RadixJournal - Bowden! - 13 - Politics, Politics

00:00:00.000 Welcome to Vanguard, a podcast of radical traditionalism.

00:00:24.640 Here's your host, Richard Spencer.

00:00:27.380 Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Vanguard, and welcome back as well, Jonathan Bowden.

00:00:34.660 How are you doing, Jonathan?

00:00:36.040 Yes, perfectly well. Nice to be back.

00:00:37.880 Yes. Well, Jonathan, we've taken on some quite weighty philosophic topics over these past couple of months of podcasts,

00:00:48.220 but today we're going to talk politics, and that is get into the nitty-gritty of what is happening

00:00:54.980 in the American presidential race.

00:00:58.880 So, Jonathan, let's start out by talking about Super Tuesday, so-called, which occurred yesterday,

00:01:05.900 before we recorded this podcast.

00:01:09.040 And, you know, it was a wide variety of states voted in the South and Midwest.

00:01:14.940 First, probably the biggest news was that Romney won Ohio, and it was an extremely close race.

00:01:24.580 He won it by less than one percentage point.

00:01:28.480 He also won some states that I think people expected him to win, like Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia.

00:01:34.960 Virginia, where actually Santorum and Gingrich were not even on the ballot because they failed to collect enough signatures,

00:01:42.340 which was rather shocking. Santorum did well in some of these more red states, like Oklahoma.

00:01:49.520 He won Tennessee, and Gingrich won his home state of Georgia, although Gingrich has never struck me as particularly Southern.

00:01:57.780 I think he grew up in a military base in some way.

00:01:59.880 But let's just talk about this right off the bat, Jonathan, what your thoughts are on Super Tuesday,

00:02:08.760 but also maybe going a little deeper, what are your thoughts are on the Republican voter at this standpoint?

00:02:18.420 You know, it's hard to get into anyone's mind, but what are they thinking when they're voting for Mitt Romney?

00:02:25.220 What do you think the meaning of a Santorum vote is?

00:02:29.780 Is it, in a way, a kind of culture war that we're seeing, you know, between someone like Santorum and Romney?

00:02:38.180 Is that what it is? Is it something else?

00:02:41.580 So why don't you take on those two issues, just your thoughts on the horse race,

00:02:44.820 and then also the meaning of these Republican voters?

00:02:48.820 Yes, I think the Republican primaries are proving in an actable law of politics, basically,

00:02:58.600 that people tack to the most favourable candidate who can win from their side,

00:03:05.040 but often there isn't any great enthusiasm for such an establishment candidate,

00:03:09.720 and this seems to be the case with Mitt Romney.

00:03:12.200 He's got the anointing of the Republican elite, but not of the conservative elite within the party,

00:03:17.380 and on its right wing.

00:03:19.040 He does seem to come genuinely from the liberal wing of the party,

00:03:22.740 and that may play for him in the elections, if he gets through, as he probably will now, after Super Tuesday.

00:03:30.560 But it's clear he doesn't energise or excite the Republican base and the grassroots support that he will need,

00:03:37.740 particularly with a vice-presidential nominee on his ticket later in the campaign.

00:03:42.200 I think people are voting for Santorum just because he's the most Christian right candidate on show.

00:03:50.060 Gindritz can get some of those votes, but they seem to go for Santorum because they think he's more of the genuine article.

00:03:56.500 He's a Catholic, isn't he?

00:03:57.920 Yes, he is.

00:03:59.360 But he's getting all these sort of ultra-Protestant-type votes.

00:04:02.880 But denominationism amongst Christian activists has long ceased to be an issue for the most part,

00:04:09.420 and that's obviously playing to his advantage.

00:04:12.360 Ron Paul is the joker in the pack who really doesn't fit in with the grid that most of the other candidates are on.

00:04:19.920 He doesn't appeal to the Christian right particularly at all.

00:04:22.980 He's weak in the South, and yet he has a strong and passionate vote as a Libertarian Republican on two tickets, basically,

00:04:33.220 particularly the fondness of young voters for him, voters under 40,

00:04:38.440 and his desire to cut the deficit in the Federal Reserve on the one hand,

00:04:43.300 and his desire to keep America out of any looming wars, particularly one against Iran on the other.

00:04:48.600 So from a distance, across the Atlantic, he appears the most ideological of the candidates.

00:04:54.140 It's difficult for me to say what Gingrich stands for and how he differs from Santorum.

00:04:58.580 I think Santorum's more a genuine candidate of the Christian right and is less Libertarian.

00:05:04.040 Gingrich appears to be all things to all people on the right flank of the Republican Party.

00:05:10.100 Romney attempts to be all things to all people right across the spectrum.

00:05:14.840 Yes, I think your perceptions are quite valid.

00:05:19.560 As to what Republican voters want, I think the whole election is about the fact that they will choose Romney in the end,

00:05:26.280 but they don't particularly want to and are not enthused by the choice.

00:05:31.440 And there's still the chance that somebody could emerge at the convention late in the day, but that's very unlikely.

00:05:37.440 I think it's now statistically impossible, according to the London Times, for Gingrich or Santorum to develop the number of candidates,

00:05:47.400 delegates that is necessary to have a chance of taking the nomination, but they won't drop out.

00:05:53.540 It will probably go on for months yet and will probably go right up to the convention.

00:05:58.360 Ron Paul has no chance whatsoever of the nomination, but he's got 25 delegates,

00:06:03.500 so far as I understand, to the convention thus far and will go right to the end.

00:06:11.100 I was in the United States a while back, and somebody told me that they wouldn't be at all surprised if Romney chose Ron Paul as his running mate.

00:06:20.120 Yeah, this is a very interesting issue, and I wanted to talk about each of these candidates,

00:06:27.900 because I think each of them has a particular meaning within the context of contemporary America and the GOP.

00:06:35.200 But since you brought it up, let's just jump right into this.

00:06:39.800 And, you know, there's a neoconservative commentator named Charles Krauthammer,

00:06:45.840 and unlike a lot of his fellow third and fourth generation neocons, he's actually quite intelligent.

00:06:56.040 And though his foreign policy might strike you and me as weird and crazed,

00:07:01.840 he's actually quite perceptive about a lot of domestic affairs and kind of horse race-type politics.

00:07:09.060 And he mentioned essentially what Ron Paul was doing.

00:07:13.560 And, you know, obviously I think a lot of people look at Ron Paul as a real genuine person.

00:07:19.060 He's ideological, maybe in a non-pejorative way of saying that,

00:07:24.920 in the sense that he truly cares about the Federal Reserve System.

00:07:28.360 He wants to talk about these issues that were arcane, but he is quite passionate about it.

00:07:33.900 And I think he is genuine to a large extent.

00:07:37.320 But I think Krauthammer was right about this, that Ron Paul, in a way, doesn't want to win.

00:07:44.280 And in some ways he wants to build a movement and get his message across.

00:07:47.660 But he also, you know, he doesn't want to come in first.

00:07:51.000 He can't come in first, but he wants to come in second.

00:07:53.880 And so if you look at the people whom he's attacked, he's rarely attacked Romney.

00:07:59.660 And Romney's actually said some nice things about Paul.

00:08:01.940 And Paul has really gone after essentially the silver and bronze candidates.

00:08:08.740 He's really gone after Santorum, gone after Gingrich, and, you know, been negative against them quite accurately.

00:08:14.400 But I think he's basically assumed that Romney is going to eventually get the nomination, that he could kind of come in number two.

00:08:21.160 He could speak at the convention.

00:08:23.580 His delegates could be there in force holding up signs and, you know, shouting, hooting and harlowing, so on and so forth.

00:08:30.680 And I think that's what he wants.

00:08:31.980 And I think in many ways he wants his son to inherit a, Rand Paul, to inherit a kind of, you know, the libertarian wing of the conservative movement and GOP.

00:08:41.920 And for him to be the leader of this movement, perhaps in a way that Ron Paul never was. 0.96

00:08:46.940 Ron Paul seems to offend a lot of the conservative movement by talking about, you know, you know, Michelle Bachmann hates Muslims and gays.

00:08:55.460 You know, it's not a way that would really appeal to conservatives.

00:08:59.100 Rand Paul's a lot better in that sense.

00:09:00.700 So, you know, I think there's this major question of, you know, if that is Ron Paul's endgame, essentially to establish himself in the GOP, have his son, Rand, inherit his troops and the banner of libertarianism and so on and so forth.

00:09:18.800 And I guess from my perspective, I guess one might say, what's the point?

00:09:25.720 I think in some ways it diminishes a lot of that revolutionary spirit of Ron Paul in the sense of he really wants to go in and fundamentally change Washington, you know, diminish the welfare state by 75 percent in the Federal Reserve zone and so forth.

00:09:43.500 I almost get the sense now that he wants to just kind of secure a sinecure for his son and, you know, along with people who really are never going to do what he wants, that is, you know, end the Fed, reduce the empire.

00:10:00.380 I mean, it's hard to imagine Republicans ever doing anything of the kind.

00:10:04.940 So do you think about it?

00:10:05.940 Do you agree with me here that, you know, maybe there's almost a kind of letdown aspect to the Ron Paul movement, that at the end of the day, it's about securing a spot in the Republican Party?

00:10:17.240 Yes, I think that's not how things may pan out, because libertarianism has only a finite appeal in the wider electorate and in the Republican Party.

00:10:29.880 I would imagine conservatism laced with Christianity has far more of a generic appeal than libertarianism.

00:10:37.040 So already Paul's an oddball in that party.

00:10:39.740 But he is creating a space for outside-the-box ideas, and maybe he feels his son is better able to put them across than he can.

00:10:50.720 Do you think there's any mileage in the idea that Romney might choose Ron Paul as his running mate?

00:10:55.580 Yes.

00:10:56.000 I mean, as surprising as it sounds, I think it might very well happen.

00:11:00.360 And again, there's just been some kind of funny things.

00:11:03.100 I watched a video last night of Mitt Romney's victory speech, which I think was in Massachusetts, which is where he was governor, and he won that state by 50% or something like this.

00:11:18.560 And he was mentioning Ron Paul and his supporters very kindly.

00:11:22.640 He gave them a lot more mention than Santorum or Gingrich.

00:11:26.760 So I think Romney might do this in the sense that Romney wants to win.

00:11:32.580 He understands that that is a real force.

00:11:34.920 And also, Romney seems quite realistic about himself and about the race in the sense that he understands that he might need those troops to really get excited about a candidate in a way that McCain was in a very similar situation.

00:11:52.040 McCain is thought of as a liberal senator.

00:11:54.480 He was pro-immigration, not good on a lot of other issues from the conservative, Christian conservative perspective.

00:12:04.060 And he chose Sarah Palin, and all of his former enemies went nuts over her.

00:12:10.220 They fell in love with her, thought she was – it really changed the whole dynamic.

00:12:17.620 So in a way, I think Rand Paul might be an interesting choice like that, and a kind of realistic choice.

00:12:25.660 Let me ask you a little bit about Mitt Romney.

00:12:29.220 You know, I had a conversation with Matt Parrott a couple weeks ago, and we both admitted what Matt called, jokingly of course, a man crush on Mitt Romney, which we both have.

00:12:43.040 And obviously, you know, I say that with tongue-in-cheek.

00:12:47.260 What I mean is that Romney has always struck me as someone, a kind of politician whom I can't hate.

00:12:54.960 And I generally hate all the rest of them. 0.57

00:12:57.940 But Romney always strikes me as the kind of person you would trust, despite the fact that he's a Mormon, very waspy. 1.00

00:13:06.280 He looks like – he clearly is a highly competent manager and professional.

00:13:12.020 He kind of strikes people as maybe the kind of person, you know, your dad or the kind of person you'd want to run your corporation, the kind of boss you'd want.

00:13:22.880 He's certainly tough, but he's not mean.

00:13:25.840 He's just – he represents a kind of uber-wasp American professional, which is hardly ideal, but, you know, it has a lot of value, and it's something that we should – we shouldn't sell short.

00:13:40.980 It's a – you know, and so it's hard for me to hate Romney.

00:13:43.920 He's a good-looking man.

00:13:45.560 He has a good-looking wife.

00:13:46.780 He has a humongous family.

00:13:48.940 They seem to all be intelligent, well put together.

00:13:53.800 You see that – there's this picture of his massive, you know, Mormon family. 0.98

00:13:57.120 There must be 30 people in the photo.

00:13:59.180 They're all smiling.

00:14:00.220 They have – they're good-looking people.

00:14:02.220 It's just hard for me to hate him.

00:14:03.820 And in a way, I think Romney is one of the least sociopathic of the current political crop. 0.81

00:14:11.720 And, you know, one of – the knock on Romney, if you look at most of the mainstream media, it's that he is a – you know, he's a plastic man.

00:14:19.780 He'll say anything.

00:14:21.420 You don't know who he is.

00:14:22.700 He's a – you know, he's a robot.

00:14:24.220 They'll make all these kinds of jokes. 0.99

00:14:26.480 But, you know, I think it's the – I think it's the opposite.

00:14:29.240 I think he's a corporate leader, kind of CEO, in the sense that he will listen to the constituency or his customer base.

00:14:37.540 He'll change his product depending upon his customer base.

00:14:41.100 And he'll listen to the shareholders and the corporate board, more or less.

00:14:45.000 That is, he's willing to change and be flexible.

00:14:47.040 Whether you think that he has no convictions or whether he's flexible, I guess a better – a euphemistic way of putting it, I guess depends on your perspective.

00:14:54.920 But, you know, there are a couple of things that he said that I actually found quite striking and which led me to believe that he's – you know, he's hardly ideal.

00:15:03.660 He's hardly a radical traditionalist or a white nationalist.

00:15:06.400 He's probably never going to do what we really want him to do.

00:15:09.220 But he struck me, again, as non-sociopathic, and that was that he was interviewed and he said that I don't really care about the lower class.

00:15:19.900 He goes, we have a welfare state and a safety net, and if there are any problems with the safety net, I'll fix them.

00:15:27.920 But I'm not worried about them.

00:15:29.100 He said, I am worried about the middle class and whether, you know, America is going – you know, the American dream, the idea that you can get a good job, work your way up, have a family, you know, wife, kids, house.

00:15:43.420 And, you know, I'm worried about whether that can be sustained.

00:15:48.700 And, you know, obviously a lot of people said, oh, look, he's rich.

00:15:51.580 He doesn't care about the lower class. 0.73

00:15:53.540 But, you know, a lot of – I think there was a kind of implicit whiteness to what he was saying in that he actually was caring for the historic majority, the traditional Americans, Anglo-Saxons, who are, generally speaking, productive and prosperous.

00:16:11.280 And, you know, a lower class – there are obviously millions of whites in the lower class.

00:16:15.540 But, you know, we obviously have a large, growing lower class because of mass third world immigration and so on and so forth. 1.00

00:16:21.980 I think Romney really does care about America's historic majority.

00:16:28.180 And, again, this is hardly an endorsement or anything like that.

00:16:30.780 He seems to me – he strikes me as one of the least sociopathic and maybe one of the more intelligent figures.

00:16:38.120 He's someone I – again, it's hard for me to hate him.

00:16:41.240 So, anyway, I've gone on too long about Romney and the so-called man crush.

00:16:45.900 But, anyway, what are your perspectives on him from abroad, Jonathan?

00:16:50.080 Do you see what I'm saying or do you think of him more as a kind of plastic sociopath who's going to sell out, you know, everyone on his way to the top?

00:17:00.620 No, there probably is a certain genuineness there that he comes across – he appears awkward a bit from my distance, although because the debates are not really televised over here, except in certain slivers, it's difficult for me to get a handle on the candidate, particularly the least ideological of the candidates, the most mainstream of the candidates.

00:17:24.220 He strikes me as a regular person who's wandered into politics a bit, but then he must want to do it because he's had several campaigns for this job, hasn't he?

00:17:35.940 He's tried for the nomination before, I understand.

00:17:38.080 Oh, yes, his father ran for president as well and was the governor of Michigan.

00:17:43.700 So, yeah, he's definitely from a political background.

00:17:47.000 You know, but he also – it's hard to imagine Rick Santorum, who strikes me as rather dumb, to be frank, succeeding in anything but politics in the sense of he'll kind of represent the Christian right for people and they'll vote for him. 0.99

00:18:08.220 But he's basically a bit of a dunce and a kind of weakling. 0.98

00:18:12.400 I can't imagine him really running a corporation or something. 0.99

00:18:16.300 Romney strikes me as highly competent.

00:18:20.440 You know, anything he does, he makes it work.

00:18:23.860 And, you know, again, there's something to be said for that.

00:18:27.940 What do you think about, Jonathan, the kind of telegenics of the campaign?

00:18:35.160 And, you know, I think there are two things that come to mind.

00:18:38.360 First off, this just unending political marathon, you know, spectacle that Americans undergo.

00:18:49.980 I mean, the very beginning of 2007, the campaign began, and in some ways it really hasn't ended.

00:19:00.560 It never ends.

00:19:01.480 You have two years, more or less, of people running for office and constant news coverage and 24-hour news cycle and so on and so forth.

00:19:12.100 This is much different than campaigns in European countries that might last a month or two, something like that.

00:19:20.220 Much more subdued and certainly cost much less.

00:19:25.300 I mean, it would be interesting to really look at what this whole politics cost in the country.

00:19:32.900 I'm sure it's in the billions, probably under a trillion, but it's in the tens of billions, maybe even a hundred billion,

00:19:39.520 when you really look at the amount of coverage, the conventions, the television, the debates, so on and so forth.

00:19:46.040 What do you make of this, Jonathan?

00:19:50.140 Have we entered, you know, the society of the spectacle?

00:19:55.320 You know, what do you think of all these, the televisual aspect and the unending aspect of American politics?

00:20:03.100 Yes, I think from a European perspective, it is the society of the spectacle, and it's existed long before Debord and these other left-wing thinkers came up with that phrase.

00:20:12.920 I think it's sort of, I remember seeing a photograph of a cover of Debord's Society of the spectacle of people in one of those early sort of 3D cinemas with their spectacles on,

00:20:26.860 you know, the ones that receive the three-dimensional image, and you need those spectacles on to watch a few of those debates, I think.

00:20:34.660 Basically, it's a sort of, it's a marathon, it's a sort of marathon man, it's almost eugenic.

00:20:42.160 They test these candidates to destruction, but American politics is much more individualistic than European politics.

00:20:49.420 People tend to vote for a party in European terms, and they vote against other parties.

00:20:56.480 They vote much less for the man, although the parties have become personified in the leader much more than they ever were.

00:21:03.640 It's still largely party against party.

00:21:06.500 The bulk of older voters in Europe would certainly represent more, identify much more with a party than with an individual.

00:21:14.580 Whereas in American politics, it seems to be quite the reverse.

00:21:17.460 The parties are cavernous barns, apart from certain pressure groups and local interest groups, and two sects.

00:21:24.580 The feminist left and the Democratic Party and the Christian right in the Republican Party may be delivered the libertarians off to one side.

00:21:34.040 The rest of the party seems to be extraordinarily unideological in European terms, and they make their minds up primarily on individual preference.

00:21:42.500 And how you do this is to rubbish the individual credentials of fellow candidates.

00:21:48.760 Hence, much of the effort and propaganda is negation.

00:21:52.120 It's negative propaganda, as they all vilify each other, essentially.

00:21:55.840 But these attack advertisements that cost a lot of money to produce and do have an effect in negating the charms of one candidate and obviously boosting the potential of another who hasn't been so vilified when his turn is coming pretty quick, given the punch and duty sort of nature of that type of advertising.

00:22:16.680 So, it's a unique sort of slug it out type of politics from a European perspective.

00:22:24.860 It generates a lot of heat, but whether it generates very much like, I'm not sure.

00:22:30.740 Also, the outcome seems to be prior ordained.

00:22:34.640 I mean, it seemed that in the dispute about who was to get the Democratic nomination last time, it appeared that Hillary Clinton would, you know, sort of do well and lantern blows.

00:22:50.580 But she would come in second.

00:22:52.400 And it was quite obvious she was going to come in second from quite a long way out.

00:22:55.880 And that's what occurred, just as it appears in this internal debate on the Republican side that Romney will come through in the end, possibly damaged enough that he will not be able to take Obama down.

00:23:09.720 But that remains to be seen once you get the nomination and magic halo starts and they all sort of superficially unite behind you.

00:23:19.720 But when the party unites around the premier candidate, there is an end to the endless sniping for the most part, particularly if they're clever in whom they choose as a running mate.

00:23:30.460 And he may have a chance against Obama, although it doesn't look like it at the present time.

00:23:35.820 But the election is a long way off.

00:23:37.560 He's got to win this one first, but he doubtless will.

00:23:40.600 I don't think it's a very productive way to win, to run American politics, because it seems to have handy day for American politics to small caucuses of voters and to candidates who have limitless or almost limitless access to funds.

00:24:00.220 And that, in turn, is something for which they can be criticised.

00:24:03.260 One of the criticisms of Romney is the size of his war chest and the size of his personal fortune and his ability to outspend the other candidates.

00:24:12.840 And I'm quite sure some of the votes for Santorum are populist votes, anti-system votes, votes against Romney because he's slicker and has a bigger machine and has more money to call on.

00:24:27.440 And so far as I understand it, Santorum's efforts are financed, if not on a shoestring, then on a very reduced budget.

00:24:35.860 Yes, I think he actually has located a billionaire of some sort.

00:24:41.020 I'm forgetting his name at the moment.

00:24:43.220 And Newt has actually a billionaire, even though he was more or less broke, or he's been more or less broke for months.

00:24:51.200 He has a dual Israeli-American citizenship gambling billionaire.

00:24:58.740 I don't even know the answer.

00:25:00.680 I don't know the answer to this question.

00:25:02.340 I'm even curious about why someone like that would support Newt when clearly Israel is numero uno on his list of interests and passions. 0.51

00:25:16.280 I don't understand even why he would support Newt.

00:25:18.800 It seems like all of the GOP are quite pro-Israel.

00:25:22.780 Maybe in some ways he just wants to keep Newt around as the kind of right flank to keep everyone in line and make sure there's no questioning of the relationship.

00:25:34.980 But that is quite true.

00:25:38.300 What do you think about voting?

00:25:40.820 And I think this goes for the whole of the globe, really.

00:25:45.180 But I think it's, you know, you see it in America in a kind of heightened form in the sense of, you know, what does it mean to have these party identifications and to like a candidate and so on and so forth?

00:26:00.060 You know, we've had 20, some 20 Republican debates, and I'm sure there'll be more.

00:26:06.800 And there's probably, you know, infinity of, you know, ink and bytes that have been spilt talking about the minutiae, the small differences between the candidates and things like that.

00:26:22.640 I remember I'll sometimes go to National Review online, which is the, you know, right-wing conservative website, and they'll have something called the Wonk Room.

00:26:33.920 And they'll have all these people debating, again, minutiae policies, and this is going to work.

00:26:39.380 This little triangulation is better than your little triangulation, so on and so forth.

00:26:43.920 My always view is that all that stuff is nonsense.

00:26:46.700 None of it actually makes sense.

00:26:48.300 I think people vote on the basis of social mood and a kind of feeling in their head or maybe in their gut when they see a party or a candidate.

00:27:00.220 It's very sub-rational or pre-rational.

00:27:04.020 And I think if anyone actually thinks that these policies make a difference, I think they're fooling themselves.

00:27:10.100 Because in some ways, if you have a general feeling about the way of the world, you know, if you think that the stock market's going up, you have a chance to be employed, things are looking up, you'll vote in the incumbent.

00:27:25.820 And you'll probably rationalize it later.

00:27:28.360 But, you know, the impetus was really a feeling in your gut when you saw something.

00:27:34.900 And you can actually look at this.

00:27:37.060 When the stock market is going up, incumbents are reelected.

00:27:41.580 You know, throughout the 80s, Reagan was reelected.

00:27:45.120 And then you had a major downturn.

00:27:47.260 People were in a darker mood, and they threw out George Bush.

00:27:51.640 They elected Bill Clinton.

00:27:53.100 Bill Clinton had a big rising stock market.

00:27:55.660 He was reelected.

00:27:56.660 And then George W. Bush got in there.

00:27:59.180 They created this massive credit bubble and housing bubble.

00:28:03.280 He was reelected.

00:28:05.280 You know, I think the mood was actually quite dark in this country in 2008, 2010.

00:28:10.820 But I think it's actually kind of lifting a little bit in the sense that people are getting used to the new normal of lowered expectations.

00:28:18.760 And I think that's one major reason why I agree with you.

00:28:21.620 I think Obama will be reelected.

00:28:23.140 But what are some of your thoughts on this, of what I'm saying, is this kind of this irrational aspect of voting, the fact that it's almost like journalists and pundits take politics a little too seriously.

00:28:38.200 They think that all these little policies and slight differences actually matter when what really matters is a mood or feeling, some, you know, sub-rational oomph that someone feels when they see the name of a person or a party on the ballot.

00:28:59.900 What do you think about that, Jonathan?

00:29:01.620 Yes, I think in the generic sense, you're right.

00:29:03.680 I think the general voters, bearing in mind there's lots of independents and those who don't count themselves as either Republicans or Democrats now in elections who have to be won over.

00:29:14.020 I think it's right for the generality.

00:29:15.640 It may not be right for these party caucus types or a proportion of them who vote in these internal elections.

00:29:22.600 They may be well aware of who they're voting for.

00:29:25.600 And the fact that there's been such a sort of certain states in the South have gone for Gingrich because he seems to say what they want for them in their own language.

00:29:35.960 And although he may not be a pure Southerner, he makes the Southern appeal, whereas Santorum gets a sort of generalised Christian conservative and anti-Republican establishment vote.

00:29:47.420 Romney is the establishment candidate who trades on the fact that he's the only one who can beat Obama or at least go toe-to-toe with him in the election later this year.

00:29:57.940 And Ron Paul is, in a sense, appealing to a specific constituency within the Republican Party.

00:30:06.840 That's very different to general voting.

00:30:09.000 I think in general voting, if there isn't a war in prospect, people just vote on circumstances of economic well-being and whether they think the candidate's competent enough to do the job.

00:30:21.460 I think competence is a factor as well.

00:30:24.200 I think part of the testing to destruction is the fact that you're electing a head of state, which in many European countries you're not, of course.

00:30:35.200 There's a split between an honorific head of state in some countries in Scandinavia and in Britain, a member of a royal family, a sort of secularised, sort of bolted on and scaled down monarchy regardless, but one that does link with the ancestral past.

00:30:54.200 All the power is in the hands of a prime ministerial figure, occasionally a chancellor and that sort of thing.

00:31:00.540 But people vote for this figure, but they're not head of state and they're not head of the armed forces and they're not the state-worshipful object, which the American president is.

00:31:14.200 And I think part of this testing the individual to destruction almost during the primaries and during the never-ending election campaign is to find somebody who seemed to be worthy to be head of state.

00:31:27.160 Now, bearing in mind some of the people that have been elected into that post, you could say that that's all a bit laughable.

00:31:32.960 But I think it is one of the objects of the exercise, it's to elect somebody who's a secular president and is a political leader and is a prime minister in European terms and is a chancellor of the Exchequer in British terms and the head of the armed forces and a sort of Republican monarch and head of the military industrial complex, all combined in one persona.

00:32:01.200 And I think the fact that so much of the election seems to be about character and about whether the individual characters concerned have any is all part and parcel of that skew.

00:32:13.440 So in some ways, it's an Olympic Games where they prove whether they've got the mettle to be the supreme leader.

00:32:20.060 And that's why it's so individually focused on the candidate and the parties are just an amphitheater to test the individual rigor of one candidate as against another.

00:32:31.180 It's like the parties provide a shell or a caucus around which these massive individual tests can take place.

00:32:39.140 And that's how it strikes a European, whereas in European politics, for the most part, you have to include British politics in that.

00:32:47.020 It's very small party caucuses and committees, many of them far from particularly democratic, decide on who's to stand and who's to go forward.

00:32:57.240 And the people then judge the individual very much on their party banner rather than in terms of who is to be the personification of the state.

00:33:06.040 Mm-hmm. Yes, I agree.

00:33:10.040 I think in some ways when we look at someone like Bill Clinton or worse, you know, George Bush or something like that,

00:33:17.380 I think people might think that, oh, you know, this is hardly some great man with wonderful character.

00:33:24.940 But in some ways the American nation gets the president it deserves in the sense that I think most people who did elect him did see these people as representing them and as representing their country, the best parts of their country.

00:33:41.320 Let's talk about some kind of bigger things.

00:33:44.040 I think we've laid out in some ways how the system works and what democracy, how it functions, what it's about.

00:33:53.720 What do you think are the prospects of a kind of a breakthrough within the system?

00:33:59.980 That is – and I'm thinking of Ron Paul here in particular.

00:34:04.900 And I poo-pooed him a little bit earlier on in this conversation about saying that I think his goal now is really to secure a sinecure for his son as the leader of the libertarians within the GOP and the conservative movement.

00:34:19.620 That it's not a revolution, which is a word his followers certainly bandy about all the time.

00:34:26.940 But at the same time, you know, I'd be wrong – I think it's wrong to completely dismiss Ron Paul.

00:34:33.540 A, he's genuine, but B, he really does represent a serious threat.

00:34:39.820 And, you know, whether he could – if he were elected, whether he could get anything done in Washington, that's another question.

00:34:45.840 But let's say he could and he was elected.

00:34:49.620 You know, he would directly challenge people now who are receiving trillions of dollars in federal funding in the sense of he would likely end the Federal Reserve.

00:35:03.380 This is going up against the banking system, the world banking system.

00:35:07.660 It's harder to pick a bigger enemy than that.

00:35:12.080 You know, he would end the military-industrial complex.

00:35:14.660 Again, this is kind of like the banking system with guns, you know, massive financial industry that, quite frankly, benefits from war.

00:35:26.280 He would be going up against that.

00:35:27.900 He would also be going up against Israel.

00:35:29.540 I mean, he clearly wants to end all foreign aid.

00:35:32.360 I don't think he's anti-Israel, anti-Zionist.

00:35:35.080 I think he – but he clearly does not have any kind of strong passions about the country.

00:35:40.040 And so he would be ending foreign aid to Israel.

00:35:43.220 And I'm one – I believe they need that foreign aid.

00:35:46.500 So he would be going up against the big boys.

00:35:49.080 I mean, I don't think we should diminish the fact that, at least in theory, Ron Paul is a serious threat to the system.

00:35:58.360 So what do you think, Jonathan, about that kind of radical within the system and the possibilities of a breakthrough?

00:36:08.400 You know, I think a lot of people in our movement almost think the system has to collapse under its own weight before we'll have that opportunity for a breakthrough.

00:36:16.940 And I have to say I'm probably one of them.

00:36:18.960 I ultimately believe that.

00:36:20.980 But what do you think about that prospect of a radical within the system, someone who kind of – he's able to function within it but then turns it inside out?

00:36:33.500 What do you think of the prospects of that?

00:36:35.520 Do you think Ron Paul is that kind of person?

00:36:37.760 Or do you think we might actually even see a more radical system candidate in the future, like an openly white nationalist candidate?

00:36:48.320 Or maybe an openly black nationalist or a Latino nationalist candidate?

00:36:52.500 What do you think about this, about the prospects of the system – of someone, you know, turning the system inside out from within?

00:37:01.700 I think Paul's candidacy is the most interesting candidacy.

00:37:05.100 It's received very little attention over this side of the water in Europe.

00:37:09.220 The British media tends to regard him as a renegade and a rogue candidate who's not really of any importance because he comes fourth out of four semi-perpetually, occasionally third, very, very occasionally second in these Western states, where a certain rugged individualism prospers, as you've made clear.

00:37:28.280 And that's the basis for his successful sort of secondary position.

00:37:34.640 But he'll come first hardly anywhere.

00:37:37.760 Maybe he'll pick up a few states, like Wyoming, towards the end, close of the contest.

00:37:43.300 But he is a revolutionary candidate in what he espouses.

00:37:46.320 If you actually believe that what people espouse is of some importance, and it's not all snake or salesmanship, then he is the only revolutionary candidate on offer.

00:37:55.700 I would probably vote Ron Paul if I had a vote in a state race in any of these districts, and I would do so because he's the only likely radical candidate to churn things up.

00:38:10.140 And because from the rest of the world's point of view, America is so plugged into foreign affairs and foreign policy, from the American domestic audience's point of view, it's the part of the agenda that they know least about and are least interested in.

00:38:24.420 But from the rest of the world's point of view, the American Federation is still the preeminent power on Earth, and therefore what it does is of supreme importance.

00:38:33.240 And if he decoupled America from Israel by intent or by design or by semi-accident, depending, it would have a knock-on effect all over the world, 0.79

00:38:45.920 because it would immediately reorient the politics in the Middle East, and it would immediately reorient the politics in the world.

00:38:53.600 Without American backing, Israel would be forced further into a sort of negative isolationism, or it would have to basically make peace with the Palestinians and the Arabs around it,

00:39:04.660 getting the best terms and the best deal that it could in the available circumstances.

00:39:09.680 So whether you'd have a revolutionary outcome from such a change in course, in the recent meetings between Obama and Netanyahu, quite crucial differences were patched up.

00:39:22.160 It is noticeable to me that Obama hardened his position during these caucuses of the pro-Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill.

00:39:30.200 And Obama now appears to be saying that he is prepared to go to war against Iran if there is the attempt by the Iranians to build a nuclear weapon, but they haven't attempted to build one yet. 0.58

00:39:43.780 This may come as a hostage to fortune, actually, because the Iranians will keep both options open until the ultimate degree. 0.99

00:39:50.600 I think the Iranians have already decided, particularly as the winner of the internal hard-line dispute within Iran, witnessed their recent local elections,

00:40:01.420 has been the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, rather than Ahmadinejad, the president.

00:40:07.300 He's got a year still to run, but may now be a lame duck president and the powers with the supreme leader.

00:40:14.200 I think they've decided to go for a bomb and to sustain the illusion as long as possible that their program is civil.

00:40:23.180 Now, if this is the case, Obama has now locked himself into the possibility of an attack, even a joint Israeli-American attack,

00:40:32.060 after prevaricating for about a year and a half and making it decidedly unclear as to whether he was prepared to go that extra mile or not.

00:40:41.400 And this, given the equivocation over what the Israelis were demanding, now makes Obama look more like Clinton 0.54

00:40:52.820 and more like some of the previous presidents, more like Bush, who didn't give the Israelis what they wanted in relation to an Iranian attack,

00:41:00.280 but didn't say—but all of them have said publicly, until Obama prevaricated,

00:41:06.020 that they would be prepared to attack in Iran arms with a nuclear weapon. 0.65

00:41:09.960 But that's a very mixed message, in a way, because no one will know that Iran has a nuclear weapon until they test it.

00:41:17.880 And once they've tested it, it will obviate an attack.

00:41:21.220 But the only candidate of all of those on offer on either side who isn't prepared to attack Iran, 0.88

00:41:27.940 even if they go for a nuclear weapon, is Paul.

00:41:30.800 And that is a revolutionary position, an outsider's position in Washington, D.C.

00:41:35.860 In relation to the Federal Reserve, he's asking for the entire American economy, which is now based on debt,

00:41:44.200 to be restructured and to be replaced with a sort of an idealized libertarian sort of capitalist economy,

00:41:54.020 the light of which probably couldn't exist in the real world now.

00:41:57.080 In some ways, Paul is a fantasy candidate, but the very fact that he's prepared to get mainstream votes

00:42:05.680 for putting forward propositions, which are regarded as fantastical by all of his contemporaries,

00:42:11.920 is in some ways worthy of respect.

00:42:14.000 What tends to happen when establishments are in trouble is that certain individuals appear

00:42:20.900 who play the establishment's game and play by the rules,

00:42:24.560 but they stand outside of the acceptable views,

00:42:28.820 and they sort of harness quite a lot of energy for policy positions which are regarded as, quote, unquote, impossible.

00:42:36.520 And what they're partly doing is they're demarcating an alternative road

00:42:41.260 that people who are establishmentarian could choose to take

00:42:44.960 if things got very nasty and very iffy indeed.

00:42:48.740 The politician Enoch Powell probably did that between the late 1960s and the late 1970s in Britain.

00:42:57.000 He gave an alternative road on the right of the Conservative Party and further afield

00:43:02.580 if people had chosen to take it.

00:43:04.680 But he offered people in that party, the Conservative Unionist Party of his era,

00:43:09.600 the chance to take it.

00:43:11.200 And Paul, even though he's not really a conservative,

00:43:14.300 except fiscally, where he's an extreme conservative in a way,

00:43:18.220 is offering, from a libertarian standpoint, the Republican Party that choice.

00:43:24.020 I don't think they'll take it.

00:43:26.020 I don't think they want to take it.

00:43:27.860 And I think his votes prove that.

00:43:30.100 But the very fact that he is an alternative candidate,

00:43:35.280 I wonder if the Democrats could sustain an alternative left-wing candidate

00:43:40.540 who reached out to the Occupy Wall Street movement,

00:43:44.520 who was opposed to all wars,

00:43:46.960 and was prepared to incur the wrath of the Israeli lobby for saying so.

00:43:52.200 Do you think there could be a left-wing equivalent of Ron Paul?

00:43:55.260 It's a very good question.

00:43:58.480 I would say no.

00:44:01.600 And, you know, perhaps this is related to something

00:44:04.080 that a number of people have talked about.

00:44:06.440 I know Sam Dixon, my friend, has mentioned this many times,

00:44:11.060 but that the constituents and the party,

00:44:15.960 if you look at that dynamic,

00:44:18.200 with both parties,

00:44:19.660 the constituents are to the right of the party leadership.

00:44:24.440 And so you have that in, you know,

00:44:26.200 within the Republican Party,

00:44:28.000 you have a lot of the rank and file,

00:44:32.020 the voters,

00:44:33.100 they do have a more conservative worldview

00:44:36.160 than the party leaders

00:44:38.020 who might even laugh at some of the hicks

00:44:42.260 who vote for them behind their backs.

00:44:44.660 But you have that same exact dynamic.

00:44:47.360 It's not a mirror image.

00:44:48.340 It's the identical image in the Democratic Party.

00:44:52.780 And that is, you know,

00:44:53.960 one reason why I think Obama's going to win

00:44:55.560 is that you have a lot of people

00:44:58.760 who generally have a conservative worldview,

00:45:02.240 a completely non-radical worldview.

00:45:05.100 They are who vote Democrat,

00:45:07.240 maybe because they like some aspects of the welfare state

00:45:11.300 or the conservatives,

00:45:13.680 maybe they resent conservatives

00:45:14.980 or the Republicans, at least,

00:45:16.800 because they think they represent wealth

00:45:18.560 or Wall Street or something like that.

00:45:20.180 Whether they're correct or not is another question.

00:45:24.000 So you have in both parties,

00:45:25.740 the voting base is to the right of the leadership.

00:45:29.440 And, you know,

00:45:30.600 the leadership of the Democratic Party

00:45:34.160 is, you know,

00:45:35.420 to the left.

00:45:36.780 Well,

00:45:37.060 I just put this forward.

00:45:39.100 I guess this doesn't really answer the question

00:45:40.540 of whether an alternative,

00:45:42.720 outside the system,

00:45:44.140 Democratic candidate

00:45:45.320 could arise among the Democrats.

00:45:47.900 You know,

00:45:48.220 I don't know about this.

00:45:49.100 I'm kind of thinking out loud.

00:45:50.420 I don't know,

00:45:51.360 but I almost don't see it.

00:45:53.700 And maybe in the sense that

00:45:55.460 we live in a world

00:45:58.200 in which the presumptions

00:46:01.740 and the guiding ideology

00:46:03.860 is leftist.

00:46:05.140 And in a way,

00:46:05.940 the, you know,

00:46:06.780 being a real conservative,

00:46:08.640 a right winger,

00:46:09.220 that is more revolutionary

00:46:11.440 than being a left winger.

00:46:12.520 I think that's a very good question.

00:46:14.580 But whether,

00:46:15.760 maybe this is another thing

00:46:16.740 in the future,

00:46:18.320 whether there'll be

00:46:20.320 these unintended consequences

00:46:21.800 of mass immigration,

00:46:23.880 whether the Democrats think

00:46:25.440 that this is always

00:46:26.740 going to give them elections

00:46:27.720 because the new Americans

00:46:29.820 are going to vote

00:46:30.560 instinctively for the Democrats

00:46:33.380 and they'll see the Republicans

00:46:35.000 as the white person's party

00:46:36.260 and so on and so forth.

00:46:37.120 And I think that,

00:46:38.120 that dynamic will occur

00:46:40.580 for many elections down the line.

00:46:42.720 But there might be a point

00:46:44.200 where the Latinos 0.73

00:46:45.740 want to throw off the yoke

00:46:47.220 of these,

00:46:48.660 of the Clintons

00:46:49.780 and,

00:46:50.560 or maybe,

00:46:51.460 you know,

00:46:51.760 Jewish interests

00:46:52.780 to run the party.

00:46:53.840 And,

00:46:53.980 you know,

00:46:54.440 the Democratic Party

00:46:55.360 will become something

00:46:56.140 quite different indeed.

00:46:58.820 These are all

00:46:59.740 interesting questions

00:47:00.700 we're speculating on.

00:47:03.460 What do you think?

00:47:03.800 These radical candidates

00:47:04.620 sort of emerged

00:47:06.360 a couple of election cycles ago,

00:47:08.440 but they couldn't find a way

00:47:09.820 through in the mainstream

00:47:10.740 and had to go

00:47:11.540 for third and fourth party spots

00:47:13.640 that in the end

00:47:14.960 led to marginalization

00:47:16.620 and extremely small votes.

00:47:18.380 Are you referring

00:47:18.820 to Ralph Nader?

00:47:20.080 Yes,

00:47:20.580 Ralph Nader

00:47:21.180 with a sort of

00:47:21.820 radical green perspective.

00:47:23.660 and Patrick Buchanan

00:47:28.240 on the other side

00:47:29.380 with a sort of

00:47:30.400 isolationist perspective.

00:47:32.580 And,

00:47:33.620 of course,

00:47:33.900 he got the third party

00:47:34.980 Perot endorsement,

00:47:36.160 didn't he,

00:47:36.460 for a while.

00:47:37.100 Yes,

00:47:38.580 you know,

00:47:38.860 it is interesting.

00:47:40.020 We had a kind of,

00:47:41.120 there was kind of a radical

00:47:42.020 centrist candidate,

00:47:43.940 Ross Perot,

00:47:44.740 who came out

00:47:45.320 in the early 90s.

00:47:46.960 Again,

00:47:47.400 it goes back to social mood.

00:47:48.660 I think social mood

00:47:49.360 in the early 90s

00:47:50.120 was more negative, 0.84

00:47:51.240 more throw the bums out. 1.00

00:47:52.660 I think they were willing 0.77

00:47:53.400 to tolerate that.

00:47:55.100 And that didn't work anymore

00:47:58.060 later on in that decade

00:47:59.640 and into the 2000s.

00:48:01.840 You know,

00:48:02.620 the only thing

00:48:03.360 I would say about Nader

00:48:04.240 is that Nader

00:48:06.520 is certainly

00:48:07.260 to the left

00:48:08.300 of most

00:48:09.920 of the Democratic leadership,

00:48:11.120 but he's not really

00:48:12.900 fundamentally different

00:48:14.480 than they are.

00:48:15.400 You know,

00:48:15.540 he's almost like

00:48:16.520 the Democratic leadership,

00:48:17.940 but more so.

00:48:18.960 You know,

00:48:19.120 he thinks that their

00:48:20.420 environmental program

00:48:22.140 is not strong enough

00:48:23.880 or,

00:48:25.760 you know,

00:48:26.020 and maybe he is

00:48:27.220 radically different

00:48:28.280 from them

00:48:28.600 on foreign policy,

00:48:29.520 but at least

00:48:30.420 on domestic policy,

00:48:31.260 he's kind of

00:48:31.800 the Democratic leadership

00:48:32.720 on steroids

00:48:34.220 or something like that.

00:48:35.500 What I was,

00:48:36.220 you know,

00:48:36.820 questioning about

00:48:37.380 is whether we might

00:48:38.200 see someone

00:48:38.920 really truly

00:48:39.940 radically different,

00:48:40.980 someone within the left

00:48:42.260 who wants something

00:48:43.200 just,

00:48:44.720 again,

00:48:45.280 fundamentally other

00:48:46.640 than the Democratic leadership.

00:48:48.820 And I was thinking

00:48:49.600 about this

00:48:50.160 in terms of

00:48:51.200 a Latino

00:48:52.800 leader

00:48:54.160 who,

00:48:55.440 you know,

00:48:55.920 who speaks

00:48:56.440 a different language,

00:48:57.600 literally and figuratively,

00:48:58.440 than the Clintons

00:49:01.180 and the Obama.

00:49:02.900 And I think

00:49:03.960 there's a kind of,

00:49:04.560 you know,

00:49:05.040 unintended consequence

00:49:06.040 of these

00:49:07.580 new Americans

00:49:08.640 and immigrants

00:49:09.420 going after 0.90

00:49:10.600 the white 0.89

00:49:12.540 and Jewish elite

00:49:13.440 that let them in.

00:49:14.920 I think it would be interesting.

00:49:16.340 I guess I have

00:49:16.980 a certain schadenfreude

00:49:18.540 to watch that happen.

00:49:21.180 But did you see

00:49:22.240 anything like that

00:49:22.980 happening in Europe

00:49:23.880 where,

00:49:25.880 you know,

00:49:26.260 let's say,

00:49:26.820 a Muslim candidate

00:49:28.000 would arise

00:49:28.920 within parliamentary

00:49:29.600 democracy in Europe?

00:49:32.000 I think the electoral base

00:49:33.600 is too small

00:49:34.600 to gain

00:49:35.900 overwhelming victory.

00:49:37.200 Such candidates

00:49:37.880 can emerge,

00:49:38.780 of course.

00:49:39.800 The justice spokesman

00:49:41.000 on the Labour side

00:49:41.940 in the British Parliament

00:49:42.920 are Muslim

00:49:43.520 from the north of England.

00:49:46.160 But

00:49:46.760 he's part

00:49:49.060 of the generic left,

00:49:50.340 really,

00:49:50.760 and doesn't really

00:49:52.200 stand on a Muslim 1.00

00:49:53.320 specificity

00:49:54.240 particularly.

00:49:55.680 So

00:49:55.960 the party

00:49:57.240 regards it

00:49:57.960 as limited

00:49:58.460 as to whether

00:49:59.300 he's a Muslim

00:49:59.920 or a Jew 0.93

00:50:01.280 or a post-Christian

00:50:02.660 or of no faith

00:50:04.000 or whatever

00:50:04.760 ethnicity.

00:50:10.000 The interesting

00:50:10.980 thing would be

00:50:11.920 if

00:50:12.760 somebody

00:50:13.980 was totally

00:50:14.640 anti-System

00:50:15.360 to get anywhere

00:50:16.260 in the democracy,

00:50:17.040 which I think

00:50:18.200 is impossible

00:50:18.880 if

00:50:19.760 it's

00:50:22.880 impossible

00:50:23.640 to consider

00:50:24.460 somebody like

00:50:25.380 Farrakhan

00:50:25.980 winning with the

00:50:26.620 Democrats,

00:50:27.280 isn't it?

00:50:27.600 It's almost impossible

00:50:28.440 to foresee that

00:50:29.600 because he's got

00:50:30.900 too many enemies

00:50:31.960 in the coalition

00:50:33.220 that makes up

00:50:33.920 the Democratic Party

00:50:35.020 given their view

00:50:36.740 of Jews

00:50:37.360 and their view

00:50:38.200 of gays 0.76

00:50:38.800 and all the rest of it. 0.57

00:50:39.980 Well,

00:50:40.840 you know,

00:50:41.340 my friend

00:50:42.100 Keith Preston,

00:50:43.280 who's a

00:50:43.660 national anarchist

00:50:45.240 and,

00:50:45.880 you know,

00:50:46.320 I'm sure a lot

00:50:47.140 of Republican voters

00:50:48.060 might consider him

00:50:48.760 a leftist

00:50:49.460 or something like that

00:50:50.380 if he's not.

00:50:52.860 There's an

00:50:53.940 interesting incident

00:50:55.000 which always

00:50:56.580 brings a smile

00:50:57.320 to my face

00:50:58.060 and it happened

00:50:59.020 in Asia

00:50:59.680 and I'll have

00:51:00.520 to find out

00:51:01.460 where exactly

00:51:02.560 this happened

00:51:03.200 and it's not

00:51:04.300 just mythic,

00:51:05.460 it really happened

00:51:06.380 but there was

00:51:06.820 a party

00:51:07.320 that said

00:51:07.940 vote for us

00:51:08.920 to end democracy

00:51:10.140 and we promise

00:51:11.440 you'll never

00:51:11.980 vote again

00:51:12.700 and that always

00:51:14.480 brings me

00:51:15.440 a smile

00:51:15.900 to my face

00:51:17.580 but that would be

00:51:18.120 the ultimate

00:51:19.180 radical

00:51:19.860 within the

00:51:21.060 establishment,

00:51:21.760 within the system

00:51:22.520 and,

00:51:23.500 you know,

00:51:24.880 for someone

00:51:26.820 who's not very keen

00:51:27.740 on democracy

00:51:28.400 who thinks

00:51:29.420 it leads

00:51:31.660 to the kind

00:51:32.160 of debased

00:51:32.660 society

00:51:33.060 that we have

00:51:33.480 today,

00:51:34.120 again,

00:51:35.020 it always

00:51:35.720 makes me happy

00:51:37.220 to think

00:51:37.720 of those

00:51:38.680 solid citizens

00:51:39.540 voting to

00:51:40.120 end democracy

00:51:40.940 but anyway,

00:51:42.560 maybe we'll

00:51:43.040 leave it

00:51:43.460 on that note

00:51:44.600 but Jonathan,

00:51:45.200 thanks for

00:51:45.760 being on the

00:51:46.680 program once

00:51:47.280 again and I

00:51:48.060 look forward

00:51:48.660 to speaking

00:51:49.240 with you again

00:51:49.820 soon.

00:51:51.120 Thanks very

00:51:51.520 much,

00:51:52.020 nice to be here.

00:51:52.800 thank you for

00:52:06.060 listening to the

00:52:08.720 Thank you.

RadixJournal - January 03, 2018

Bowden! - 13 - Politics, Politics

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript