Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 558 ｜ Based Debate： Libertarian vs. Social Conservative ｜ Guest： Brad Polumbo

00:00:00.000 Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers,

00:00:13.420 better than organic chicken and Kraft beef, shipped right to your front door,

00:00:17.180 goodranchers.com slash Allie for a great deal. All right, today we are talking to Brad Palumbo.

00:00:22.740 He is a libertarian and he has a very different perspective on things as a conservative than I do

00:00:31.120 and a lot of social conservatives do. He would call himself socially moderate or maybe even

00:00:35.880 socially liberal. So we disagree on quite a few things and we might even disagree really on the

00:00:40.900 future of the GOP. Like what should the Republican Party look like? What role does the government play,

00:00:46.800 if any, in the future of conservatism? What does it even mean to be a conservative? And so we're

00:00:51.820 going to debate and discuss some of those things. It's going to be a very respectful conversation.

00:00:56.240 I really hope that you appreciate it and learn from it. And so without further ado, here is Brad Palumbo.

00:01:04.460 Brad, thank you so much for joining us. Can you tell everyone who you are and what you do?

00:01:09.040 Absolutely. My name is Brad Palumbo. I'm a libertarian, conservative journalist and content creator

00:01:14.340 and the co-founder of Based Politics, a new multimedia hub that we think we're actually

00:01:21.620 off to a great start. But we're publishing articles, TikToks, YouTube videos, that kind of thing.

00:01:26.540 So it's kind of similar to what you do at The Blaze, but a little different.

00:01:30.340 Yeah. And you got a little bit of pushback and I think you were probably expecting this

00:01:35.320 when you first came out with this name Based Politics, because what you mean by based is not

00:01:41.840 what a lot of conservatives mean by based. So can you talk about that distinction a little bit?

00:01:46.460 Yeah. So based has become a very online conservative term for things that people think

00:01:53.180 are the opposite of cringe that are like very rooted in values or on point. And it has become

00:01:59.180 popular in what I would call like the nationalist faction of the GOP or of the right. People who are

00:02:05.980 OK with some forms of big government are more skeptical of capitalism and free markets, are more

00:02:11.840 concerned with what they would call the common good than individual liberty. But it didn't start

00:02:17.100 there. The term actually started in the black community. And it also is used by a lot of people

00:02:23.440 outside of that faction now, including in more liberty or freedom oriented sections of the right.

00:02:30.140 And so part of what we want to do is my co-founder, Hannah Cox, and I are people who believe in

00:02:35.760 somewhat more traditionally classically conservative values like free markets, like

00:02:42.360 constitutionalism, like limited and restrained government. And so we're hoping to kind of

00:02:48.640 rebrand. And we did know that would come with pushback because what we think is based is those

00:02:53.660 values, right? The kind of things that Ronald Reagan cared about, not the things that some of these

00:02:58.660 more fringe kind of nationalist next generation leaders would have you believe our base.

00:03:04.140 I think one of the biggest disagreements that we probably have is what is the foundation of

00:03:11.800 conservatism? What is the moral foundation of conservatism? Which I don't I think the people

00:03:16.600 that you're talking about are typically Catholic and I'm not Catholic. And so there are probably a lot

00:03:21.560 of theological and maybe even political disagreements that I would have with some of the people that you

00:03:26.360 are talking about. Although I do think I agree with them when it comes to like what is conservatism

00:03:34.060 fundamentally and what is needed to be preserved if we want all of these other things like a free

00:03:41.420 market, like capitalism, like more restrained government, smaller government. And I would argue

00:03:47.520 that that the theological foundation provided by Christianity, the definition of family and marriage

00:03:56.780 provided by Christianity is actually necessary for conservatism as a philosophy to take hold and

00:04:05.160 to influence our policies. That is what I would consider. And I'm not saying at all that I'm the

00:04:09.980 arbiter of what is based. But when I think of based, I think of those nuclear family centric,

00:04:16.800 even just in a general sense, Christian theological foundation of conservatism. That's what I think

00:04:26.600 of when I think of based. But I don't think that you and I are coming from the same position on that

00:04:31.540 at all. No, but I will make a distinguishment here that I don't claim to speak for social

00:04:38.360 conservatism. I don't claim to be a social conservative. I would say I'm socially moderate.

00:04:44.280 I'm not religious. I'm gay. But I'm also not like woke or with the far left on any of these issues.

00:04:51.140 So I would describe myself as socially center right. But I don't claim to speak for social

00:04:55.320 conservatism. But political conservatism in American history, especially in recent decades,

00:05:01.540 has in many ways been about more than social conservatism, right? Fusionism was also about

00:05:06.140 the Constitution and free markets and individual liberty was Ronald Reagan, who said the heart and

00:05:10.760 soul of conservatism is libertarianism. Now, obviously, conservatism is not the same thing

00:05:15.300 as all out libertarianism. But I think the things that we need to conserve are the classically liberal

00:05:21.400 institutions that keep us free. I mean, nothing has been better for religious conservatives and social

00:05:27.280 conservatives and people like me than the First Amendment that protects our right to free speech,

00:05:33.200 our freedom of religion, our freedom of conscience, all of those things that are a

00:05:38.080 bulwark against whether it's woke oppression or oppression from the other side. That's the things that

00:05:43.480 we need to preserve. And what I my concern with the kind of like you talked about, they tend to be

00:05:48.780 Catholic, but the nationalist types, the post liberals, some of them would call themselves is that they would

00:05:54.180 undercut things like the First Amendment in the pursuit of like short term victories against

00:05:59.240 wokeness or whatever. But in doing so, they actually got the system that has kept us free.

00:06:05.620 And that system is what I think we need to conserve.

00:06:08.760 I think that the argument would probably be that there have always been limits on the First Amendment,

00:06:14.100 there have always been limits on free speech. The question is, who gets to decide what those

00:06:18.880 limits are? And thus far, it has been, or at least recently, I won't say thus far, but recently,

00:06:23.920 it has been leftist ideologues, whereas people on the right would say, okay, well, if someone's going

00:06:29.120 to limit free speech, then the right should be in charge. Conservatives should be in charge of what

00:06:35.940 those limitations are, if there are going to be limitations. And you can argue that the limitations

00:06:40.820 should be very, very small. But who gets to say what those limitations are? It seems like at least

00:06:47.100 in the public sphere, if not legally, the left seems to be the ones to say, well, this is what you

00:06:55.340 can and cannot say. And so I think the people on the right, perhaps that you're talking about would

00:06:59.920 say, well, okay, fine. If we're going to have restrictions, if we're going to have, you know,

00:07:04.180 changing definitions, then the right needs to be on the front lines of pushing back against that

00:07:08.420 using whatever tools possible. But that last sentence that you just said is where that becomes

00:07:14.200 an issue for me using whatever tools possible. I'll just give you an example who I think we both

00:07:18.940 know and who's a nice guy, Josh Hammer, the opinion editor at Newsweek.

00:07:22.540 Yeah, love Josh Hammer, just had him on the podcast.

00:07:25.140 Right. And I'm not saying anything against him personally, but he tweeted something that I think

00:07:28.440 gives us a good example of what you're talking about. He was very upset by Apple unveiling a pregnant 0.97

00:07:34.140 man emoji. And he, in his response, criticizing it said, the government needs to use state action

00:07:41.300 to crush wokeness. Now, look, a pregnant man emoji is very stupid. It's very silly. I'm not here to 1.00

00:07:47.220 defend that. But the idea that that requires us to then go and use state action to crush ideas,

00:07:56.720 wokeness is an idea, it's an ideology, is very disturbing to me. And it seems like we are,

00:08:03.220 because guess what? Social conservatives are not a majority in this country, necessarily. Religious

00:08:08.240 people are decreasingly less of a majority. And so if you want to start using the state,

00:08:13.520 which is different from private sector censorship, which I object to, but it's fundamentally different

00:08:18.120 to have the government throw you in jail or lock you up than it is to have Spotify ban you.

00:08:23.760 It's fundamentally different. They're both can be problematic, right? But when you are willing to

00:08:29.700 concede that the government can squash bad ideas, I think that's very dangerous. I mean,

00:08:34.880 conservatives know that the fallacy behind this logic of, well, when we are in charge,

00:08:39.440 it will be different. When our team has the power, it'll be different. Socialism will work this time

00:08:44.860 because it'll be our version with our people in charge. We know that that doesn't work. And so I'm

00:08:50.440 worried to see this logic developing on some corners of the right that the way to fight wokeness 0.87

00:08:55.800 is to basically start using leftist tactics and empowering the government. I mean, the average

00:09:01.380 federal bureaucrat has the politics of Elizabeth Warren. So the idea that by growing the government

00:09:06.700 and giving it more expansions and invasions of our liberty, we're going to be able to push,

00:09:11.580 you know, conservative or just moderate values. To me, it doesn't make any sense at all. And part of

00:09:16.140 what we want to do at base politics is to amplify a different vision.

00:09:20.080 I think that the argument is that classical liberalism doesn't seem to have the same power

00:09:32.340 to push back against wokeism, which really is so much more than just like a counterpart to

00:09:37.420 classical liberalism. It truly is a religion in itself. And it, of course, is willing to use

00:09:42.900 whatever tool possible, including the power of the government, no matter how totalitarian,

00:09:48.680 in order to achieve its goals. And I think the argument from the conservative side would be,

00:09:53.920 okay, rather than just saying, okay, well, we're not going to, we're not going to be like you,

00:09:58.780 which I totally, I totally hear what you're saying. I 100% hear what you're saying. And I would say that

00:10:03.240 typically and naturally my sympathies lie with what you're saying. Although, although it does seem

00:10:14.020 like classical liberalism, trying to compete against the power of wokeness, that is so

00:10:19.640 institutionalized, it's just not a fair match. And so I just wondered, like, okay, if it's not the

00:10:26.140 power of the government, if we're not harnessing the powers that already exist in the advancement of

00:10:31.720 what you see to be good and right and true, which I think is contradictory to wokeness, then how do you

00:10:37.540 push back against this institutionalized woke, wokeness, which, like I said, is harnessing all

00:10:43.200 of the powers that exist to absolutely crush dissent and everything that we hold dear?

00:10:49.260 Yeah, look, I like I said, I'm no friend of wokeness, I'm not going to spend a second trying 1.00

00:10:53.680 to defend that or anything. But I will say this, this argument from certain corners of the right that

00:11:00.100 you're doing, I think, an excellent job of articulating. To me, it also sounds like something I

00:11:04.920 hear from people on the left when it comes to guns. They say, well, people are being killed with

00:11:08.740 guns. I'm like, okay, yes, that's true. That's bad. And then they say, here are our policy solutions.

00:11:12.680 And I say, well, those are all bad. They don't make sense. They won't work. And they'll disarm

00:11:16.220 law abiding people. And they say, well, we have to do something. And I say, well, no, we don't.

00:11:20.500 Because if the options are only bad, you're actually better off doing nothing. But we don't have to do

00:11:25.540 nothing. I will say that. One of the most effective ways that we have to combat like wokeness, 0.99

00:11:31.580 which is really like left wing illiberalism, the desire to like crush the Christian baker and

00:11:36.620 everything that I know you're very familiar with, right, is actually what something President Trump

00:11:41.480 did that was very traditionalist and not a new kind of conservatism, which was put originalist

00:11:46.420 judges on the bench. I mean, this Supreme Court just struck down Biden's vax mandate. It's going to 0.59

00:11:51.440 strike down affirmative action, I believe it may. And I know this is very important to you chip away at 0.95

00:11:57.220 or get rid of Roe entirely. So I think that that traditional legal conservative movement was

00:12:03.220 committed to the Constitution, to all of these things we're talking about that they're saying

00:12:07.120 aren't good enough. And the victory of that movement is now defending us and giving us our

00:12:12.700 most legitimate way to fight back. And people on the right are winning on a lot of these things

00:12:18.940 in the courts and in the legal system. I mean, the First Amendment has done more to protect

00:12:23.080 religious freedom and Christian groups on campuses and so many other things over the last 30, 40 years

00:12:29.340 than we could possibly know. But if we undermined it in the short of short term pursuit of, say,

00:12:35.420 like prohibiting Apple from having stupid emojis. And the emoji is actually funny to me, by the way, 0.99

00:12:40.980 because it's mostly going to be used, I think, to make jokes about how full people are or how fat

00:12:45.520 they are once they've eaten a huge meal. But I agree, right? It's a stupid idea. But if we undermine

00:12:51.200 something like that to go and shut down Apple's ability to have emojis, we don't like, I think

00:12:56.700 it's just really short sighted. Well, I'd be interested to know what Josh would say to that,

00:13:01.600 because as you know, he's a brilliant person who I guarantee really thought about his position. And so

00:13:06.640 I would it would be fascinating actually to hear you guys debate and discuss this issue because you

00:13:12.080 are both very smart. I think you're both very grounded in what you believe. And I think everyone

00:13:16.280 would benefit from that conversation. Because of course, I am coming from this from a moral

00:13:23.140 perspective in that I don't just disagree politically with I'm talking about the hard

00:13:28.320 left. I'm not just talking about, OK, do you think that we should have different border policy? Or do

00:13:32.240 you think that maybe we should have more government welfare programs? That kind of stuff, I think,

00:13:36.380 can all be debated. But I truly do see the kind of left wing ideology that seems to be parasitical

00:13:44.040 in nature and seems to want to suck the life out of everything that is good and right and true.

00:13:48.900 I do see it as a huge threat. And so I will say, even as someone who I would say,

00:13:57.620 mostly agrees with a lot of what you're saying, I do also find myself very sympathetic to the other

00:14:07.520 side of this argument saying, look, it's not enough just to say, oh, we're not like them,

00:14:13.100 we're not going to use the power of the government when we have the chance to or we're

00:14:18.420 not going to push back institutionally on these things. I don't know. There's just something about

00:14:23.580 drag queen story hour that I guess that I guess makes me want to use the power of the government

00:14:29.540 to do something about it more than I more than I originally maybe would have thought I had in me a

00:14:35.720 few years ago. The moral just kind of. I'm also I'm certainly not an anarchist. Right. So if you

00:14:42.960 can convince me that something is like literally harmful to children or child abuse or something,

00:14:48.240 I'm not here saying, well, we should just let that be legal. And it's the fruits of liberty.

00:14:52.880 But it's a different question when it comes to kinds of speech. And also, I would just go back to

00:14:59.480 what is the solution? Well, I do have one solution sort of that I could offer. And I would just say,

00:15:04.640 like over the last two years, I think, if anything, we've seen why the liberty element

00:15:09.160 of conservatism is so important. I mean, people's livelihoods were made illegal by the government.

00:15:15.160 They were confined to their homes. People have had their lives crushed by the state over the last

00:15:20.520 two years in a million different ways. Their fundamental individual rights, like the I'm pro

00:15:26.380 vax anti mandate. Right. Your right to bodily autonomy has been crushed or attempted to be

00:15:31.960 by the government. So I think we've seen really up close and personal the perils of big government

00:15:37.420 and what has made someone like Ron DeSantis such a good governor. It's actually liberty based

00:15:43.920 governance. Right. We're not locking you down. We're keeping our schools open. You can you can

00:15:48.840 wear a mask if you want to. You can take the vaccine if you want to. It's all about like

00:15:54.680 letting he is also using his power to try to restrict the power of corporations from doing

00:16:00.260 things that we on the right see as oppressive. Like he's trying to harness big tech. He's trying

00:16:05.460 to harness or at least at one point was trying to harness companies ability to require the vaccine

00:16:11.440 and masks and things like that. I'm not sure if that actually was instituted. But I think that's

00:16:15.820 what a lot of a lot of people on the right see is that, yes, OK, as you said, it's fundamentally

00:16:20.300 different if a business discriminates against someone. Well, it is fundamentally different,

00:16:26.200 but it can still be almost as consequential. For example, if someone is totally de-platformed

00:16:31.340 and they have no way to, you know, make money, it's not the same thing as going to jail, but it is still

00:16:38.040 extremely consequential. And so I think that there are people on the right who are saying, OK, look at

00:16:43.240 Ron DeSantis, he is using his power to try to hold back the oppressiveness of corporations because he

00:16:52.800 sees that the unfettered growth of any bureaucratic system, whether it's the government or a private

00:16:59.060 entity, a company, can still trample upon people's liberty. And so I would actually argue that people

00:17:07.420 are pointing to Ron DeSantis to make a different point than the one that you're making. Yes, it's rooted

00:17:11.420 in liberty, but it's also rooted in the realization that companies can trample upon someone's liberty,

00:17:16.620 not in the same way that a government can, but in a similar fashion.

00:17:21.080 So he is, Pat, he's kind of appeasing both crowds right now. He's doing a lot of stuff,

00:17:26.120 like what I pointed to, that is liberty-oriented conservatism. And then you're absolutely right

00:17:30.740 on big tech and a few other things. He's doing some stuff that the common good conservatives and

00:17:35.220 nationalists love. But what I would point out to you, and that's where I do disagree with DeSantis.

00:17:39.600 I'm not a total DeSantis simp. But on big tech, for example, he's introduced these bills that were

00:17:44.980 his attempt to use the state government to fight against wokeness and these big tech censorship.

00:17:49.720 They all have been struck down by the courts. They're not implemented. They're not achieving

00:17:53.120 anything. He tried to fine tech companies if they didn't platform politicians they disagreed with.

00:17:58.640 That's just like a First Amendment non-starter. So it ended up mostly being a cultural signaling

00:18:05.300 effort, I guess. But the actual legislation, it didn't accomplish anything. So I think if anything,

00:18:11.060 you're totally right, nationalists and people on the right who want common good conservatism

00:18:14.840 do point to DeSantis. But the core things that he's done that have been so important

00:18:19.280 are liberty-oriented. And then the areas where he has kind of tried this other tact haven't really

00:18:25.240 worked, in my opinion.

00:18:26.640 One thing I want to talk to you about is that you say nationalist. And I'm just assuming I'm

00:18:34.040 picking up that you don't agree with nationalism, which I won't I don't know if that's necessarily

00:18:40.200 what these people mean when they say based. It seems more like they're talking about social

00:18:45.520 conservatism. Although I will say I do think that there is a strain of nationalism. And this is

00:18:51.280 something, honestly, that I've just started to learn about in the past couple of years.

00:18:54.720 You seem to be saying nationalism in a derogatory way. And so I'm curious your thoughts on it.

00:19:00.960 Well, I think we have to define nationalism. I'm using I would I would kind of combine the

00:19:06.400 right into two factions. On one hand, you have people like Rand Paul and Mike Lee. That's my kind

00:19:12.000 of GOP, free market capitalists, limited government people. But they're not like total libertarians and

00:19:18.240 socially liberal or anything. Yeah. But then you also have Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton and J.D.

00:19:24.020 Vance and Tucker Carlson and those types of people. And that's who I'm talking about when

00:19:28.320 I'm talking about nationalists. It's just hard to find a great word to put on them.

00:19:33.060 So I'm not trying to use that as a pejorative, though I am using it to distinguish what I

00:19:36.820 don't agree with, because nationalism like I'm a patriot. I love America. I think our country's great.

00:19:42.380 That's not what I mean by nationalism. What I mean is kind of a right wing, big government

00:19:48.120 friendly ideology that's rooted in a different form of the collective, right, the common good

00:19:54.740 using the state to fight for our interests rather than decentralizing. I mean, one of the best things

00:20:01.240 we could do to solve a lot of these problems would be to go to federalism and honestly, like, take a lot

00:20:08.420 of these debates out of the national level and let Florida be Florida and California be California.

00:20:14.000 Now, California isn't content with that. And that's a part of the problem. But right now,

00:20:19.200 neither are many Republicans and many conservatives. They also want to dictate how California can live.

00:20:25.600 And I think that in that way, we've gotten away from that principle that could be a salvation for

00:20:31.400 this, because right now I'm really concerned about the direction of our country. It's ripping it up.

00:20:36.040 We're ripping apart at the seams. We're fighting each other more than ever.

00:20:39.340 And I think that what we need is a different vision. Also, young people on the right do tend

00:20:46.400 to be more liberty oriented, more socially moderate, yet we still need to kind of convince them that

00:20:52.480 they should favor the Constitution, limited government, capitalism, not socialism. And I don't

00:20:57.420 think that either Donald Trump's brand of conservatism or a super hardcore socially conservative nationalism

00:21:03.680 can really take that fight into the next generation, which is part of what we want to do with

00:21:08.520 politics. Going back to nationalism, I wouldn't say necessarily that how you defined it is the

00:21:20.620 real definition of nationalism, which is the belief in nation states. Like I believe that America and

00:21:27.320 her traditions and her customs and her foundation is good. I don't want it to be France. I don't want 1.00

00:21:34.040 France to be America. And I would say the opposite of a nationalist is, is not, you know, a small

00:21:39.840 government libertarian necessarily, but is really an imperialist. You know, you talked about the

00:21:44.700 importance of federalism, that we shouldn't want California to be Florida, while a nationalist also

00:21:49.980 says, well, I don't want France to be America, or I don't want, you know, Mexico to be America. I'm not

00:21:56.100 going to impose American values on all of these countries around the world in the name of liberty. But

00:22:01.920 really, it doesn't tend to accomplish that it tends to accomplish just a lot of chaos and havoc,

00:22:08.540 I think. And we're seeing it right now. So I think a nationalist would say that I am for our nation

00:22:15.700 first, I want to prioritize the interests of our people. First, that doesn't mean that we hate

00:22:20.920 immigrants, doesn't mean that we hate other countries, but we want to maintain the sovereignty

00:22:25.660 of our country, the strength of our borders. We want our country to be a place where the American 0.86

00:22:31.620 family can thrive. And so yes, we do believe maybe in enacting policies that, you know, encourage the

00:22:38.180 formation of the family or whatever it is, that help, you know, the working class family be able to

00:22:45.700 survive and thrive. I don't even know if that, though, that latter part is a part of nationalism,

00:22:50.480 but it is about national interest and putting the interests of your country first. It's not about

00:22:56.800 denigrating other countries, but it is about your own nation's sovereignty. It's about the importance

00:23:01.720 of nation states and actually believing in a form of anti-imperialism. And I would say that's very

00:23:08.600 conservative. So I guess I just don't understand really using nationalists as like this derogatory term.

00:23:13.740 Well, so the way you just described it, I agree with most of that, right? I believe in America

00:23:20.020 first foreign policy, like Donald Trump said. I'm all about that. So maybe we don't want to use the

00:23:25.700 word nationalist. I guess we can use the word populist. I mean, all I'm trying to do is put a

00:23:31.680 label on the type of people that are on the right that want to-

00:23:35.700 Big government conservatives, gotcha.

00:23:38.060 Big government conservatives. So I'm not super dedicated to the word nationalist. Some of them

00:23:43.500 use that to describe themselves. So I'm not trying to fight over one label or anything. And I'm also

00:23:49.520 not trying to use it as a pejorative. I'm just trying to differentiate the groups and factions

00:23:54.780 to show what I am and what I'm not and what I think is right and what I think isn't. But I am

00:24:00.840 actually, and this is a point of agreement between some of these people and folks like myself and

00:24:05.840 Hannah-based politics is I am about the American interests on the international stage. And I'm not

00:24:10.980 about neoconservatism or spreading democracy or invading the globe or any of those things.

00:24:15.920 So maybe that's one area where we can agree on what is base.

00:24:18.960 I do. I do think that that is an area of agreement for the most part when it comes to foreign policy

00:24:23.660 between libertarians and maybe what you would call nationalist populists, the populism that it

00:24:29.620 sounds like you really don't, that you really don't agree with. I do think that that is actually

00:24:36.060 a very important commonality between the two because then you can say, okay, we agree on this

00:24:41.420 outside stuff. Now let's come together and talk about what policies we think are good. Because I also

00:24:48.720 think we have the same goal. Like I'm guessing that you want the American family to thrive. I'm guessing

00:24:57.180 that you want a thriving working class. You want there to be lots of jobs. You want people to be

00:25:02.420 able to provide for their family on maybe one income. And a lot of the problems that we see in

00:25:08.260 wokeness, like we agree on. So really the question is how? How do we combat those things? And I think

00:25:14.300 your answer to that is basically you fight bad ideas with good ideas. You don't use the power of the

00:25:19.940 government to push back, correct?

00:25:22.220 Yeah, pretty much. Yeah.

00:25:23.160 Yeah. And so let's talk a little bit about some of those ideas and maybe where we disagree,

00:25:28.780 because I am a social conservative and I hold the view that social conservatism is actually necessary.

00:25:36.420 And actually that just not that everyone believes in Christian theology, but having the Judeo-Christian

00:25:42.020 foundation as the foundation of conservatism and our lawmaking in the United States is actually

00:25:47.320 necessary for all of the other conservative policies that you and I agree on when it comes to the

00:25:52.820 free market and things like that. But you disagree. So can you talk about your perspective

00:25:58.180 on the why? Like, why do you believe in the First Amendment? Not just from the pragmatic point of

00:26:03.800 view, but like, why do you believe that human beings have rights that governments should respect?

00:26:08.860 Well, for me, free speech is a human right. And so is freedom of religion.

00:26:13.120 Where do human rights come from?

00:26:15.040 Well, that's a very deep question.

00:26:17.600 And that's what I want to know. That's what I really want to know from

00:26:20.060 my friends. I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. And my answer would be like, I don't know,

00:26:27.080 I don't claim to have the deep philosophical answers to everything. And what I would say about

00:26:32.240 whether it really depends what you mean by Judeo-Christian values. Obviously, that's a big

00:26:36.580 answer. I believe that a lot of the things, you know, into America's foundation that includes a lot

00:26:42.240 of Christian ideals are good and should be preserved. But my fundamental value, one of them

00:26:47.440 is tolerance, not in the woke sense, but in the sense of living side by side, getting along,

00:26:53.420 even though we don't agree. So for like, I'll give you an example. On my podcast, I had Jack

00:26:57.540 Phillips on, right? I'm an agnostic gay person. He is obviously a Christian, a social conservative

00:27:03.840 who doesn't support gay marriage, wouldn't bake a gay wedding cake. We had a long conversation,

00:27:08.220 very friendly. He is all about, you know, just doing his own thing. I don't want to force him to

00:27:13.820 bend to my will. And all I ask is that he doesn't do things like, you know, anti-sodomy laws,

00:27:20.380 right? Or outlawing gay marriage. These kinds of things that then are using the state to infringe

00:27:25.940 on other people and promote your own values. I think we all need to live side by side.

00:27:31.600 He needs to have his religious freedom and his free speech, and I won't infringe it. And we can all

00:27:36.720 share a society, even though we have deeply held disagreements. That's what's always been

00:27:41.020 beautiful about America. Yeah, I wonder, there are a couple questions that I have,

00:27:46.120 like, what is the limitation? Because obviously, as you said, you're not an anarchist. And so there

00:27:50.420 are some things that should actually be illegal. And so like, when it comes to, for example,

00:27:58.380 hormone treatment for children, I think that that should be illegal. But what would be your take on

00:28:04.040 that? If your idea is that we should just kind of, you know, live and let live?

00:28:07.500 Well, the difference is live and let live applies to consensual adults, not children. So I actually

00:28:15.860 agree with you. I have a lot of compassion for kids that experience gender dysphoria, but I think

00:28:21.900 they can't consent to medical life altering medical treatments. So I think maybe starting at the age of

00:28:28.120 16 or 18, they should be able to do that. But I agree with you that they can't consent to something

00:28:33.960 like that. I mean, even as a gay person, right? Like I remember having feelings or confusion as

00:28:40.900 early as five, but I couldn't have defined my sexuality or made any life altering choices or

00:28:47.860 a child doesn't even understand what the concept of sex in terms of gender and sex even means. So how

00:28:54.580 they could make irreparable, irreversible medical decisions on it. I agree with you. But that's

00:29:01.160 something where I view the same way I'm pro-life, perhaps not quite all as far as maybe someone

00:29:07.580 like you, but I'm generally pro-life because I view it as a violation of interpersonal rights.

00:29:13.280 And that's the difference is I'm all about individual liberty, but individual liberty does

00:29:17.620 not include the ability to infringe on someone else's rights.

00:29:21.760 And I think that one of the reasons though why classical liberalism is seen as maybe

00:29:31.440 just not a formidable foe against the leftist ideology that we see today is because it very

00:29:40.100 often stops at kind of where you stopped, the why. Why do we have human rights? Like why do we respect

00:29:47.480 free speech? Why do we respect freedom of religion? For me, it's rooted in who made us. It's rooted

00:29:54.020 in this idea that there is a transcendent moral lawgiver. Because there's a transcendent moral

00:29:58.240 lawgiver, there is no earthly authority that can then supersede it. The government doesn't give or

00:30:04.040 take away my rights. God did that. And therefore, I have innate rights that cannot be arbitrarily

00:30:09.720 taken away. And I think that wokeism in its own way, leftism is also a religion. It's ideas about

00:30:19.380 human nature and where we come from and where human beings are going and what are rights versus

00:30:25.220 privilege. It is rooted in a long philosophical ideological history that is very religious in

00:30:31.480 nature. And it's almost really a theological discussion that we are having. Like what are

00:30:37.540 humans? Why are we valuable? Where does that value come from? Is it possible to change from a man to

00:30:43.780 woman? What are children? Why do parents have rights? Like what is the family? All of these are 1.00

00:30:48.580 theological questions. And I would say that that is one issue that I typically have with like with

00:30:55.040 libertarians and agnostic and atheist libertarians when you're talking about these issues is that you

00:31:00.080 talk about them from a pragmatic point of view, which of course is important. But the why you kind of

00:31:06.160 just, you can't answer. And that is one reason why I think ultimately the form of classical liberalism

00:31:11.560 that we are seeing espoused by you, even though I think that you're a wonderful person, it just,

00:31:17.040 it doesn't hold up. It doesn't hold up to the theological battle that we are seeing waged on the

00:31:23.140 left, in my opinion. Yeah, look, I understand what you're saying. I think I don't have the answer for,

00:31:30.240 you know, what are human beings? Where do our rights come from? But I think what's great about

00:31:33.920 America is that everybody can decide these deep moral questions for themselves. A Muslim person 0.98

00:31:38.780 and you. But we can't really, because you can't have a society where we are all our own gods. Like

00:31:44.220 we all have to agree, right? Okay. But you believe in religious freedom, right? You believe a Jewish 1.00

00:31:48.440 person and a Muslim person. We believe in religious freedom, but don't we all have to agree? Like,

00:31:52.780 okay, this is just the bare minimum. I'm not saying, okay, you have to agree with all of my different

00:31:57.360 theology in order for us to function in society. You and I definitely agree on that. And thankfully,

00:32:01.820 or else, you know, the Catholic nationalists that you were talking about, they don't agree with me

00:32:05.960 on a lot of the theological stuff either. So that would be a problem. But when it comes to, like,

00:32:10.440 the foundation of, like, what laws should we pass and why? People say a lot, you can't legislate

00:32:15.920 morality, but of course you can. Of course you do. The law against murder is legislating morality,

00:32:21.840 and it speaks to what we think about human beings. Why is it bad to kill someone? So,

00:32:27.480 like, my thing is, why? Don't we all need to kind of agree on the why behind why we're here

00:32:35.780 and what morality is for us to function? To me, that is why we are so polarized.

00:32:40.960 But I think, well, we do have to legislate morality. It's interpersonal morality that we have to

00:32:47.540 legislate. And I agree that we need a shared understanding there. It's individuals who I

00:32:53.260 think should be able to make their own choices about their lives, consensual adults, and live

00:32:57.240 side by side very differently. But when it comes, we need to agree on basic human dignity, human rights,

00:33:04.500 the sovereignty of a human being as an individual, American principles like free speech. These are the

00:33:10.820 things we have to agree on. And I agree, it's very concerning. People on the left don't agree on.

00:33:15.300 So there is some borderline consensus, but I don't think it has to be religious,

00:33:20.780 although maybe that's where it stems from for a lot of people. I think we just have to agree

00:33:25.760 on this. For example, I'm very pro-immigration, right? Very pro-immigration. But I don't think

00:33:30.840 we should have immigration for people that reject all of our values, right? And so I think people who 1.00

00:33:39.600 want to come and live in a pluralistic, tolerant, free society with religious freedom and free speech

00:33:45.300 and a constrained federal government, that's what we should all need to have to agree on

00:33:50.320 in order to live side by side. But I don't think we have to all share even the same religious

00:33:56.060 orientation, let alone the details, which you're not saying. Because America, we've always lived with

00:34:02.720 atheists and agnostics and Christians and Jews. And that's part of what makes us great.

00:34:07.700 I think it's just, I think, I want us to at least be able to acknowledge the foundation of like where

00:34:17.240 liberty comes from, where rights come from. And my argument would be, at least on the conservative

00:34:21.780 side, that understanding that foundation of where rights come from, like why we don't believe in the

00:34:27.180 unfettered power of the government, that that, in my opinion, is also going to lead us to have

00:34:33.480 certain social views that I think are integral to conservatism. Like you talk about, okay, yes,

00:34:41.340 we are legislating interpersonal morality, but not individual morality. And, you know, to an extent,

00:34:47.540 I think that that is probably true, except then I think about, okay, but the individual turns into the

00:34:53.720 interpersonal so quickly. Like if you're talking about someone like Leah Thomas, who, okay, you could

00:35:00.280 just say that that is a person, you know, doing what they want to do, living their truth, whatever.

00:35:07.080 Well, that individual decision to try to present as a woman is now affecting other people. So is there

00:35:14.720 a place for the state to come in and say, no, you can't do that? I would say, I would say yes,

00:35:20.700 but I'm afraid you would say, no, there's no power. There's no place for the states to come in

00:35:27.740 because that's just an individual moral decision that they're making.

00:35:32.580 So I'm only vaguely familiar. What, what is Leah Thomas's sports competition in? Is that

00:35:37.880 Olympic or college?

00:35:38.820 This is swimming. So UPenn, he's at UPenn. He swam as a collegiate swimmer and now swims on the women's

00:35:48.060 team.

00:35:49.200 For the Olympics?

00:35:50.600 No, I'm sorry. No, just UPenn, just University of Pennsylvania.

00:35:54.300 Yeah.

00:35:54.440 Um, is that a private school or a public school?

00:35:58.300 Um, I guess it's a public school. I'm not sure. I don't know if y'all know if it's public or private,

00:36:04.040 but regardless, I just don't think men should be able to compete against women. 0.98

00:36:09.380 What I would say is that if a private university wants to have what I consider to be unscientific or

00:36:16.000 foolish rules about sports, um, like you're saying, like a biological male could compete with women 0.99

00:36:21.320 swimming, I think they should be able to do that. I think at a public school, you have things like 0.96

00:36:25.540 Title IX and equal access and anti-discrimination laws that would, would I think if interpreted

00:36:30.380 correctly, prohibit that kind of thing because it's a form of discrimination against women. 1.00

00:36:35.240 Um, but I mean, for this person to want to just live their life, how they see fit in general,

00:36:41.240 as an adult, I have no problem with. Yeah. I guess my question is when it becomes,

00:36:46.780 because that's, that's the whole thing that we have really had that we've really seen, um,

00:36:52.480 since, uh, since a Berger fell is that the individual, what we were told, okay, this is

00:36:56.760 just individual. This is two people. They want to get married and that's that. And all the conservative

00:37:02.320 Christians were like, this is a slippery slope. There's going to be a baker one day who was forced 1.00

00:37:06.660 to bow down to the sexual revolution. And we were all told, no, no, no, no, no, that's not going to

00:37:10.740 happen. These are just people who want to live and let live the personal becomes interpersonal

00:37:14.400 really quickly. And so like, my question is like, when does the government step in? Because as you

00:37:20.640 just mentioned, like Jack Phillips's rights were trampled upon, um, in the name of tolerance in the

00:37:28.320 name of what I call, you know, the sexual and moral revolution, which has gone really quickly over

00:37:32.920 the past five to 10 years. And I think we're seeing it even more so when it comes to the

00:37:36.760 transgender issue. Like, do I have a right to be in a bathroom with only women or do I not? 1.00

00:37:42.340 To me, the state has a role to play there. I think it depends, um, what that bathroom is,

00:37:49.560 where it's located, what law it's bound by. And I think we also, the, the, the, you're absolutely

00:37:55.600 right. It's tricky to draw a line between personal and interpersonal, but you could flip this and

00:38:01.460 make left, left wing arguments. Like your free speech isn't personal. It affects other people.

00:38:06.480 It affects other people's safety. And I think this, it just becomes a very, your religion 0.92

00:38:10.780 affects my mental health because it stigmatizes me in society. I don't, I don't believe that to be

00:38:16.620 clear. But what I'm saying is it is a slippery slope, but what I'm saying is we have to draw it

00:38:21.620 firmly at interpersonal, right? Abortion is interpersonal. It's one human ending the life of 0.99

00:38:26.920 another. Me slapping someone is interpersonal. But you actually believe that abortion is okay 0.84

00:38:31.840 sometimes, right? No, but I'm, I'm generally pro-life. What does that mean? I don't, uh,

00:38:40.300 it means that I would favor certain exceptions. Okay. So you do believe that it's okay to take

00:38:45.240 an innocent person's life sometimes. So where do you, why, like, does that apply to other things?

00:38:50.540 Like, is that your principle? I mean, I'm like, I, I agree with pro-life positions in like 98% of

00:38:56.900 cases and I think almost all abortions should be outlawed. So I don't, I mean, and it's also,

00:39:01.300 I will say this, it's not really like one of my issues that I'm, I don't talk about. I don't

00:39:05.960 advocate about it. I mean, I'm, I'll happily discuss my views on it, but it's not something

00:39:10.400 where I'm trying to shape the conversation one way or another, or in particularly involved or

00:39:14.940 researched or passionate. Well, I'm just trying to figure out with libertarians,

00:39:18.980 like, what is the line? What is the line between personal and interpersonal? Like I'm against

00:39:24.360 abortion in all circumstances because I believe that taking an innocent life is wrong in all 0.98

00:39:31.040 circumstances. And so like, I kind of draw that line kind of clearly. And I don't know actually

00:39:37.080 the answer though, in all circumstances to be totally fair, like what is the line between personal

00:39:41.020 and interpersonal? Where does the state step in? And I guess I'm just trying to understand from the

00:39:44.800 more libertarian or classical liberal standpoint, like where, where the line is drawn.

00:39:51.940 But I want to go back to something you said a minute ago. And I think you're right that after

00:39:55.520 Obergefell, the kind of LGBT left and social left, they went in a very illiberal direction and started 1.00

00:40:02.780 targeting people. But I would also say that in many ways that has vindicated our classically liberal

00:40:08.860 structures, Jack Phillips won at the Supreme Court. Um, and also bestiality isn't legalized. Um,

00:40:16.820 polygamy isn't legalized. A lot of the slippery slope arguments that were made against gay marriage

00:40:22.260 haven't come true. I would say that Obergefell was almost seven years ago. So barely now I'm not saying

00:40:29.980 that gay marriage and bestiality are the same thing. I'm not making that argument. I'm just saying that

00:40:33.780 it's, you know, I don't think when Obergefell happened that we would have thought that we

00:40:38.220 would be having a conversation about whether a man can truly become a woman. I do think that it's 1.00

00:40:43.800 fair to say that, wow, that was a huge change. It should have been decided. I think on the legislative

00:40:51.420 level, you probably agree with that, uh, when it comes to, uh, when it comes to the States. Um,

00:40:58.320 and, and wow, that has changed so much. And I would say it's gone beyond even the wildest slippery slope

00:41:04.780 dreams of, um, of conservative Christians when you're talking about, you know, men being in women's

00:41:11.300 locker rooms and, and that has nothing to do with gay marriage. Gay and trans are fundamentally 0.85

00:41:15.560 distinct concepts. Well, I would say, I would say, yes, that is true. But wouldn't you say that the

00:41:22.220 LGBTQ leftist activist wing has worked very hard to conflate those two things and has really

00:41:27.900 tried to make it this homogenous group that says, you know, if you are opposed to so-called trans

00:41:34.520 rights, then you're, you know, opposed to the LGBTQ movement in general. And so it's almost hard to

00:41:41.900 distinguish between the two now because, you know, organizations like the ACLU have made them

00:41:46.840 completely conflated. Yeah. But I, I've spent a lot of time criticizing and pushing back on that

00:41:53.260 attempt to do so because you're right. They've done that. I don't think conservatives should buy

00:41:58.240 into that though, or, or accept that as a premise because sexual orientation and gender identity or

00:42:04.420 biological sex are completely distinct things. Um, and I think that we have different,

00:42:09.920 uh, I'll just say this and I'm not, I'm not someone who I don't believe in being anti-trans in

00:42:16.300 terms of any like hatred or animus. I have compassion for these people, but I definitely hold a lot of views

00:42:22.200 that the left-wing LGBT activists would consider anti-trans. And so does almost every young 0.51

00:42:26.980 conservative I know, but most of them are totally cool with gay people, fine with gay marriage,

00:42:32.300 whatever. That is a very real thing in society. A lot of people make a distinction between LGB and

00:42:40.380 the rest of the alphabet where it starts to get off the reservation. Yeah. And we've had a lot of

00:42:45.140 people, I think almost all women actually that we've had on who hold that same position, especially in 1.00

00:42:51.060 the UK and have really organized to kind of push back against that because they see it as a

00:42:55.760 diminishment of what they have fought for as well. And even a diminishment of the definition of what,

00:43:01.140 you know, is meant by being a homosexual. And so we've talked to a lot of people, um, that are on the

00:43:07.800 same page there. Of course, I do believe in the encouragement of, um, of the natural family.

00:43:16.680 There are different ethical issues that, again, this is like where the personal and interpersonal,

00:43:21.600 they just become so intricately interwoven that it's difficult to distinguish. Like,

00:43:27.600 I think that, um, the fertility industry, when it comes to the redefinition of marriage and

00:43:34.320 reproduction is like a huge ethical issue that we don't want to talk about. And we don't want to

00:43:40.500 get involved in because it feels politically incorrect. You're going to be called homophobic.

00:43:45.220 If you talk about some of, you know, the issues with sperm donation and egg donation and surrogacy

00:43:49.880 and things like that, I would say that that is something that has also taken off since

00:43:54.620 Obergefell that, um, you know, it does require conservatives to make a position on because again,

00:44:02.260 it asks that question, like, where is the line? What is a right? What is a privilege? And do the

00:44:08.420 definitions of marriage and procreation and all of those things really matter? As a conservative,

00:44:13.000 I think we still have to conserve the most fundamental tenets of those things.

00:44:17.320 And I just see the effort to try to like detach social conservatism from the rest of conservatism.

00:44:23.460 Very, very difficult when it comes to things like, you know, the definition of the family and things

00:44:28.720 like that.

00:44:29.160 Well, I don't know about detach as much as I think make room for it to coexist with other visions,

00:44:35.740 because like, I'm all about very pro adoption for gay parents. I think gay parents can can and have

00:44:41.360 raised tons of happy and healthy, successful children. There's lots of studies on that.

00:44:46.440 I agree with you. There are some ethical issues about surrogacy, about creating, you know, a lab, 0.70

00:44:52.520 write a new life. But I those also apply to straight.

00:44:55.320 Yes, I was about to say that I also have the same position when it comes to

00:45:00.020 straight couples doing the same thing. So. 0.91

00:45:02.520 So I don't know if we necessarily I don't really view that as a gay or anti gay issue. It's like

00:45:08.620 kind of surrogacy is its own thing that I will say I'm not super knowledgeable about or into.

00:45:16.000 It was just an example of how the personal becomes interpersonal really quickly. And also,

00:45:21.480 like, if you have the position, a lot of conservatives do and think this is integral

00:45:25.320 to conservatism, that all children have a right to a mother and a father. That's also a debate to be

00:45:31.420 had that I really think that we need to have between people like you who are more socially

00:45:35.360 moderate and people like me who are socially conservative, maybe not today. But I think,

00:45:39.680 honestly, it goes back to kind of what we were talking about in the beginning,

00:45:42.280 just fundamentally, our two sides within conservatism, I think, need to decide if we

00:45:48.580 agree, like on basic principles of conservatism, or if we're totally just missing each other.

00:45:53.600 Does that make sense?

00:45:54.260 Well, and I think that historically, you know, 10 years ago in the Tea Party, right,

00:45:58.960 social conservatives like yourself, or like Glenn Beck, right? We had overlap because with

00:46:06.720 libertarians like Rand Paul, because we all agreed on these basic first premises.

00:46:10.980 The problem is that these new people in the right, we can call them populists, we can call

00:46:16.620 them nationalists, or whatever, when they say actually, big government is good, when they say,

00:46:21.060 actually, we need to tear up the First Amendment and go after woke people, they're breaking with 0.99

00:46:26.620 those principles that allowed us to be part of a coalition and to have our shared principles.

00:46:31.640 So I still share those principles. I haven't moved. I don't think people like Rand Paul have moved.

00:46:36.900 Some people, the Josh Hollies of the world, they do see things differently.

00:46:40.640 And they have moved.

00:46:43.400 Yeah, it's super interesting discussion to have, because like, I do, I agree with you on so much.

00:46:48.980 I think that if we were to line up our views on things, even if the why underneath them weren't the

00:46:53.580 same, I think that we do agree on a lot of principles. I do think that there should be more

00:46:59.080 debate, though, because to me, really, the debate between the people that you're calling kind of

00:47:04.040 like populists and, and you and I'm somewhere within there is really about the role of the

00:47:12.780 government, but also these social issues, and the why underneath the social issues. And I just think

00:47:18.640 it's, I just think it's a worthy debate. And I think the younger generation come coming up, I don't

00:47:24.520 think that we can just say, well, they're going to be socially liberal or socially moderate. I think that

00:47:29.140 we need to present them with both sides of the coin. And I think that they need to see those kind

00:47:33.800 of healthy discussions and debates, because there's a lot to think about. There's a lot to

00:47:37.700 think about within the different factions of conservatism. Do you agree?

00:47:41.780 Yeah, certainly. I do.

00:47:43.500 Yeah. Okay, well, where can people follow you and read more about, you know, what you're doing?

00:47:50.240 Yeah, so head to base to dash politics.com or just search based politics, wherever you listen

00:47:56.420 to your podcast to check out the new project with me and Hannah Cox. We're also on social media

00:48:01.300 everywhere. And and with that, I hope people will check it out. If you're interested in the future

00:48:07.040 of the right, whether you're a libertarian, whether you're a conservative, I mean, that is we're going

00:48:11.600 to be pushing back on the left, advocating for our vision of what the right should look like.

00:48:16.620 And so we're going to be having this debate. And these are really important conversations. So

00:48:21.000 thanks for having me. And let's keep doing it. Yeah, they really are. And I will definitely be

00:48:25.580 following because I do like I just find myself more sympathetic to like Tucker Carlson conservatism

00:48:31.500 nowadays. And honestly, and not to just keep extending this conversation, but I've seen a shift,

00:48:36.960 not just in me and the people I know, but a lot of conservatives online, maybe it was after George

00:48:42.060 Floyd. I'm not really sure. But there's been a tipping point for a lot of people over the past

00:48:46.460 couple of years. And I think the reason why you're important and your voice is important and what

00:48:50.880 you're doing is important is because at the very least, it causes me to think about, well,

00:48:55.080 why have I moved kind of in that direction? And am I still staying true to the principles that I

00:49:00.580 actually believe in as a conservative? So I do appreciate your voice and your perspective. And

00:49:05.340 I think these discussions are really important. So thank you. Thank you.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - February 03, 2022

Ep 558 ｜ Based Debate： Libertarian vs. Social Conservative ｜ Guest： Brad Polumbo

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript