Kind: captions
Language: en
something has to happen with Iran there
has to be some diplomatic bilateral
communication there no what has to
happen is the containment of Iran
history Moves In One Direction right why
because of time communism Nazism all of
that was a regression from what was
happening at for example the beginning
of the 19th century in the 20th century
what in what way do you think that today
Donald Trump knows that he lost the
election absolutely so I I don't this is
one of the areas where we get into this
I don't understand um if there's like
brain breaking happening or what's going
on I don't know what world we can ever
live in where we say that Trump is less
divisive for the country than Biden Joe
Biden literally used the occupational
safety and Hazard Administration to try
to cram down vax mandates on 80 million
Americans that's insane what about super
cal fragile and then you what about new
multra microscopics or the science terms
exactly or what about the 7,000 letter
thing that's from part of uh biochem I
got my education the Soviet Union so we
just did math this that's why you're
useful person does body count
matter the following is a debate between
Ben Shapiro and Destiny each arguably
representing the right and the left of
American politics respectively they are
two of the most influential and skilled
political Debaters in the world this
debate has been a long time coming for
many years it's about 2.5 hours and we
could have easily gone for many more and
I'm sure we will it is only round one
this is the Lex Freon podcast to support
it please check out our sponsors in the
description and now dear friends here's
Ben Shapiro and
Destiny Ben you're conservative Destiny
you're a liberal can you each describe
what key values underpin your philosophy
on politics and maybe life in the
context of this left right political
Spectrum you want to go first yeah so I
think that we have a huge country full
of a lot of people a lot of individual
talents
capabilities um and I think that the
goal goal of government broadly speaking
should be to try to ensure that
everybody's able to achieve as much as
possible so on a liberal level that
usually means some people might need a
little bit of a boost when it comes to
things like education um they might need
a little bit of a boost when it comes to
providing certain Necessities like
housing or food or clothing but broadly
speaking I mean I'm still a liberal not
a communist or socialist I don't believe
in the you know total command economy
total communist takeover of all of the
uh you know economy but I think that
broadly speaking the government should
kind of like kick and help people when
they need it and that government can and
should be big not necessarily I notice
that when liberals talk about government
or especially taxes it seems like they
talk about it for taxes sake or big
bigness sake so people talk about taxes
sometimes as like a like a punishment
like tax the rich uh I think taxing the
rich is fine in so far as it funds the
programs that we want to fund but
Democrats have a really big problem
demonizing success or wealth and I don't
think that's a bad thing uh I I don't
think it's a bad thing to be wealthy to
be a billionaire or whatever as long as
we're funding what we need to fund Ben
what do you think it means to be a
conservative what's what's the
philosophy that underlies your political
view so first of all I'm glad that
Destiny you're already coming out as a
republican that's exciting um I mean I I
we hold a lot in common in terms of uh
you know the the basic idea
that people ought to have as much
opportunity as possible and also in so
far as the government should do the
minimum amount necessary to interfere in
people's lives in order to pursue
certain functions particularly at the
local level so a lot of governmental
discussions on a pragmatic level end up
being discussions about where government
ought to be involved but also at what
level government ought to be involved
and I have an incredibly subsidiary view
of government I I think that you know
local governments because you have
higher levels of homogenity and and
consent uh are capable of doing more
things and as you abstract up the chain
it becomes more and more impractical and
more and more divisive to to do more
things in in my view government is
basically there to preserve certain key
Liberties uh the those key Liberties
pre-exist the government uh in in so far
as they are more important than what
priorities the government has the the
job of government is to maintain for
example National Defense protection of
property rights protection of religious
freedom the these are these are the key
focus of government as generally
expressed in the Bill of Rights in the
Constitution and I agree with the
general philosophy of the bill rights
and the Constitution now that doesn't
mean by the way that you can't do more
on a governmental level again as you get
closer to the ground which by the way is
also embedded in the Constitution people
forget the Constitution was originally
applied to the federal government not to
local and state government um but you
know if I going to Define conservatism
it would actually be a little broader
than that because I think to understand
how people interact with government you
have to go to kind of core values and
and so for me there there are a couple
of premises one human beings have a
nature that nature is neither good nor
bad we have aspects of goodness and we
have aspects of Badness human beings are
sinful we have temptations and what that
means is that we have to be careful not
to incentivize the bad and that we
should incentivize the good human beings
do have agency and are capable of making
decisions in the vast majority of
circumstances um and it is better for a
society if we act as though they do uh
second the basic idea of human nature
there is an idea in my view that all
human beings have equal value before the
law I'm I'm a religious person so I'd
say equal value before God but I think
that's also sort of a key tend of
Western Civilization being non-religious
or religious that every individual has
equivalent value in sort of cosmic terms
um but that does not necessarily mean
that every person is equally equipped to
do everything equally well and so it is
not the job of government to rectify
every imbalance of Life The Quest for
Cosmic justice as Thomas Soul suggests
is something that government is
generally incapable of doing and more
often than not botches and makes things
worse so th those are a few key tenants
and that that tends to materialize in in
a variety of ways the the the easiest
way to sum that up would the traditional
kind of three legs of the the
conservative stool although now
obviously there's a very fragmented
conservative movement in the United
States would be a a socially
conservative view in which family is the
chief institution of society like the
little platoon of society as Edmund
Burke suggested uh in which free free
markets and property rights are
extraordinarily valuable and necessary
uh because every individual has the
ability to be creative with their
property and to
freely alienate that property uh and uh
and finally I tend toward a hawkish
foreign policy that suggests that the
world is not filled with wonderful
people who all agree with us and think
like us and those people will pursue
adversarial interests if we if we do not
protect our own interests can I ask a
question on that I'm so okay um I'm
excited for this conversation because I
consider you to be really intelligent um
but I feel like sometimes there are ways
that conservatives talk about certain
issues that seem to defy logic reason I
guess so here and I'm sure you feel the
same way about prog I feel the same way
about progressives um but even some uh
liberals for sure uh before I ask this
question is going to relate to education
we can agree broadly speaking that
statistics are real and that not
everybody could do everything so for a
grounded example uh my life was pretty
bad I got into streaming and I turned my
life around and that was really cool but
I can't expect everybody to do what I
did right like everybody being able to
join the NBA or to be like a streamer of
course everybody has different qualities
sure okay so I used to be a lot more
libertarian um when I was 2021 and one
of the things that dramatically changed
kind of my view on government uh
manipulation of things in the I guess in
society came uh when it came time to
deal with my son and the school that he
went to and one of the things that I
noticed was when it came time to send my
son to school I could either do private
education or I could do public uh
personally I did 12 Years of Catholic
private education um however the public
schools in Nebraska depending on where
you lived were very very very good and I
opted for a certain District I bought a
house there I moved there and then my
son was able to go to those schools um
and he's been going through those
schools and the difference of
availability of like technology like
these kids are taking home iPads and
like first grade uh they've got like
huge computer labs and everything do you
think that there is some type of I don't
want to say Injustice or unfairness
because I'm not even looking at it that
way just pragmatically that there might
be children that are in certain schools
that if they just had better funding or
more uh access to Technologies or things
available to them that those kids would
become more productive members of
society that with like a little bit of a
help they they could actually achieve
more and do better for all of society so
I think that on the list of priorities
when it comes to education the
availability of technology is actually
fairly low on the list of priorities
sure the two things I've heard are food
availability and I think air
conditioning I think are the two biggest
ones that I hear but sure well I mean
the biggest thing in terms of Education
itself not just the physical facilities
that we're talking about would actually
be two parent family house households
sure communities that that have fathers
in them is actually the number one
deiser according to Roland frier and
many studies done on this particular
topic and the idea that that money alone
that investment of resources is the top
priority in schooling is boted by the
fact that LUSD which is where I went to
school when I was younger they pour an
enormous amount of money into La USD
we're talking about tens of thousands of
dollars very often per student and it
does not result in better schooling
outcomes and so when you say if we could
give every kid an iPad would you give
every kid an iPad the question is not if
I had a replicator machine from Star
Trek would I give everybody an enormous
amount of stuff sure I I would every
every resource is f it every resource is
limited you have to prioritize what are
the what are the outcomes that you seek
in terms of the means with which you are
seeking them and so again I think that
the question is is I I quibble with the
with the premise of the question which
is that again the the chief Injustice
when it comes to education on the list
of of injustices is lack of availability
to technology or that it's a funding
problem I just don't think that's the
case sure and I can half agree with you
there but I don't think any amount of
changes in the schools will create two
parent households right we can't bring a
I totally agree with you that's why I
think that the the fundamental
educational problem is not in fact a
schooling problem I think that it
pre-exists that sure but then I feel
like we're now I feel like this is kind
of the conservative marry go around
where it's like what can we do to help
with schools so two of the things that
I've seen I think that are usually
brought up in research is one is air
conditioning that children in hotter
environments just don't learn as well um
and then the second one is access to
food so like kids that are given like a
breakfast or a lunch that's provided at
school like increases educational
outcomes now I agree that neither of
these things might be determinative in
like well 20% of kids were graduating
and now 80% of kids are graduating or
these kids are all going you know from
with their geds into the workforce and
now these kids are all suddenly becoming
Engineers but in terms of where we can
help do you think there should be like
some minimum threshold or minimum
Baseline of like at the very least every
school should have a non- leaky gym or
every school should have uh if children
can't afford lunch or breakfast like
some sort of food provided or every
school should have these like Baseline
things so again I'm going to quibble
with the premise of the question because
I think when it comes to for example
food
insecurity School food programs again
you can always pour money into any
program and at the margins create change
I mean there's no doubt that pouring
money onto anything will create change
in a Marginal Way the question is how
large is the margin and how big is the
movement right so the Delta is what I'm
looking at and so I think that the
you're you're starting at a second order
question which is what if we ignore what
I would think are the big primary
questions of Education namely family
structure value of education at home how
much you have parents who are capable or
willing to help with homework what are
the incentive structures we can set up
for a society that actually facilitate
that how local communities take
ownership of their schools is a big one
right all all of these issues we're
ignoring in favor of say air
conditioning or lunch programs and so in
a vacuum if you say air conditioning and
lunch programs sounds great in a vacuum
in in terms of prioritization of values
and cost structure are those the things
that I think are going to move the
needle in a major way in terms of public
policy I I I do not and and in fact I
think that many of them end up being
disproportionate wastes of money I mean
I've talked before pretty
controversially about the fact that an
enormous amount of school lunch programs
are thrown out like an enormous amount
of that food ends up in the garbage can
is there a better way to do that if
there is a better way to do it then I'm
perfectly willing to hear about that
better way to do it but it seems to me
that one of the big flaws in the way
that many people of the approach
government is what if we hit every knat
with a hammer and my question is what if
the Gat isn't even the problem what if
there is a much bigger substructure
problem that needs to be solved in order
to if you're shifting deck chairs on the
Titanic sure you can make the Titanic
slightly more balanced because the deck
chairs are slightly better oriented but
the real question is the the water
that's gaping into the Titanic right
yeah and I agree with you 100% but again
the I feel like we're on the
Conservative merrygoround then of never
wanting to address that's not a
conservative Mound I can you 10 ways
well sure but so like here would be the
marry around I would say that like
there's a minimum funding for schools
that I think would help children and
they would go well the thing that would
help them the most is two parent
households and I go okay well two parent
households actually aren't the problem
um the issue is access to things like
birth controls that people don't have
children early on and it's like but the
issue isn't actually birth control the
issue is actually you need a certain
amount of money to move out early and to
get married and then to have a two
parent household so it's actually like
Economic Opportunity well it's you no
just two parent households yeah but like
what is the what are the pre fuck people
before you're and have babies sure done
that's great can say that and try to
fight against you know however many
hundreds of thousands of years of human
evolution but people will have sex and
people will make babies and then they
used to get married the vast majority of
people in this country with kids used to
be married the vast majority of people
with kids in this country now are not
married increasingly that is obviously a
societal changed something changed it
wasn't human evolution but a lot of
those things in terms of resting on
whether or not people get married have
to do with financial decisions do you
have the money people are worse off now
than they were 50 60 years ago when the
marriage rates were higher people are
delaying the start of their careers
because education's going increasingly
important so in in other words people
are richer now and they have more
education now and yet they're having
more babies out of wedlock now because
they're richer and have more education
I'm saying that the one of the biggest
indicators for whether or not somebody's
willing to get married is how much money
both people are making if they can move
out of their household people don't tend
to want to get married at 22 when
they've just finished College when they
don't have the money to move out and
they can't afford a house because we
have changed the moral status of
marriage in the culture meaning that
everyone poor Rich and in between used
to get married that by the way a huge
percentage of marriages in the United
States used to be what they would call
shotgun marriages meaning that somebody
knocked somebody up and because they did
not want baby to be born outside of a
two parent household they would then get
married do we think that shotgun
marriages though are a way to bring back
equilibrium to education if we yes
absolutely yes 100% a child deserves a
mother and a father because that is the
basis for all of this including
education do we think that shotgun
marriages are well let's say this do we
think that that's a reasonable direction
that society would ever take or is this
like it was the reasonable direction for
nearly all of modern history was but
history Moves In One Direction right why
because of time mean people people don't
think that's a in in what in what way is
that is and I don't think we've ever
like regressed social standards back to
like oh well let's go 100 years back and
do things that you know used to exist
before I the entire left right now is
arguing that we regret social standards
by rejecting Row versus Wade so that's
obviously not true the row vers Wade is
not a social standard it's a Supreme
Court ruling number one number two what
if you read the actual majority of
opinion on roie Wade we can see that
socially we ever actually never made
huge progress on how Society viewed
abortion this has always been an
incredibly divisive thing right even
that was I think part of alito's uh
writing on it was that things like gay
marriage for instance we kind of moved
past and it's not really as debated
anymore but abortion was never a settled
topic despite the Arc of History
constantly Moves In One Direction is be
lied by nearly all of the 20th century
what do we mean by that I mean I
mean barbarism communism Nazism all of
that was a regression from what was
happening at for example the beginning
of the 19th century in the 20th century
what in what way Nazism and communism
weren a regression from what was going
on in 1905 these are well in terms of
like communism being a regression for
instance I'm not a communist but but
like the industrialization of the Soviet
Union happened under communist Society
the industrialization murder of T of
millions of people that regression moral
regression which is what we are talking
about now moral regression and you're
you're suggesting that moral regression
I wouldn't term a return to Traditional
Values in moral regression you would but
your suggestion is that history only
Moves In One Direction and I'm
suggesting that history does not only
move in in One Direction it tends to
move actually back and forth sure I
don't think that all of history moves in
one uh One Direction there going to be
Wars there are going to be times of
peace I think in general more peaceful
now than we have been in the past but I
think when we look at the way that
people live their lives I think that we
tend to move in a certain direction
socially so when it comes to things like
racism or when it comes to things like
slavery or women's rights I think that
there are two huge things that probably
aren't changing in the US and one is
access to contraception and one is women
working jobs I think that these two
things are probably huge things that are
moving us off of shotgun marriages or
getting married very early on and I
don't see though do you think that those
two things are going to change
fundamentally first of all what the data
tend to show is that actually more
Highly Educated people as you were
saying tend to get married more so the
idea is that women getting an education
somehow throws them off marriage it's
the opposite usually wom are not
educated those women aren't getting
shotgun marriages those women aren't
having children now now you're Shifting
the topic my my topic was how to get
more people married and what I'm s and
and then you suggested that higher
levels of Education are delaying
marriage and making it less probable and
what I'm telling you because this is
what the data suggests is that actually
as you raise up the the educational
ladder people tend to be married more
than they are lower down on the
educational ladder if you're a high
school graduate you're less likely to be
married than if you're a postdoc I agree
with you but that's because one of the
biggest precursors to getting married is
having like a level of economic
stability so as people get more educated
they obtain this economic stability and
then they're in a more comfortable
position to explore more serious
relation there's another confound there
I mean the confound is that people in
stable marriages tend to be the children
of stable marriages and there's only one
way to break that cycle which is to
create a stable marriage and that is
something that is in everyone's hands
again this notion that it is somehow an
unbreakable unshadow barrier to get
married and have kids I don't understand
where this is coming from why is that
such a why is that such a challenge
chall I it's unbreakable or unshatter I
was just the initial point was for
school if we can provide a minimum level
of educational stuff for children that'
probably be good but when we Retreat
back to well it has to be the families
that are fixed first fixing families is
a multivariant problem that so many I am
fine within my local community we all
vote again I I've suggested there's a
difference between local community and
federal I'm fine with my local community
voting for school lunches or air
conditioning or whatever it is that we
all agree to do because the more local
you get the more homogeneity you get in
terms of interest and the more interest
you have in your neighbors all of that's
fine I'm part of a very very solid
community in our community we give to
each other we have minimum standards of
helping one another all that's wonderful
when it comes to the actual problem of
Education what I object to in the
political sphere and this happens all
the time is everybody is arguing on top
of the iceberg about how we can move the
needle .5 percentage points as opposed
to the entire Iceberg melting beneath
them and we just ignore that we pretend
that that's just you know sort of the
natural consequence of thing the Arc of
History suggests that people are never
going to get married again well I mean
actually what the Arc of History
suggests realistically speaking is that
the people who are not getting married
are not going to be having kids and what
it also suggests the people who are
married are going to be having kids and
so the demographic profile actually over
time is rather going to shift toward
people who are having lots and lots of
kids I'm married I have four kids
everyone in my community is married
that's like minimum buying in my
community is four kids okay and so
what's happening actually in terms of
demographics is that the people who are
more religious and getting married are
having more kids and so if you're
talking about the Arc of History
shifting toward Mar I I would suggest
that actually demographically over time
long periods of time not over one
generation over long periods of time the
only cure for low birth rate is going to
be the people who get married and have
lots of kids yeah I don't necessarily
disagree with any of that but I'm just
saying that again on the on yoursite
when I bring up the term marry around um
I think that there are good
conversations to be had about people
getting married um because stable
families produce stable children that
are less likely to commit crime that are
more likely to go to school that are
more likely to produced members of
society ET I'm not going to disagree
with you on any of that all of that is
true um it's just frustrating that
sometimes when you bring up any problem
all of it will Circle back to other
things that makes it seem like we can't
make any progress in any area without
like fixing I literally just told you
that on the local level I'm fine for
people voting for so for instance on the
local level so for school funding school
funding is done I think generally per
District so what do you do when you have
poor districts that can't afford air
conditioner for their schools I mean the
idea there would be that presumably if
the society me the state and I generally
don't mean the federal state I mean like
the state of California for example
decides that everybody ought to have air
conditioning people will vote for air
conditioning and that's perfectly legal
and I don't think there's anything
morally objectionable about that per se
I also don't think that that's going to
heal anything remotely like the central
problem and I think that what what what
tends to happen in terms of government
is people love arguing about the
problems that can be solved by opening a
wallet and nobody likes to solve a
problem by you know
closing their sex life to one person for
example
or having kids within a stable religious
community like the things that build
Society I'm fine with arguing about each
of these policies and and whether we
apply them or not is a matter generally
of pragmatism not morality it's a matter
of incentive structures not per se
morality because incentive structures do
have you know moral underpinings there
there's such a thing as you know for
example if you're going use a welfare
program you have to decide how effective
it is to what crowd it applies where the
cut offs are does it disincentivize work
does it not all of these are pragmatic
concerns but on a level the generalized
objection that I have to people on the
left side of the aisle is that they like
to FOC in these conversations very often
it feels as though it's a conversation
with with people who are drunk searching
under the the lamp for their keys the
problems they want to look at are the
problems that are solvable by government
and then all the problems they don't
want to look at which are the actual
giant monsters luring in the dark and
not particularly solvable by government
are the ones they want to ignore and
assume are just the natural state of
things and I don't think that's correct
at all and I 1 billion per agree but
then obviously my criticism for the
conservative side is the the exact
opposite where where there are Parts
where government could remedy some
issues um for instance you know uh
children having sex with each other and
producing other children out of wedlock
like sometimes having after school
programs is nice to prevent that like I
didn't have time for these things when I
was in school I was doing football
practice I was doing Cross Country
Practice I went in early for a band you
know um I agree with you that sometimes
people only focus on one end of the
problem as a I hate to be that guy um
but as somebody that have you ever
watched The Wire sure I'm not going to
site the wire's real life example but
like obviously there's only so much you
can do in a school When the Children
coming in are so Beyond destroyed
because of the family life and
everything prior to them even getting to
school that day so I agree government is
not like the solution to Broken families
that would never be the case and it's
actually not the solution to education
depending on the kind of solutions that
you're talking about some solutions yes
some solutions no yeah the only thing
I'm looking at is as I said earlier just
like these minimum threshold things
where it's like where can government
make because you mentioned marginal
which I think is a really good way to
look at things there marginal cost and
margin utility to things where the first
$1,000 per student you spend might give
you a huge return but the extra 20,000
after I think these are all pragmatic
discussions actually this is what we
used to hash out in legislatures before
they turned into platforms for people
Grand standing but yes sure okay yeah as
we descend from the heavens of
philosophical discussion of conservatism
and liberalism let's go to the pragmatic
muck of
politics Trump versus Biden between the
two of them who was in their first term
uh the better president and thus who
should win if the two of them are in
fact our choices should win a second
term in 2024
Ben sure so in terms of actual job
performance you have to separate it into
a few categories uh in terms of actual
performance in foreign policy I think
Trump's foreign policy record is
significantly better than Biden's the
world being on fire right now being
fairly good example of that uh and we
can get into each aspect of the world
being on fire and where the incentive
structures came from and how all of that
happen in a moment when it comes to the
economy I think that Trump's economic
record was better than Biden's doesn't
mean he didn't overspend he did he
wildly overspent uh but he also had a
very solid record of job creation a huge
percentage of the gains in the economy
went to people on the lower end of the
economic spectrum actually uh the gross
income to the average American was about
$6,000 during his term the unemployment
rates were very very low before covid
you I think that you almost have to
separate the Trump Administration into
sort of before covid and during covid
because Co obviously is sort of a Black
Swan event the the most signal change in
in politics In Our Lifetime uh and so
you know governance during Co is almost
its own category which we can discuss um
but you know in terms of foreign policy
in terms of domestic policy I think that
Trump was significantly better uh than
than Biden has been and that's on the
upside for Trump on the downside for
Biden obviously you're talking 40e highs
in inflation you're talking about
savings being eaten away you're talking
about everything being 20 to 30 30% more
expensive you're talking about massive
increases to the deficit even at a rate
that was unknown under Trump uh the
deficit under Trump raised by about a
little under a trillion dollarss every
year up until 2020 against 2020 was Co
year so everybody decided that we were
going to fire hose money at things um
but uh then Joe Biden continued to fire
hose money at things in 21 22 and 23 uh
you know that obviously is in my opinion
bad Economic Policy uh and then you get
to the rhetoric and you get to the stuff
that Donald Trump says and as I've said
before my view is that on Donald Trump's
half on his gravestone it will say
Donald Trump he said a lot of shit uh I
I think that Donald Trump does say a lot
of things I think that that is basically
baked into the cake which is why
everyone who's bewildered by the polls
is ignoring human nature which is at the
beginning when you see something very
shocking it's very shocking and then if
you see it over and over and over and
over for years on end it is no longer
shocking it is just part of the
background noise like tontis it just
becomes you know something that your
brain adjusts for uh and so do I like a
lot of Donald Trump's rhetoric no and I
never have do I think that that is just
positive as to his presidency no I do
not when it comes to Biden again I think
he's underperforming economically I
think that his foreign policy has been
really a a problem even the things I
think he's done right are I think
bandaids for things that he created by
doing wrong uh and when it comes to his
his own
rhetoric you can argue that it's grading
on a curve because Trump was coming in
with such wild rhetoric that just the
maintenance of that wild rhetoric
doesn't really change again the Baseline
for Biden he came in in the same way
that Obama did on the sort of soaring
rhetoric of American Unity I'm the
president for all like Trump came in
he's like listen I'm the president for
for what I am and you know I'm going to
say the things I want to say I'm going
be on the toilet and I'm tweeting we're
like okay you know what it is with Biden
he came in with I'm a president for all
Americans I'm trying to unify everybody
and that pretty quickly broke down into
a lot of oppositional language about his
political opponents in particular and
attempt to lump in for example huge
swaths of the conservative movement with
the people who participated for example
in January 6th or who are fans of
January 6th um and um you know the the
the sort of lumping in of everybody into
Maga Republicans who wasn't personally
signed on to an infrastructure bill with
him that sort of stuff I think has been
been truly terrible I thought his
Philadelphia speech was truly terrible
and again I think that you do have the
problem of he is no longer capable of
certainly rhetorically unifying the
country when every speech from him feels
like watching Nick Wenda walk across a
volcano on a tight RPP and it it really
is like you're just sort of waiting for
him to follow I mean it's it's sad to
say I mean the other day he was speaking
for what was in effect his campaign kick
off and this is in Valley Forge uh and I
mean Jill rushed up there like off the
off the as soon as he was done Jill
rushed up there uh you know like she'd
been shot out of a cannon to to come and
try to guide him away so he didn't
become the Shane Gillis Roomba and you
know that that's not really you know I
let's put it this way it does not quiet
the soul to watch Joe Biden rhetorically
again it's a different problem than
Trump's problem but that that's my
analysis uh this is one of the areas
where we get into this I don't
understand um if there's like brain
breaking happening or what's going on I
don't know what world we can ever live
in where we say that Trump is less div
divisive for the country than Biden I
think it is so patently obvious Trump is
so divisive like not only does Trump
make an enemy out of every person in the
opposition party he makes an enemy out
of his own party and every single person
around him like we all watched him bully
uh you know Jeff sessions we all watched
him bully his own party on Twitter we
all watched like all of these people
walk away from him um even recently I
think um his uh the Secretary of Defense
esper and um John Kelly the chief of
staff where you know saying I think
Trump is a threat to democracy um you
know you've got all of his prior people
that were around him some of his closest
allies you've got Bill bar that won't
co-sign a single thing that he says um
you've got all these people that he used
to work with that all say Trump is a
horrible evil person he is ineffective
as a leader he doesn't accomplish
anything and he didn't you know to say
that Biden has failed at bipartisanship
when you know we've gotten the chips act
we've gotten the IRA we've gotten the
ARP we've gotten the bipartisan
infrastructure bill when we've got like
all this major legislation that is
working in this historically divided
Congress as opposed to Trump that got
tax cuts and deficit spending um I I I
don't understand where we ever are in
this world where Biden is somehow more
divisive than Trump even the speeches
that Ben is bringing up I they always
bring up I remember that one um I think
we might have even done it on our
episode though the one speech that Biden
gave where at one point that like the
background is red and spee reference
yeah they're like oh my God it's over
this is the end and then meanwhile you
got Donald Trump you know coming into
office saying things like if you burn
the flag you should have your
citizenship revoked or talking about Ms
DNC that I'm going to investigate every
single one of these uh media
organizations for corruptness I'm gonna
open the liel and defamation laws I'm G
to take all of these guys to court um
you've got this weird project 2025 stuff
where um is it John pasel I think uh is
talking about uh you know we're going to
we're going to investigate all of these
people and we're going to try to throw
crimes at all these people uh Trump is
like the most divisive president I think
we've ever had in in at least in my
lifetime of being um an American citizen
and the rhetoric from him is just it's
on a whole other level in terms of the
demonization of political opponents I
mean this is a guy that's known for
giving his political opponents bad
nicknames right like that's what Trump
does um you know like it's funny but
even as a resident of Florida if Florida
had another natural disaster do you
think Trump would withhold Aid because
you had uh I think that was one of the
few nice things that Des Sanz actually
said about Biden was like Hey listen you
know when the buildings collapsed in I
think that Miami Beach yeah that um you
know for the hurricane stuff that Biden
was there he was saying if you guys need
Aid however many billions you can have
it meanwhile Trump I think was
threatening to withhold Federal funding
from Blue states that wouldn't um I
think it had to do with the National
Guard stuff the deployment of the
National Guard that they weren't like
doing enough for the riots and and uh
Trump was threatening to withhold aid
from some of these blue States um yeah
Trump is literally the most divisive
person in the world I don't see how on
any metric he is ever succeeding in the
divisive category in terms of the
economy I do think it's funny that
Republicans are very keen to say that
like well we can't really grade Trump
you know postco because obviously messed
everything up which is fair but preo
what did Trump do he did he did deficit
spending tax cuts he presided over
historic low interest rates and an
economy that was already like like
blazing past the final years of Obama we
were posting all-time highs in all the
stock markets from 2013 onwards um you
know unemployment rates were falling now
under Biden unemployment rates are even
lower than they were under Trump but uh
it it sucks that for Trump we can say
well we can't really hold him
accountable for 2020 that was Co well
all we have for Biden is postco we don't
have any pre-co Biden uh you know
economy and it was the same thing for
Obama too coming in right after the
housing collapse as well and it sucks
that Republicans are able to walk out of
office you know having burned the entire
American society to the ground
economically and now we've got to try to
evaluate okay well what did Obama do
during his first two to three to four
years just trying to recover from where
the housing crash left it and then we
look at Biden now who's trying to
recover from Co and now we're grading
him on on a totally different scale than
what Trump is being graded on yeah that
that sucks I think comment on the
foreign policy on the foreign policy I'm
going to be honest I am a um I am very
liberal I'm very not Progressive uh I'll
probably come off as more hawkish than
others uh because I'm not a big fan of
this which also if I mean if Ben agrees
like I think uh people like people like
Trump are going to be the most dovish
isolationist people ever they don't want
to do anything uh internationally they
just want to you know Protect America be
at home protect our economy don't do
anything uh internationally which is why
he was constantly undermining NATO uh
and constantly you know attacking all
the the European Union and you know
cheering on the UK for brexiting away
from the EU I think that being said um I
think that Biden has done a phenomenal
job uh when it comes to foreign policy I
think that the Coalition building was so
important for Ukraine Russia and I'm so
happy that he decided to go to our
European allies and our NATO allies and
try to build a coalition of people to
help Ukraine so that that wasn't only
the United States um personally
especially after doing a whole bunch of
research I do tend to side with Israel
over um Palestine in a lot of the
Israeli Palestinian conflicts I'm glad
that Biden while remaining a staunch
defender of Israel is trying to reign in
some of the more aggressive posturing
towards uh the Palestinians in the Gaza
Strip I'm I'm proud that Biden said Hey
listen we're going to delay some of
these attacks Hey listen we are going to
allow humanitarian Aid here Hey listen
we are going to try to uh you know not
kill as many Palestinian people down
there while still you know signaling
that he would be a St supporter of um of
Israel in in the conflict assuming the
civilian cas don't go too high um for
foreign policy I mean blemishes I mean
like the biggest one you can give to
Biden is Afghanistan and the poll out
there but man are we going to talk about
you know the uh Inspector General report
that says one of the biggest reasons why
the Afghanistan PLL out was so
disastrous was because of the Doha
Accords where Donald Trump headed talks
that didn't even include the Afghanistan
army uh I mean like these were disasters
like when when Biden took office we had
2500 troops left in Afghanistan like
what was the options even uh afforded to
Biden at that point um obviously you've
got the abandonment of the Kurds in
Northern Syria you know for the Turkish
armies to lay waste to um you talk about
Iran and North Korea although I'm not
sure where uh Ben would land on those
but yeah that's a broadly that's that's
a lot from both you want to pick pick us
something we disagree with here well I
mean there's a lot so I mean so I want
to ask a few questions on each one of
these so let's let's talk about
divisiveness for a second so there's no
one who can make the case that Donald
Trump is not divisive of course he's
incredibly
divisive it's a given M do you treat
Biden's rhetoric with the same level of
seriousness that you treat Trump's
rhetoric or I should probably put that
the other way around should we treat
Trump's rhetoric with the same level of
seriousness as Joe Biden or say Barack
Obama's rhetoric um I'm going to try to
be concise St broadly speaking
especially in studing Israel Palestine
and Ukraine Russia I try not to take
politicians at their word because
sometimes they just say stuff to say
stuff I understand that but broadly
speaking I'm going to look at the
rhetoric and the actions and I am going
to them the same so yes I would hold
Biden and Trump to the same right so my
feeling is and this is one area where
for clarification we're going to have a
division is that I of course don't treat
Trump's rhetoric in the same way that I
treat Biden's or Obama's he's utterly
uncalibrated he says whatever he wants
to at any given time and it doesn't even
match up with his policy very often can
I ask you like for our head of state our
chief executive shouldn't rhetoric be
arguably one of the most important
things that he does I mean the answer
would be yes and now I've been given a
choice between a person who I think in
calibrated ways says things that are
divisive and a person who in
uncalibrated ways says things that are
divisive and so the evidence that Joe
Biden is divisive is every poll taken
since essentially August of of 2021 he
he is by all available metrics
incredibly divisive a huge percentage of
Americans are deeply unhappy not only
with his performance but don't believe
he's a uniter they're that that's just
the reality and that may just be a
reflection I mean honestly we may be
putting too much on Trump or Biden
personally it may just be that the
American people themselves are
rhetorically divided because of social
media and social media can in fact be
assessible one thing that I would ask
you about that though is I agree
especially when you look at the
favorability but sometimes when I look
at these polls when you start to
disaggregate them by party I wonder if
it's actually is Biden historically
divisive or um I'm trying to think of a
really polite way to say this the people
that like Trump worship Trump I don't
know I like one of the most precient
things that Trump could have probably
ever said was that I could kill someone
on Fifth Street and nobody would
is itally divisive or is it that every
single Trump supporter will always say
that Trump is great and the reason I
would say that that Biden is in fact
historically divisive is because
Republicans felt much more strongly
about Barack Obama than Joe Biden
actually but they didn't feel as
strongly about Trump as they did about
like Romney or McCain right in in what
way I mean and that the allegiance to
Trump oh no there's certainly more
allegiance to Trump than it is to Romney
or McCain largely because Trump won in
2016 but beyond that the the point that
I'm making is that if you're looking at
the stats in terms of divisiveness
Republicans always find the Democratic
president divisive the question is where
the rest of the country is and right now
there are a lot of Democrats who either
don't agree with Biden or you know find
him divisive there are a lot of
Independents who find him divisive so
when you're when we're comparing these
things I don't think they're leagues
apart in terms of the divisive effects
of what they say right and I'm
separating that off from like the
inherent content of what they say
because obviously what Trump says is is
more divisive just on like the raw level
I mean if he's insulting people as
opposed to Joe Biden doing Maga
Republicans like if I were to just if I
an alien come down from space look at
these two statements I'd say this one's
more divisive than this one but then
there's the reality of being a human
being in the world and that is everyone
has baked Donald Trump into the cake and
Joe Biden again started off with a
patina of being non- divisive and now
has emerged as divisive I if you don't
mind I actually want to get to the the
foreign policy questions because this
one is actually slightly less
interesting to
me just one quick thing I guess like
because we can say the reality of it and
we can look at opinion polls what if we
look at like legislative accomplishments
like Biden is working on a 5050 divided
Senate Donald Trump had both house of
Congress and the Supreme Court and got
like no major legislation passed well I
mean he he he did lose Congress in 2018
but sure but prior to that because we
got the we got the infrastructure bill I
think in one year which Trump promised
for his entire presidency didn't get
anywhere on it I mean yes his his
Republican base was not in favor of mass
spending on infrastructure and neither
am I so that there's that I think that's
mostly a state and local they were in
favor of mass spending for tax guns
that's not a spending I mean we I mean
effectively it is right like effectively
it's not well if you're cutting receipts
but you're not changing the level of
spending like Biden did with the uh Ira
again we we have a fundamental
philosophical difference here I think
that when when the government takes my
money that is not that is not the
government somehow being more fiscally
responsible and when the government
allows me to keep my money I don't see
that as the government spending I see
that as my money and the government is
taking less of it that's great but at
the end of the day the government is
still going to be in a deficit spending
and they're going to have to borrow
money from the treasur right we have a
spending problem it's not a reeds
problem is the case that I'm making the
problem with with Donald Trump is not
that he lowered taxes the United States
has one of the most progressive tax
systems on the planet and in fact if you
wish to have a European style social
welfare state what you actually need is
to tax the middle class to death I mean
the reality is the top 20% of the
American population pays literally all
net taxes in the United States after
after state benefits and all of this so
if if you actually wanted to have the
kind of social welfare state that many
liberals seem to want to have like
northern Europe for example you'd
actually have to tax people who make
4050 $60,000 I I agree with that how do
you explain the lack of legislation I
mean if he's like such a uniter because
I think the Republican Party itself is
is quite divided and think that Trump
but isn't that his job he's the head of
the Republican Party he's the president
Republican president of the United
States I mean again I don't think that
Joe Biden has passed wildly historic
legislation was the largest like so here
here's the problem if you're a
republican the only bills that you can
get consensus on tend to be bills that
either that that let's be real about
this that are tax cuts because as you
would I think agree with when it comes
to polling data Americans constantly say
they want to cut the government and then
the minute you ask them which program
they have no idea what right exactly and
so trying to it's much harder to come up
with a bill to cut things than it is to
come up with a bill to add things coming
which is why spending was out of control
under under Trump as well but there are
some Republicans who still don't wa