that previous people had only talked about being tough on illegal immigration. That's one part of it. Another part he had a kind of I think Republicans tend to prefer the executive personality, and there were a number of governor's on the age with club, but for various reasons there was a diffidence or interest Christie's case it kind of impulsiveness and glandular Iti six cases sort of flakiness an. I think that well actually was in a way the most sort of traditional executive figure on the stage and then finally

it was the fact that there was an existing republican sort of formula that had been inherited from Reagan and no longer spoke to republican primary voters, and you know some of them actually like Trump's hetero axes on things like trade and entitlements. Some of them do necessarily like those things, but they weren't. They weren't deal breakers for them in the ok that some people thought they would write. Club for growth ran all these ads. Saying it hasn't been with us on this, and he has been with us on that. Basically didn't register with people So you had all that up and then the fact that CNN covered in like it was a missing plane and he gets the nomination in the general election. I think a lot of what he had going for him was his opponent, Hillary Clinton, turns out to have been a really terrible candidate, partly because conservatives had spent thirty years working with her to define her as unacceptable. A lot of Americans, and so you end up

two candidates who sixty some of the public. You have overlapping majorities of sixty percent, the public think they run. You did for the office there unacceptable and the people who thought they were both on it double broke heavily for the challenger, which brings to another point, which I think it's underrated, which is it's very hard to hold on to the presidency. After two terms, there was going to time for a change sentiments, regardless of who the parties nominated and that benefited Trump. I want to go back to he made about the breakdown and sort of the Reagan coalition, so there been this conventional wisdom that Publican party was built around the three legged stool, the same three legged stool, the social conservatives, the hawkish foreign policy acolytes and the small government libertarians, and that you took sort of a small government view a big defense view in a socially conservative, and that was going to be where the party was at an it seems like there's been a lot of rethinking about each one of those legs of the stool, and it seems, is the President Trump and his

election have really uncovered a real can of worms because unclear how the coalition actually operates. Now there are libertarians in the coalition who are not. Super socially conservative right? There are a lot of people who are not small government conservatives, the Tucker Carlson with apart. There's a lot of folks who are aware now isolationist on foreign policy, that sort of Rand Paul Wing of the party. How do you think the party breaks down do you think that there is even a unified program for the Republican Party that isn't just the left is terrible right? Well, So it's a big set of questions. I would say President Trump weather: it's cunning or intelligence has a really solid understanding of what the red lines in republican party politics are. So there were some issues, a lot of issues where he flipped and when we talk about how Trump is change. Republican party we shouldn't forget that Lincoln Park is also changed Trump and changed him quite, but he's not the liberal that he was on most issues back fifty in twenty years ago, he

there stood that he had to be pro life. He understood, I think that he had to be pro gun that he couldn't before tax increase. Now there are some other issues where it turns out. Publican voters don't have strong attachments to the old conservative orthodoxy entitlements, trade, NATO. All of those things are in that basket of issues, and so I think he's he's. First of all, those are the issues that he cares about the most where he's heterodox, but he also understood that he had running room on those issues right now hitting the left is the glue. Of the republican Party. But it's also true that hating, the right is the glue of the Democratic Party. We have now The polarization where what holds both party coalitions together is less any policy, objective or philosophical principle than enmity or the other side, and I think that helps to account for a lot of the sourness of american Netflix right now, and then you add in the fact that both

these coalitions basically think they're already a majority of the country. If the other side wins anything, it's somehow illegitimate its people. Our side is the deep state or to the media people on their side. It's it's, the Coke brothers, it's dark money, it's russian interference, and you know this is This is the perfect before the era of bad feelings that we are now living and politically. So, looking back historically now, when you think this year, a bad feeling started. So I know that, there's a there's a lot of talk about. You know it was born with Trump. The seems to be the media's line that President Trump is not a symptom of the of bad feelings. He's been initiator of the era, bad feelings. From from my point of view, this obviously present going all the way back to George W Bush and Bush Hitler and the and the war in Iraq. I'm but yeah that there are other folks have argued that this really the season but were driven by the fall of the Soviet Union that, in the absence of some sort of essential threat from broad that Americans were bound,

turn, our guns on each other, politically speaking and polarized along those lines. Where do you think this started, and why is it gotten so bad start in the garden of Eden, I do think that there is an element of truth that that there was no were eating tendencies and trends? That Trump then accelerated an, and really it's. Just. The polarization of american politics has to with the realignment of the Republican Party into being an ideologically conservative party in a way that it wasn't and that led to the demo, add party becoming more ideological, liberal party and overtime. This process fed on itself where the Democratic Party comes more liberal than hum conservatives leave it and they are not there anymore to restrain the Democrats, and there are no longer as many conservative democrats in the house, too strain nail speaker Pelosi

as there used to be in the same thing happened on the republican side. I do think one other big fact in this was the nationalization of the social issues once I think the key event there is ROE V Wade where you have one side of this incredibly contentious issue, win judicial fiat and then every that having a sort of dominant issue in national politics, in a way that it didn't have to be, you could have had a system where you could be. Pro choice, republican in California or a pro life Democrat in Alabama and how they driving national query. That used to be true, but as politics became nationalized around that issue, it became less and less possible for it to happen. I mean I think that that that that's a great point about the nationalization of the issues, and it does feel like when talk about the anti left sentiment inside the conservative movement. If you have to put your finger on it, just feel like that is driven almost entirely by culture and social issues. It feels like that all the talk about the display

workers in the Midwest had suddenly turned to Trump. When I talk to folks in the Midwest there, it seems to be less driven by Trump is going to redo the trade deals with China and Mexico much more to do with the the hate us and want to destroy our churches and they want to wreck our communities. Tanner knows that I can think we're bitter clingers that there's something a lot passionate about support for trump than merely they sort of like economic program. They like terrace that Bernie Sanders too, is also pledged tariffs, but I mean, if you think about it in two thousand and eight Obama, in addition to pretending to be against same sex, marriage he's he's courting Rick Warren he's making sort of moderate noises on abortion, but I think between twenty well in twenty. Sixteen, in particular Democrats really bought this idea that there, a coalition of the ascendant all of their demographic groups are, are expanding. The republican groups are declining. We don't need to pay attention to white working class voters anymore, and the thing is people get the message that you are: writing them off. The exit poll thing that,

I always harp on that. Nobody else has noticed if you look at Wisconsin in Pennsylvania and Michigan get white Working class voters, white cap click, voters, white, evangelical, voters, overlapping constituencies, Obama gets trounced by Romney in each of those groups in each of those states in two thousand and twelve, but Hillary Clinton just got absolutely crushed and the difference was enough to swing all three of those states. That is that, if, if she had just held her losses to where they were in twenty twelve there would have been enough votes that you had more than seventy seven thousand votes necessary to win all three of those states in the electoral college. This is one of the points that I think the media seem to keep missing when they talk about racism driving the republican Party. There is racism in the Republican, sorry there's intersectional racism in the Democratic Party to but the idea that, because white voter

started to think of themselves more as a voting bloc that that is a response, a racist to President Obama in particular. It seems to me a historical because it seems like the demo party in the media spent years, suggesting that this coalition of the ascendant was going to leave behind white working class voters. There are no longer relevant to our politics, and people in I said. Well, I'm not going to vote for you, I'm going to vote for the other party. At least those people are not looking down there. Don't you exactly, and it seems like a reactionary response to the left? Not merely we don't like Barack Obama, 'cause he's black and he the social science, on racial conservatism being associated with about being a good predictor of the vote in two thousand and sixteen which will conservatism turn term of art, and if you look at it, it's basically just conservatism, applied array and he's way conservative attitudes like the idea that that people have a lot of agency and can better their own lots and not everything is the fault of discrimination. That is

view that is shared by a lot of Hispanics and a lot of blacks, and it's it's really sort of white progressives who are most vociferous in their rejection of those views. I mean yeah, that's exactly right now, look at these studies and they start characterizing views like people are responsible for their actions as racist and I'm just thinking to myself. How is that? even remotely racist, I mean that that is just a normal run well conservative viewing and more than conservatives, many mainstream Americans were not conservative, feel that way and that sort of polarization is getting worse. Now, let's talk about the Democrat Partly because it's pretty clear that I want to get back to the Publican Party and where you think that the fragment intentions are where you think the future of the Republican Party is only get back to that, but the Democratic Party. I think that politically the Democrats have been the driver of of our politics, since at least two thousand and eight, and that Barack Obama election was a realigning election in a lot of ways that Brock campaign in two thousand and eight was not the bra governed for his presidency. He kind of

open change, Ian were united, not divided, and no red states. Obama never showed up in the oval office he campaign, and then he just went on vacation for eight years. Instead, Rock Obama decided to build the the coalition that you talk about and that that alienated a lot of people and that's led to a demo the party so radical that they can't even invoke President Obama in in positive fashion anymore there to work for Obama at this point, which is left Joe Biden in Large is the only person standing on hey. Remember me: it was okay when, when Obama as President, what's your take on the direction of the Democratic Party, so I think one oddity of the Democratic Party, I think it's been moving left really since the Clinton administration and both victory and feet since the Clinton Ministration has been radicalizing for the Democrats. So when they win, it encourages kind of complacency about their leftism that you know. They believe that history is on their side there

under the coalition of the ascendant they own the future and then when they lose. It just causes them to radicalize out of bitterness and rage, and you know usually when they lose, it means they lose their most moderate members. In their house and their Senate caucuses and the problem with the kind of so There are always prone to this thinking that they've got the future locked, because the progressives that sort of this idea that history has a direction is just into their worldview and the problem they have is prematurity. So, just as there's no reward in the stock market for being right prematurely, appealing to the hypothetical voters in the future is not a substitute for getting the actual votes of people today, and I think it's clear that that was a mistake they made in twenty sixteen, but what's amazing to me is that they often seem like they want to recapitulate that mistake and really it's just

so similar to what they did in twenty sixteen. What are they doing? right. They assume that Trump is unacceptable to the electorate and therefore they they may Ask Republicans for their votes. They say you can vote for me, but they won't make any kind of programmatic compromise. They do safe, legal and rare the way they used to do on abortion. They won't say, hey. Of course. We not going to confiscate guns, even the ones who aren't actually for confiscation in general they're not going out of their way to say that they're, not application in the way that previous Democrats are orange. Show me previous Democrats, Democrats were, and so it seems to me the exact same bet in a lot of ways that they made in twenty. Sixteen, no maybe it'll work out this time, or maybe by news a little bit less in sync with that way of thinking will get the nomination and run a different kind of campaign, but it does seem to me to be an awfully risky choice the Democrats are making. It seems

politically that both parties are stuck in this weird model, where they think that Barack Obama was the new normal when Barack Obama was actually electoral outlier. What I mean by that is that I'm writing to think that Barack Obama completely re, shifted the nature of american politics so far that the coalition that he is durable and re winnable for every Democrat is not unique to Obama. You can run an old white woman, and is going to and exactly the same coalition and even more voters, and it will be just fine and on the right I think, there was a response to Obama. That said, ok, his coalition is durable. We need something new and something shocking to break up this cold and the truth is that in two thousand and sixteen, both Hillary and trump performed kind of legend, Democrat Generic Republican, in other words, Barack Obama, was the guy who had broken the because he was Barack Obama in innately, talented politician, who also had a great let's kill, an enormous amounts, positive media coverage, but Hillary Clinton is not and in the absence of Barack Obama, the

durability of that coalition. Among Democrats is exaggerated or or do you think that maybe they have a point that as time goes on that coalition, he is ascendant overtime. Well, I would say: if you look at we've talked about this online. If you look, twins among young voters. There is reason for Republicans service to worry, as as the one hundred particularly gets browner and blacker, an less white, an possibly less religious- that there's some grave reasons for concern, but demographic changes they happen slowly. It is still the case that there are persuade rible voters out there, who now I'm going to go. Maybe this way or that way, depending on the choices that are put in front of them. A lot of people thought the change in the elections of two thousand and four and two thousand and eight and just vastly over read them demographic change just doesn't happen that rapidly. Now I do, there are some Republicans who spent so Publican strategist class spent all the Obama years saying we all have to move way

left on immigration and all these other things because of these demographic changes and they were overreacting, but I think there's kind of this. Illicit sense. Now, among Republicans, will all that was garbage, and don't need to do anything, an You know in the long run, the demographics are real and they do have to be accounted for turn. Second, only ask you a little bit more about the demographics. An I want to have you expand on the in the brown and black or comments have just for media matters, because we know, or is that they will come after anybody who mentions demographic, changing we'll talk about that in just one. Second, first, I don't go to the post office anymore. That's not 'cause! I don't like the services of the post office. The post office is great, but if I go there, I have to schlep all my stuff in my car I have to get in the car. I have to go there and make it a parking ticket. Last time I was at the post office. I did get a parking ticket from now on, I'm using stamps com and you need stamps com too. It's one one of most popular time: saving tools for small businesses, stamps dot com eliminates trips to the office and saves you money with discounts. You can't even get the post office stamps dot com will bring you

all the amazing services of the you S postal office, direct to your computer, whether you're a small office sending invoices or wine cellar shipping a product even aware warehouse, sending thousands of packages today stamps dot com can handle it all with ease use, your computer to print official US postage. Twenty four slash, seven for any letter any package, any mail anywhere. You want to send it once your mail is ready, just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in the mailbox. It's that simple. With stamps com, you get five cents off every first class stamp up to forty percent off prioritymailstamps dot com is no brainer. Did you time it saves you money? It's no wonder. Over seven hundred thousand all businesses already use stamps dot com. They really do make life easier, which is why we use them here at daily wire right now. My listener get a special offer. It includes a four week trial, plus free postage and a digital scale. No long term commitment just go to stamps com click on the microphone at the top of the home page and type in Shapiro that stamps dot com enter o ok. So let's talk about that line that you talked about the country getting brown and black or that being a problem for Republicans, so the left will say, of course, that's a problem. Public ends because they're, racist and

The reason why President Trump is trying to restrict immigration is not because he cares about the picture of the country is because he cares about the race of the country. So I just want to. Could you clarify what exactly you mean by that, so that folks don't immediately accused you of being a white supremist want to wait tree is as a white man that that right, yes, yeah, my grandmother, I met as north. Actually it's a promise exactly. I think that there is a case for immigration policy changes. My own thought on that is mostly that immigration has been a very successful experience for our country and to help it continue to be successful. Experience for our we need to have an immigration policy that is conducive to immigrants. Assimilate ing to our country it doesn't mean that there are no cultural differences, that no, you can't keep some of the rates and some of the traditions and heritage of the place you came from, but I mean is mostly that immigrants see themselves that are seen by others as being full participants in american life. It's

it seems to me that that's probably going to be more successful when you've got a diverse flow of immigrants when you've got a controlled flow and when it's a relatively high skilled flow. Of immigrants, whether those are the exact same bots that motivate President Trump. I I'm not going to speculate, but then there's, So this political question which, regardless of what our immigration policy is, it just seems to me that the demographic or the Republican Party continues to be married. White Christians, though that was the demographic of the country, but it is a shrinking share of the population and and whatever immigration policy we have, it seems to be Republicans, have to break out of that box, and expand their appeal to other kinds of voters would also be nice more people got married. I suppose, but I think there are different problem: things that Republicans have with these with

racial minorities but a lot of it is related to not going out and asking for the vote, not in continuing presence, different communities and, of course there is also know if a Republican anywhere, you know a state legislator. You have never heard of says something boneheaded or offensive about a racial group person is guaranteed national stardom. I want to ask what you think we can do with sorry to ask service reach out to minority voters. You talk about putting people in communities to talk about these politics, not taking voters for granted yeah. This is one area where, as I stated up front, I'm very concerned about President Trump's administration, because Trump himself is so apt to say just the wrong kind of thing that I think it's very likely that he is alienated a huge number of people in growing minority groups, and include that single women and married women in the suburbs

there are a number of different groups that he seems to be alienating almost systematically in a fashion that that won't be good for him electorally and won't be good for the Republican Party, internally, I lived my entire life in California. I look at the voting constituency of Hispanics and Latinos in California an they vote, eight thousand and twenty maybe maybe higher than that then for Texas, and it looks a lot more like five thousand five hundred and forty five Democrat Ann. That is because of the different different attitudes. I would think I would think of the California licking Party toward immigration and toward Hispanics generally as opposed to Texas attitude immigration and toward Hispanics generally an. I wonder if there are in parties moving too much in the direction of California and less in the direction of taxes. Well, I'm not a fan. Of the way President Trump talks about racial issues in he has. However, seeing somebody is often criticized him on this front. He only some efforts to try to appeal to hispanic voters and Africa.

American voters in I think there is an element of the change that Trump is right, not in the republican Party that could be useful here, because one of the reasons why Republic things have not tended to do well among Americans and Hispanics and frankly among young people, is that Republicans and conservatives have been seen as people who are most interested almost exclusively interested in the economy. I can trust a big business and rich people and that hurts Republicans across the board, but it's particularly going to hurt you with demographic groups that are having a harder time getting jobs, having a harder time affording health insurance and so forth, and that is true of african Americans. That's true of Hispanics! It's true, two of young people, single people. Let's talk about that Second, you've about reform conservatism bypass the idea that favoritism ought to embrace more government involvement in a lot of economic areas. I tend to be a lot more, libertarian and and comfortable with those conversation simply because the slippery

love is so incredibly slippery. As far as government involvement in these ticular issues. So where do you think the government should be involved in issues like, for example, health care or in the job like it or in dealing with big business? So I don't think reform conservatism as being about. We need more government. I think it's about. We need to ally conservative insights to the problems of today as a as to the problems, one thousand nine hundred and eighty one zero. What I want in health care is a radically reduce federal rule where there's much less regulation and where federal spending Federal yes in federal regulation, does a lot less channel where money is going in this sector, and I say the same thing about higher education as well. What I think there's been a problem. Is that there has been a tendency on the part of conservatives, because the Reagan, formula was so successful to just stick with it and think well,

let's just keep cutting marginal tax rates and act as though there's still seventy percent the way they were in nineteen eighty one now, Do I believe that we should just radically privatize healthcare and get rid of Medicare and Medicaid? Well, you know. Let's get couple more realistic items on the agenda done and then we can. We can talk about that. I'm not sure- Sure if I were starting from scratch, I would create these programs in the first place or social security, but they are here. I think, there's a lot that conservatives could do useful. We need to change these things and make them more more conducive to success in a country that is mostly decentralized mostly about trial and error and markets. These are systems like Medicare higher education think were not created by conservatives and Jen. We can't, I think, adopt the pasta for that either we gotta blow them all up, or we just kind of go. Look at something else,

right. We just do taxes all the time, and that I think is the mindset that that reform conservatives had to sort of overthrow what do you think the conservative movement should do about big business so that there is this open debate over whether big is something that consumers should be for or against. It always appeared to me that, using big business has a separate class is a very bizarre sort of distinction, because what makes a business worse or better, head on the size of the business. It depends on the sort of activities its undertaking and its relation. But the government, but there is this This attitude that has become very popular on the left, with folks like Elizabeth Morning, Bernie Sanders and then on the right with Tucker Carlson, the big. This is inherently bad business, and thus the should step in to break up companies. The we hear most about these days is Facebook. We heard a lot about the big tech companies. What's your take on the role government in in dealing with a lot of these big tech companies? Well, so a business in general, I would say that we've got a large range of government subsidies for big businesses that I think

we should get rid of, or at least scale back, because I'm pro market before I'm pro business pro big business. I don't think Americans are looking for the and I think this is great populous mistake- they're not looking for the It will be the scourge of big business or the scourge of Wall Street and they shouldn't be. I do think they want. Somebody who understands that most people have different interests, then big business in Wall, St Ann. You know that they're looking out for them, and sometimes there will be things that public policy Chris can do that, help business in Wall Street and the and some since there are places where you have to make a choice and they wanna come out ahead in that choice. I just think the public is a lot more sensible, sometimes than we give them credit for. On the specific questions about big tech, I think there's just it's it's a complicated issue. Frankly there a range of questions that people bring up so there's the privacy question, for example with respect to face

and so forth, and I tend to think actually that's overrated. I think people talk the game about privacy, but they don't actually through their revealed preferences, show that they care very much about privacy at all, so Facebook for exam. Well, if you were, if Facebook offered a sort of privacy protective package where you could be, you could be part of Facebook. It will be ten bucks a month. There be, I think, essentially, zero uptake to that and in fact, to make it clear market. I would probably have to be more like five hundred dollars, but I think there are some important questions about, but what it's doing to our social landscape, what it's doing to our kids summer? A lot of that eighty percent. It has to be addressed by parents, but there's also questions of policy, and you know one thing that I think we should look. That is the way our schools have incorporated technology. I I think that a lot of that there's been kind of technophilia

that is kind of crazy. I'm not saying we should have. They should all be using an abacus, but so so I guess what I'm saying is. We need to think through specific problems, an solutions to them rather other than sort of having so the generalized attitude toward the tech companies. Basing everything on that a couple of areas of that Reagan still that we talked about earlier, we talked about the social conservative side on talking a bit more about that now, so the pro life movement, obviously has become extraordinarily powerful inside the right side of the islands of the conservative movement? I'm very happy about that. I Do wonder whether the tactics that are being pursued by state republican parties. Are our benefit? shelter the long term goals of the pro life movement so, for example, Georgia passing Harpy bills the the attempt to pass protection from conception bills before more of the Supreme Court has even weighed in on.

Mental changes to ROE V wade- it seems like this might be tempting fate. This actually may be throwing good policy Let's see the Supreme Court that is likely to strike it down. What do you think is the best tag for conservatives use in fighting that pro life battle? Well, I think that over last twenty years or so need a thirty years really we have seen everything simultaneously. We've seen states passing restrictions on abortion. We I've seen people being more willing to identify themselves as pro life rather than pro choice and- and we have seen a reduction in the number and rate of abortions seems to be. That's not a coincidence that these three things have worked in tandem. So the incrementalist strategy, which really starts with the campaign in the mid 90s against partial birth abortion, I think, has and successful. Now I completely sympathize with my pro lifers, who are impatient to say the numbers are not going down

fast and as far as we should want, that's absolutely right, but I do think we have to be careful. What we owe on and children is not just statements of support, but practical and effective action that will achieve our goals of getting laws that recognize their humanity in their right to life and getting practices that welcome them into life. I am concerned that some of these laws that are being passed in different states like Georgia, make it harder for to win our cases at the Supreme Court and may also make it harder for us to get politically sustainable protection or unborn children. Same time, though, we've got a left that is going so far extreme on the their own. I think, would be better position. Capitalize on that. If we were a little we sort of gestured, let's say toward the Publix ambivalence, about abortion without necessarily totally embracing that ambivalence. If our pub

dance was something look. We want every child, did in in lawn in life, but in the time can we only least agree on the third trimester and try I'd bring some of those soft pro choice, folks over far side and then once we've got, that social consensus, once we've built and codified that, then we can say: okay, how about a week before the third master. Is there anything really that's so different about unborn children at this stage of development, that they don't deserve protection and sort of working to persuade people in a way that you know sort of part of what's going on here. Ben is that this morning made it seem, like persuasion, wasn't necessary that you could just accomplish what you need to buy FIAT and Part Georgia and Alabama, and all these other states are doing it's not serious legislating in the sense that they don't think this law is going to take effect. It's a statement to the Supreme Court. It's it's a throwing down the gauntlet and ice,

but if we were moved to actual legislation, we might see the potential to build a consensus for life. So we talked about a couple of legs. Third leg of the stool in the Reagan stole is the hawkish foreign policy. Here, we've seen a lot of firefighting inside the Republican Party of Late John Bolton being ousted from the Trump administration ran Palm Liz Cheney, going at it over America foreign policy. What do you think? Is there any consensus among Republicans or conservatives on foreign policy? It seems to me like this may be the weakest leg of the Repub. Still at this point, mainly because it's not priority to list of priorities, one house, that's it right! It is never the thing that anybody cares about until we get attack out for bid or until warmed breaks out, but with that said, there was a general intense after nine hundred and eleven at the United States needed to take a muscular role in the world to prevent the bad guys from coming here, and that consensus seems to be breaking down contributed to in large part by President Trump who but remember when Republicans spent eight years defending George W Bush from accusations that he was war, criminal and then down

from ran on the platform that George W Bush's war criminal in twenty sixteen won the nomination and then one the presidency. So do you? I think that there is any sort of consensus inside the Republican Party on the foreign policy front as well. You know the debate between Elizabeth Cheney and Rand Paul. I think it's depressing illustration of the point we were talking earlier, where everything ends up being about Trump they're. Talking about these most important questions of what the federal government should do what's, role in the world be war, peace and it's become who likes President Trump right, that's what it's just support formative I mean. There's all these all King Lear. Everything with President Trump is King Lear, who can cordiglia randomly delta and earn a share of the kingdom, Junior high version. You're talking to people who are really interested in foreign policy and they'll, ask during the day When are american voters going to make this a top issues like you, don't want the american voters

policy topic, because it's a sign that something's gone really badly wrong. If that happens, what Americans expect the people in charge of government to be taking care of that set of issues, and they don't think about it all that much themselves well, no frankly, a lot of stuff about what's going on in different international hotspots, but if something flares up they'll get they'll be upset that these things were not taken care of I'd mice top ten two wards, a kind of pragmatism in foreign policy, where I think foreign policy has to be hard, headed based on the pursuit of american national interests, an that means it can't be isolate. Just we can't pretend, as though we are one thousand eight hundred and seventy five America by at the same time, we can't be the leaders of a global crusade for liberal democracy because our resources are limited and we are not omnipotent that there was a

space in between those visions, but it does seem as though the debate is largely conducted, but in those visions, the other thing I would say is hardly sort of where you draw the line where we should be. You do want to foreign policy that is steady, that is competently, execute who did that our allies and enemies both have a general sense, above where we're coming from and- and I would give low marks to this administration on that question. So now, when I ask you to do what our friend Journal Goldberger CALL rang pond so I want. I want you to evaluate the democratic field going into the primaries for next year, now, if you're into an overall assessment of the democratic field, where are the strengths among these candidates in the primaries? An where do you see the possibility of victor? of a president Trump in general. So

rank pundits card may have been revoked in two thousand and sixteen, when I answer all those dollars, I lost too much money in twenty sixteen to ever. Do it again, it seems to That sort of the theory of Biden makes more sense than the actual Biden, as somebody who is not for kicking everybody. An employer based health insurance or Medicare advantage off of the plans that they have, and in general, like you know, doesn't believe that deportation is always a dirty word, when it comes to illegal immigrants, but you know you have. There are real questions about whether he's up to it. Whether he's up to the presidency, whether he's up to being the nominee and eve and the Democrats who say well, ok, so sometimes he says dumb things, but he's up against Trump yeah, but you You are losing the opportunity to capitalize on a potential strength against Trump. If you want him, I've been

in the by Camp Woodbine, I still think that's true. It's, partly because, let's turn to who, I think, is number one rival for the Democrats that's Elizabeth Warren and with Elizabeth Warren, I think she is a classic. The old theory of the democratic. Now innovation process was there's a beer track and a track and the beer track. Voters are people who are much more sort of uhm kind of like the old, the old hard hat Democrats and very tickle minded, often socially conservative or socially moderate. The kind of people who who propelled Mondale's win over Gary Hart was a wine track. Candidate Gore's over Bill Bradley and the big with your track. Candidate wins the democratic nomination. The great difference was two thousand and eight. When african Americans were typically with the beer track candidate Sai,

I did with Obama, and you had a coalition of affluent socially liberal whites and Africa Americans. The majority in the democratic primary Warren right now has part of that coalition. She's got the affluent socially liberal whites. She doesn't have any demonstrated appeal to african american voters. I have our time seeing how she wins the nomination without making some inroads there. So I just think her demographic base is too narrow. Now, there's Bernie Sanders, I think Sanders misunderstood the twenty sixteen race. In a lot of sanders, supporters misunderstood the twenty sixteen race. They thought that people were supporting him because he's a socialist and in fact he was he did more to help socialism and socialism did to help him and being this was meant that he was crazy enough to challenge Hillary Clinton when everybody else with any ambition in the party was was swept off the field, but there wasn't hi Clinton market. There were people who,

like are people who thought she was cynical and corrupt. Who knows where got that idea? They liked it because he was idealistic, but when he's not up against Hillary Clinton and when there are several people in the race, his market turns out to be much smaller than that I think, he's thinking and I think he's going to continue to sync as a result finally, there are the sort of the moderate non biting folks sort of the clover char's. Maybe the bookers, based on his past, if not where he is right now, and I think that we've, reached a stage in the primary all those guys budaj, in other words, they're almost sumbing, set of Biden, collapses, they'll be there to inherit it. I don't think. That's the way it's going to work, I think of I can collapse. Is democratic which will say well, I guess, there's no audience for moderation, and you know it's full speed ahead. An it'll it'll work to the advantage of one of the other candidates. So let's talk for a second about the rise of the Weo, quite progressive in a bunch of studies that have come out recently that show that the most liberal

bugs in the party, the most leftist folks in the party, are no longer members of racial minorities. That's not actually what's driving a lot of the feeling on sort of Oakside Howard Zinn ification of the Democratic Party. Instead, it's a bunch of people who went to prep schools college is on the coasts and they're way to the left of the general population. What happened to the Democratic Party that the woke the Weo quite left took it over because it used to be that the most left, lean in area of the Democratic Party in a lot of ways, was not that particular demographic. Now it's college, educated whites or leading the charge directly off that left wing cliff. So I think it's a lot of things fed into this. One is polarization in the old conservative Democrats having left the party in order Republicans joining the Democratic Party. It's part, thinking that history is histories on their side and misunderstandings of what happened in two thousand and sixteen so

If it's the Russians fault or if it's just Hillary, didn't go to Wisconsin or Hillary was personally off putting candidate even then need to make any compromises in your positions. There's nothing wrong with your ultimate program. You've got all of those things going for it then there's this sort of the emotional reaction to trump so so become sort of more hostile to any position that is associated with Trump and associated with Republican Party and then finally, I We believe that social media. Later all here that that people are echo chamber, of of twitter, where the Weo quite left looms larger and that effects how they, think about where the party is. Where that it changes the way journalists think where the center of the Democratic Party is, for example, and it's wildly unrepresentative of most, voters, it's not just a question of views being different. It's also a question of the things that are

people's minds being different. If you are a twitter, obsessive as I'll confess. Sometimes I am, there are two normal people and you know we get a missile picture of Democrats. Who created voter, is obsessed with what pronouns people use This is not true. Yeah, I think that really is the the social media bubble that you're talking about. I think that it may started with the sort of get out white vote mean the movie get out has features this this white couple, who is obviously to stain but they spend their time talking to the black man character about how they voted for Barack Obama, and this has alleviated them of all of their white guilt over everything is the group of for taking pictures of themselves in the ballot box a a or in the voting booth. Well, they were voting for Barack Obama, and no social media has has generated an entire cottage industry. Of all. This is he's. An sorry has a comedy special it, which she talks about. The woke white liberals who are sitting

they're doing their virtue signalling points talking about how they love crazy, rich Asians, even if they only kind of like crazy, rich Asians. Today great everybody else, how woke they are and it seems unsustainable, because that side of the party is still a minority of the Democratic Party. I mean by polling data that Joe Biden, the party is still larger than the White woke liberal, brain of the Democratic Party. I wonder if at any point there are no, members of the Democratic Party, just shout stop. This is going to far well. You know there's a hit for that. So if you think back to nineteen ninety two or the late 80s and early 90s, when you have Bill Clinton, trying to change the Democratic Party, think about us great heresies in the ninety two campaign before the laughter was welfare reform, the death pen and for remember, sister soldier. You may have been too young for that, but you know black people should be actually kill: white people that was those for all views that were

actually widely shared among democratic voters but offended. Thin slice of democratic activists and opinion leaders and and Clinton was able to to make a cute It's changing the party by leveraging that fact he got country at large to change its opinion of demo. At least for awhile, and it was acceptable to Democrats at large because this group of people we're not actually representative them, so maybe that happens again but of course that required three losses in presidential elections in a row before demo cats were willing to take that medicine and and the elite. We're willing to say maybe some of the things we've been doing need to change. It also feels, like the level of interconnection has made this so much more difficult because before, if you had nuts kind of screaming at you. You just said: ok, there are you nuts or screaming at me now you have crazy, people screaming at you, an entire corporations bow before them. Kevin Williamson in his new book, talk specifically about the activation of the core

patient is a tool of the left in the sense that corporations are created, create the company man. They create company man, that sort of the widget to work for them, and they have to have corporate positions on everything, and they are there, too avoid risk and the greatest risk for a lot of things right now is being in the headlines at all. So if you see twelve tweets about something, then better issue an apology and move to the left, and- and in signal about how much you love particular aspect of the social Life program, simply to avoid all of the Blowback? So I wonder in the area of social media, if it's ever going to be possible to walk this stuff back, because the loudest people, tend to have outsized impact on social media and because companies don't seem to have the willingness in the corporate world actually just say no to all of this nonsense do you see that there's going to be any sort of corporate blowback coming or is the entire market going to fragment right now, because putting aside government. It seems like on a social level. What we are now aiming toward is completely diff spheres in which we operate. Like

this won't be able to go to Walmart anymore they'll. Go to conservative, Walmart and liberals. To be able to go to. I remember: when will food to of exactly right, I mean well, I think it is still there I think it's long been the case and is still the case that Conservatives are more sort of quietistic about a lot of these things and are more likely to compartmentalize politics from I think so. Yeah there when the Nike through Betsy Ross under the bus. There were, only concern is that well, I'm not buying Nike anymore, but I think it is still the case that you're at which conservative is more like likely to say. Well, it's a good two I'm going to buy. It now we change and that may be changing now, but So at least recently, I think you'd have to say that it may made sense for comma. Needs to be more responsive to the left, then, to the rights based on this behavioral difference. But conservatives and liberals The president Trump has extraordinarily high approval ratings, among Republicans not among Americans generally, but among Republicans and you've talked

polarization you've talked about the fact that the left is Verizon at the right is polarized is the it it wise for the Democratic Party continue to fight these culture wars, they continue to believe that they are winning the culture wars, but it seems like for every culture where they, when they lose a political war, because conservatives don't know how to fight culture war worse. Instead, they fight words by electing culture warriors to positions of political prominence. Well, it's a pen in your priorities. I mean, if you are a liberal activist whose mainly interested in those culture wars, then yeah go on finding them, and you know you have made games and you may continue to make it if you're most concerned about getting more getting a higher minimum wage or getting more government provided healthcare or something maybe that doesn't make sense as your priority, because I do think that it gets in the way of building a larger democratic coalition. I mean my free advice, since I don't think it will be actually taking you today, if I were them, the message

which I would use against Trump in twenty twenty leaving aside, what shape the economy is in would be something like he's. Plutocratic he's got, you know touch about being on the side of the workers and he's got all these Goldman Sachs people in his administration and all these lobbyists, and he you know, he's not actually interested in the comic, but that I think, would require level of discipline that they're not capable of attaining what actually moves them is You know what pronouns people and the other thing is so think about these Obama? think about a Wisconsin there with their counties in Wisconsin that voted for Bush twice and Obama twice true, but voted for Scott Walker and then voted for Tammy Baldwin. These people are not locked in the app Salute Lee. A segment of them at least could be quarterback to the Democratic Party, but does it seem to you that the Democratic Party is more interested in courting those voters or in judging them and trying to get? tell them, you know you should be ashamed of yourself for the way. Oh, did last time

It seems like there's an obvious answer that question and it seems those voters. Now. Look the answer that question as well, and you think that attitude is extended to the intelligentsia inside the Democratic party. So you it, I live in la you, live in New York and I'm sure you've had many long conversations with folks on the left over the years I get the few. Live in the DC area. That's ok, sorry, yeah, exactly yeah, but when it comes to these sort of punditocracy, it feels it's it's more and more difficult to find people on the other side of the aisle or even willing to have the conversation. In fact, the just to have a conversation is seen as a sort of heresy among certain members of the intelligence on the left. Is that been your experience? Oh there's, no question that that that happens. Remember, Joel Kaplan, getting MOU Mou by some Facebook employees because he showed up during the rings for his friend right calf Na Wen and former colleague for the Supreme Court so yeah. It's all people our people are not willing to concede that intelligent people of goodwill

bill can be on the other side of them from an issue, at least when they're, not thinking about people they already know in, like so maybe they're willing to make that concession about a family member or about a friend. But it's very easy to think of a kind of faceless abstraction of conservatives or liberal and they're all terrible people and it's a huge problem, and frankly, even on the friends and family side, part because of polarization people have less of that in their own lives and they used to do you that's fixable. My my my belief is that the the military social institutions that used to at least allow us to get together and and see each other face to face and not see just our political perspectives on Facebook to follow in a way into the social media coincident with the destruction of the social fabric mounted to what may be an unbridgeable gap. Do you believe this is restorable, so I think

that the social issues in the nationalization of the social issues did a lot to unleash this dynamic. It has sort of floated free to some extent and and taken on a life of its own, but again outside of twitter. Most people are not quite that revved up and I do thinking. Maybe this is sort of utopian on my part. I do think that if you were to denationalize some of those issues that may be, politics should move to a healthier place, but but at the moon, it's very hard to see it at the moment. You can just see the way this dynamic just feeds on itself. Over and over so from a conservative perspective, we talked about sort of had a federalized these issues, if you're on the left, namely concede that, abortion is not a national Supreme Court issue, but on the right, how would you go about federalizing a lot of these issues when it looks as though you're battling people who want to keep federalizing all of these issues? Well, in a way, it's sort of easier advice for us, because we just have to win on the road v Wade and we never really. You know. So I suppose you

say there was an attempt in the and the two 2000s to have a federal solution on same sex marriage. But certainly nobody on the conservative side of that issue still thinks that that is the thing to do at most, and this is probably too far reach its wanted to re, create federalism on that issue, and I do think that that has to be what we allow, because we're just not going to build a national consensus on each of these issues. How do we get back to it? educational, educational role for for the and and get back to education and sort of the basics, because everybody snipping abortion, everybody has an opinion on same sex marriage. Nobody seems to understand how checks and balances work, including the presidential candidates who seem to each and every day, promising that they're going to override every single check in bag, in the constitution to do whatever it is that they want to do today, beta or promising that he simply when you come to your house personally and take your guns for

Apple or Elizabeth Warren, suggesting she's going to personally right? The first amendment: is there a way to re educate people about the importance of these institutions. Are people basically given up on that because again, it's lot easier to sound off on the issues than it is to understand that sometimes checks and balances mean you don't get what you want. So I think partly it has to go away. I don't I'm not going to be able to it's a follow up questions, but we have to threw out a way to reward legislators for being legislators, so so much of what folks and what ought to be the first, the federal government do they use our position as a platform for self expression. Frankly, present trump doesn't of this too I mean he, he views himself, sometimes the internet, commoner and chief other than the present United States. Ninety right, so what goes again just the grain of our cult over the last fifty years is we need people

who are more willing to take up the institutional role and maybe a little less eager to express themselves personally and our culture is all about self expression right. It is not at all about self control that gets worse year, fear. So in a way I mean I just like sort of maybe identified one of the preconditions for solving the problem, just not quite the same thing as solving the problem see. The answer to that is that the american people need to stop looking to politicians as their moral guides. It's been very well is useful in that respect I mean I I've actually said this tonight it to my friends on the left, as you guys keep about Trump and believe me, I didn't Barack Obama very much. I have a solution for this is that the executive branch could just become less powerful and then you wouldn't care who is the head of the executive branch and I feel the same way about the federal government generally. We spend such an in most amount of time trying to struggle with the ramifications of the powerful federal government. Well, if you don't like this sing it- and I don't like who's running it, then how about we just minimize the power of this, define institutions first place. So let me say something nice about the public. I do think that if they say let's say. The nominee if he would have

campaign, one of whose most important implicit messages at least is look make me present. And you won't hear from me everyday, You know there will not be drama constantly. I will- not share with you my opinion about Don Lemon. I think that there will be a big audience for that for people who are frankly, I think that was part of George W Bush's campaign message in two thousand, which I'm not going to actually disrupt all this. The Clinton status quo, but I'll we generally, you won't be sort of averting your eyes from Oval office, the way you had to under the under Bill Clinton, and I think that that is something that people still would like. I totally agree with this I mean I, I have the the bizarre opinion that that Joe Biden's appear narcolepsy as well as his his shocking senility may actually cut in favor or of him in the general election, because who scared that guy right, I mean like he's going to early bird dinner at Denny's. He won't have to worry about that being a transformation president and rewriting the rules of the road, or

I saw a lot of our complacency. He just give me some guy readies he's he could bring back the fireside chat. You know it's it's completely plot and then he he be distributing record players like I mean I'm totally into this like it as long as he's into the the record player business and not in our face by it, I'm not voting for Joe Biden, but the fact is that that it doesn't appealing idea that that we don't not in this fight every single day when one second, I want to ask Ramesh whether he actually going to vote for Donald Trump and the hardest question of all brownish, of course, visiting well at the American Enterprise Institute. You want to hear it. Ramesh is final answer. You have to sub five over dailywire dot com go there. Click subscribe, make magic happen for you self relish hello thanks. So much for stopping by this is really been a joy thanks for your time. Welcome if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe and you want to help spread. The word please give us a

five STAR Review and tell your friends to subscribe or available on Apple Podcasts Spotify, an wherever you listen to podcasts also be sure to check out the other daily wire podcasts, including them at WAL. Show the Andrew Klavan show the Michael Knowles Show and my show the Ben Shapiro show thanks for let the Ben Shapiro show Sunday Special is directed by Mathis Glover and produced by Jonathan, Hey executive producer. Hear me boring, associate producer of Colton. Has our guests are booked by Caitlin Maynard Post production is supervised by Alex Zingaro editing by Donovan Fowler Audio is missed by MIKE permanent hair and makeup is by Jeshua Overa title Hydrographics by Cynthia Angulo Shapiro show Sunday Special is a daily wire production. Copyright daily wire, two thousand and nineteen