The Ben Shapiro Show - A New American Century | Dr. Kevin Roberts

00:00:00.000 President Trump, with the best of intentions in 2016 and 17, was just focused on the top 300 positions.

00:00:05.000 But he learned, like the rest of us, I've had to learn this too, you've got to be focused on all 4,500 politically appointed positions, and you've got to be willing to play ball on civil service reform over a generation to make sure that these unelected bureaucrats, just posit that they're great people, I'm willing to do that, they shouldn't have the authority they have.

00:00:24.000 We're not going to solve that overnight.

00:00:26.000 We're not going to solve that in one presidential term.

00:00:29.000 I think we're going to be deep into the 2030s before we can look back and say, and this is if we have sustained power, before we can look back and say, we did it.

00:00:38.000 Dr. Kevin Roberts is the president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that plays a central role in hosting national public policy debates among the political right.

00:00:46.000 Roberts is a lifelong educator with a career in building economic institutions, as well as a writer whose analysis has appeared in major outlets like The Wall Street Journal and National Review.

00:00:54.000 Roberts also features thought leaders on his eponymous podcast, where he sits down with everyone from senators to tech innovators and Green Berets.

00:01:00.000 Roberts' latest book, Dawn's Early Light, offers a diagnosis of America's most urgent problems, as well as a series of policy prescriptions for a more prosperous future.

00:01:08.000 In today's episode, we discuss the tradeoffs inherent to policymaking, why Republicans must not neglect fiscal conservatism any longer, and which executive agency he would reform first if he had a magic wand.

00:01:18.000 Kevin Roberts also injects nuance into our foreign policy debates and explains why some institutions are not even worth overhauling.

00:01:23.000 Dr. Kevin Roberts' combination of scholarly expertise and practical policy experience makes him a strong advocate for the broader conservative movement.

00:01:30.000 Stay tuned and welcome back to another episode of the Sunday Special.

00:01:33.000 Kevin Roberts, thank you so much for stopping by.

00:01:44.000 I really appreciate it.

00:01:45.000 It's a real pleasure, Ben.

00:01:46.000 Thanks for having me.

00:01:46.000 So this has been an extraordinary period in American history and in conservative movement history.

00:01:51.000 We're watching both a change in the conservative movement and also a historic victory for the conservative movement.

00:01:57.000 So first, the broad question, where do you think things stand right now as far as conservatism goes?

00:02:02.000 I think we're in the first or second chapter, maybe second chapter because Trump's election, re-election, I should say, to a second term is the first chapter of a reformulation of the conservative movement.

00:02:12.000 Sometimes people will hear that, even I as a lifelong movement conservative hear that and wonder, you know, are we becoming untethered to our principles?

00:02:20.000 No, what we're doing is obviously we have no power over eternal principles.

00:02:24.000 The power we have, hence the second chapter, is how we apply that given the socio-economic, political, cultural circumstances we find ourselves in.

00:02:32.000 And I think we're in the beginning of a refounding of this country.

00:02:36.000 By that, I mean a regeneration of institutions.

00:02:38.000 And I think politically, this Trump-Vance coalition isn't just about the 2024 election.

00:02:44.000 It's about what I call, in a recent book, the new conservative movement.

00:02:47.000 And I think that most of that is going to look familiar to us, but other aspects of it, for example, having large support from Hispanics, large support from working-class Americans, is not necessarily new.

00:02:59.000 It's not unprecedented.

00:03:00.000 At least the latter, a working-class movement was part of the founding of the Republican Party.

00:03:04.000 But I think it's very exciting.

00:03:06.000 And in short, I think this is the beginning of something that can not only reclaim this country, but perhaps reclaim the West if we have the courage to seize it.

00:03:15.000 So in your book, Dawn's Early Light, you talk about sort of the reformulation of the conservative movement.

00:03:19.000 Now, historically, the sort of Reagan conservative movement was predicated on three basic principles, free markets, a strong national offense, sort of peace through strength, and a traditional family values sort of platform.

00:03:30.000 Do you see any of those things changing?

00:03:31.000 Or as you say, is it more sort of the manifestation of those principles?

00:03:34.000 I think it's a difference in the manifestation of that given the political and economic circumstances.

00:03:39.000 I say only somewhat tongue-in-cheek in the book that the new three-legged stool, the new fusionism, is mom, dad, and kids.

00:03:45.000 Because the reframing that I'm arguing for, which is not going to be earth-shattering to any conservative, is that we really see public policy and politics through the lens of the American family.

00:03:55.000 We have historically low marriage rates and fertility rates.

00:03:58.000 I think these are existential crises for us as a civil society.

00:04:01.000 And yet, I'm cautiously optimistic that our politics can help to solve that partially through good policy.

00:04:09.000 And ultimately, when you think about national security conservatives, free market conservatives, social conservatives...

00:04:15.000 We argue at Heritage and I argue in the book, let's stop modifying conservatism and let's talk about a more holistic conservatism in which all of us not only have a seat at the table, but also are part of reformulating a new conservative set of policy programs that really puts the family first.

00:04:32.000 If we do that, speaking to the sort of different manifestation, I think those other priorities are going to fall in place.

00:04:39.000 We're going to have an American foreign policy that is strong through peace, especially under President Trump.

00:04:44.000 We're going to have a free market conservatism that understands the free market is the healthy outgrowth of a healthy society.

00:04:51.000 Right now, we not only put those out of order, but we don't even acknowledge that we don't really have a free market economy anymore in the United States.

00:04:57.000 And the social conservatives, who I think often have been the redheaded stepchildren at the table around D.C., have to be more We have to explain that it isn't just about securing the lives of the unborn, but going back to this family-first fusionism, as I call it in the book, we have to talk about an aspirational vision for what family life and communities will look like in the next generation.

00:05:23.000 So when it comes to the role of government and this sort of stuff, this is, of course, where the rubber meets the road.

00:05:27.000 You get some really interesting conversations happening within the conservative movement about what policy should be happening at the local level versus the state level versus the federal level.

00:05:35.000 For myself, I tend to believe that most of the family building stuff happens at the local level.

00:05:40.000 And that if we're talking about, say, declining birth rates, that you can give certainly economic incentives to people to have kids.

00:05:46.000 They've tried it in Hungary to...

00:05:47.000 Some moderate success, sort of, at least short-lived.

00:05:51.000 But in reality, the thing that makes people have kids, I mean, you're a religious person, I'm a religious person, tends to be a commitment to having kids.

00:05:58.000 It tends not to be.

00:05:59.000 You can make it certainly much harder for people to have kids, and we should get rid of those barriers.

00:06:03.000 Where do you think that policy should be made?

00:06:04.000 Is that a national-level policy, or is it more a matter of getting government out of the way by getting rid of the barriers to entry that exists now in having kids?

00:06:14.000 Well, you and I agree 100% that this is mostly a local issue, so local that it's in individual households and families.

00:06:20.000 But that is a way of saying, the first of three factors that I think are important, that faith is vital.

00:06:26.000 And this is why in the three years I've been president of Heritage, When I go out and talk to groups, as you do, I always emphasize the importance of faith.

00:06:35.000 And that's important for us to emphasize right now as conservatives, because part of this Trump-Vance coalition includes people who find religion less important to them than you and I do in our lives.

00:06:45.000 And very respectfully, because all of our faith journeys, by definition, are journeys, that we still, both individually and institutionally, that is, at the national level before politics and policy, I think, have to have faith in order to make those decisions as husbands and wives.

00:07:02.000 But the second factor would be getting rid of the disincentives that exist in our public policy toward marriage and toward childbirth inside marriage.

00:07:12.000 You know very well, and my colleagues at Heritage are talking about this in a family policy paper that's coming out soon.

00:07:18.000 We have multiple disincentives in public policy toward marriage, just in tax policy. 0.97

00:07:23.000 We ought to eliminate those immediately.

00:07:25.000 If you gave me what I call the policy magic wand, Ben, that'd be the first thing that I do.

00:07:30.000 And then I do believe, moving on to the third part, which is conservatives understanding there might be a role for federal policy here, that we need to embrace this concept that Hungary has, to some extent Israel and Singapore have, with mixed results, admittedly.

00:07:46.000 I run a think tank, so we're always going to call reality as we see it, but that we ought to consider spending as much on incentivizing family formation as we do on defense.

00:07:57.000 And that's in no way to relegate defense to be secondary.

00:08:01.000 In fact, I think we can have our cake and eat it too.

00:08:03.000 What we're trying to do in this family policy paper, what I try to argue in the book, is that having this conversation doesn't mean that we're heterodox conservatives.

00:08:12.000 In fact, it means we're staying very true to our principles and trying to apply them with this headwind that we have, the entire West has.

00:08:19.000 I think ultimately, and you know that I'm an optimist, By the end of the century, if we don't change our public policy, if we don't change individual decisions we're making about faith, if we don't experiment at the state level with family policy, that we're going to have a republic, we're going to have a society that's very weak.

00:08:35.000 One of the things that's really interesting about public policy, obviously, is that it's just a series of trade-offs.

00:08:39.000 That's right.

00:08:39.000 Whenever you're trying to figure out what you can get through a Congress or what you can get through a state legislature, It's going to be a conversation about what you're looking for ideally and then also what's possible.

00:08:53.000 And so, you know, I can say ideologically that in an ideal world, what I would like to see is, for example, the welfare state pared back because it actually crowds out all of the intermediate institutions that used to form community.

00:09:05.000 It used to be that one of the reasons you had a lot of kids is because you went to a church.

00:09:09.000 And the reason you went to a church is because actually that's where your safety net was.

00:09:12.000 That's where your support network was.

00:09:13.000 And so the way that you testified to other members of your church that you were a member of the church and thus deserving of the safety net is you engaged in the same set of values as people who are in that church.

00:09:21.000 When government came in and crowded that out by essentially just handing people welfare checks or entitlement checks, what that ended up doing was basically getting rid of the duty half That comes along with the entitlement.

00:09:31.000 If you're a member of a synagogue, like my synagogue, for example, if you get charity from the other members of the synagogue, you understand that the other half of that is you have to be a good dues-paying member of the synagogue.

00:09:40.000 When somebody else has a problem, you have to help them out.

00:09:42.000 When you take away all of that and you just have government there with a check from some random person, then you don't feel that same sense of obligation.

00:09:49.000 And so, again, the set of values that comes along with the church goes away.

00:09:53.000 It's just government pretending to be neutral when it's anything but.

00:09:56.000 Now, I can say all of that.

00:09:57.000 But when it comes to public policy, who's willing to cut welfare?

00:09:59.000 When it comes to public policy, who's willing to actually take a look at the entitlement programs?

00:10:02.000 This is one of the shifts that's happened inside the Republican Party and the conservative movement in my time, is sort of the shift away from even talking about some of the big drivers of debt, for example, in the United States, and a drive toward the idea that maximizing growth is going to allow us to outgrow those things.

00:10:17.000 What do you think conservatives should be looking at with regard to that sort of stuff?

00:10:21.000 Well, you know, I'm fond of the metaphor or the imagery of the Overton window in policy, and we've moved the Overton window, I hope Heritage has, on family policy.

00:10:30.000 That's one factor.

00:10:31.000 But you talk about an Overton window that's also moved in the wrong direction, in my opinion, and that is the Overton window where, as conservatives, we talk less about debt reduction and deficit reduction.

00:10:42.000 You know, probably my best friend in the U.S. House, Chip Roy, Chip has sort of cut his teeth in addition to being right on everything else on fiscal restraint, not because Chip is somehow squishy on foreign policy or isn't a dedicated social conservative, because he understands the fiscal liberalism, lack of restraint in Washington, D.C. as a threat to all of those other things.

00:11:03.000 So we have to ultimately take a multi-pronged approach.

00:11:06.000 And therefore, I think this is the impact that Elon and Vivek will have with the Department of Government Efficiency, even though They're going to speak using a little bit different vocabulary than you and I will about the importance of some of the local kind of Burkean traditions.

00:11:21.000 But let me introduce another Overton window or another factor here, and one I think you'll appreciate.

00:11:25.000 And that is, I think the single most important lesson here about the welfare state crowding out these local institutions, intermediating institutions, intermediary institutions, is the report of Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1965 on the black family.

00:11:41.000 I was a young historian when I read that, and it inspired me both to a love of African American history, as well as a love for understanding public policy's correct application and incorrect application.

00:11:56.000 And what Moynihan argued in the middle of the LBJ administration, as you know, was that bringing in government programs, however well-intentioned they are, let's just posit that they are, and let's just posit for a moment that everyone behind them, behind the war on poverty, a great misnomer, had great intentions.

00:12:13.000 What Moynihan presaged was that doing that would begin to undercut what African American families, in spite of all the terrible segregation, The legacy of slavery, something I'd studied as an academic, had actually been able to overcome.

00:12:29.000 And his argument was, and it's prescient 60 years later, is that if you went too far using the federal government to correct these wrongs, that you would in fact undermine the ability of individuals, of families, of communities to be the intermediary institutions in all of these transactions, if you will.

00:12:49.000 And so I think we need to resurrect that.

00:12:51.000 And what I'm hopeful about, Is from the Doge Commission or the Doge Department to the Department of Agriculture, where a lot of these safety net programs exist, to Health and Human Services, that the approach that the Trump administration takes is an understanding of that.

00:13:07.000 The very first thing we need to do in addition to I think we can get to that.

00:13:33.000 that's the recipe.

00:13:34.000 But what I just described and what you laid the foundation for is a lifetime worth of work.

00:13:40.000 We'll get to more with Kevin Roberts in just one second.

00:13:42.000 First, folks, let's talk about dressing sharp without sacrificing comfort.

00:13:45.000 If you're tired of choosing between looking professional and feeling relaxed, we've got great news for you.

00:13:49.000 Thank you.

00:13:59.000 Gone are the days of floppy collars that make you look like you just rolled out of bed.

00:14:03.000 These polos feature a firm collar that stands up straight all day long.

00:14:06.000 The four-way stretch fabric means you can move freely and comfortably throughout your day.

00:14:09.000 It's office-approved, so you can look professional without feeling like you're trapped in a suit.

00:14:12.000 And get this, it also travels well.

00:14:14.000 So, whether you're commuting to work or jetting off for a business trip, you'll arrive looking crisp and feeling great.

00:14:18.000 But Collars& Co.

00:14:19.000 isn't just about polos.

00:14:20.000 They've expanded their line impressively.

00:14:22.000 They've got merino sweaters, quarter zips, stretch chinos, even a performance blazer they call the Maverick.

00:14:26.000 It's versatility at its finest.

00:14:27.000 These pieces look great by themselves under a sweater or with a blazer.

00:14:31.000 Check out this shirt right now.

00:14:32.000 You see this?

00:14:33.000 Magnificent!

00:14:34.000 Of course, I'm also unbelievably good looking.

00:14:36.000 But if you want to look sharp and feel comfortable and support a fast-growing American company, head on over to collarsandco.com.

00:14:41.000 Use code BEN for 20% off your first order.

00:14:43.000 That's collarsandco.com.

00:14:45.000 Code BEN. Collars and Co.

00:14:46.000 Because you shouldn't have to choose between looking good and feeling good.

00:14:49.000 So one of the other areas that you talk about in your book, obviously, is foreign policy and proper application of force and threat of force.

00:14:56.000 This has become sort of a fraud issue in a lot of conservative circles.

00:14:59.000 What is the proper application of force?

00:15:01.000 And I think some of that is sort of a false dichotomy that's been set up.

00:15:04.000 I would venture to say that the sort of Wilsonian neoconservatism of 2004 has died a gruesome death and a well-deserved death.

00:15:12.000 Because, again, Wilsonianism is far too idealistic.

00:15:15.000 It doesn't take into account the different situations on the ground.

00:15:19.000 It sort of suggests that we have the willy-nilly ability to wave a magic wand and turn a rock into Connecticut or something.

00:15:24.000 But the reality is that I think that if Bill Clinton once suggested that everyone is a small government person now, I think actually everyone on the conservative side is a realist now.

00:15:34.000 It's just a question of what brand of realism they are pursuing.

00:15:37.000 And so a lot of the talk about, well, this person's an isolationist or this person is an interventionist, I think some of that's misplaced because I struggle to think of – there might be a couple names out there – anyone who has been totally in favor of every conflict in which the United States has engaged over the course of the last, say, 20 years.

00:15:54.000 Part of what I've been trying to do at Heritage on this issue three years in is eliminate the usage of that false dichotomy.

00:16:01.000 And two and a half years ago when the first Ukraine military aid package came up, Heritage opposed that.

00:16:07.000 Not because we were opposed to Ukraine winning, not because we're isolationists, but because we developed over many decades of analyzing American foreign policy, a healthy realism about what's possible, but also very importantly, what's proper regarding the process by which Congress should what's proper regarding the process by which Congress should make these decisions.

00:16:27.000 And if we wanted to be as unfair to the members of the House and Senate as they and their legacy media outlet friends were to us and calling us isolationists, we would have called them all interventionists.

00:16:39.000 But we became very careful about not using that word because it's as inaccurate in almost every case as it would be to call me or anyone at Heritage or most conservatives who are realists isolationists.

00:16:52.000 And to your point, the good news is that we're now having the intellectually honest conversation two and a half years later that we should have had two and a half years ago, but at least we're having it now.

00:17:02.000 And I think what that's going to do is not only bring peace to Ukraine, unfortunately, unfortunately and tragically, they're going to have to lose some territory, but hopefully looking ahead, both in Eastern Europe and around the world, it's going to bring a realism and intellectual honesty to the conversation among conservatives about foreign policy. it's going to bring a realism and intellectual honesty to And I actually think we're in a good spot.

00:17:22.000 Two years ago, it was very frustrating for those of us, and I know you were in this camp too, who just wanted to have a healthy debate and not say that someone was un-American because they took a differing position, right?

00:17:34.000 And to some extent, that's maybe the greatest work that a thoughtful think tank can offer to the debate is this conversation is appropriate.

00:17:42.000 It's sound.

00:17:43.000 You might land on different sides.

00:17:45.000 Maybe to your point, it's actually just a matter of degree, which I think is what it is.

00:17:49.000 But if you think about the Trump administration, from state to defense to the president and vice president himself, They're all realists.

00:17:58.000 But there isn't a unanimity of opinion there on what that exactly means.

00:18:03.000 We get the opportunity, following their lead as the primary policymakers, to define that.

00:18:08.000 And it's both exciting, but more importantly, it's urgent for the world.

00:18:13.000 Because as I travel the world, waving the heritage and American conservative banner, the most common thing that I hear from centrists, from conservatives, from liberals is, we just want clarity.

00:18:23.000 Not just from Americans, but from American conservatives about what peace through strength in the 2020s and 2030s means.

00:18:30.000 Well, I think this is one of the benefits of President Trump.

00:18:32.000 So the fact that everyone has been trying to weave a Trumpism around Trump.

00:18:35.000 The reality is that Donald Trump is a singular figure.

00:18:38.000 He's the most transformative American political figure of this century.

00:18:41.000 And really the only two possible candidates would be Barack Obama on the left and President Trump on the right, without a doubt.

00:18:46.000 But because of that, I think the attempt to sort of weave a philosophy around him is a mistake in the sense that The philosophy is basically just a pragmatic winning attitude toward all of these issues, and that allows for a pretty rich debate to happen underneath the surface.

00:19:00.000 So you can have a big debate over what exactly the final settlement looks like in Ukraine.

00:19:05.000 The one thing you know is that Trump does not want, on the one hand, Russia to walk through Ukraine.

00:19:09.000 He is not going to tolerate some sort of ending.

00:19:12.000 In which Vladimir Putin is strolling through the streets of Kiev.

00:19:14.000 That's just not something that I think President Trump wants on the front pages of the New York Times.

00:19:18.000 And on the other hand, he doesn't want an unending American commitment to Ukraine that's open-ended and has no actual final goal.

00:19:23.000 Well, between those two goalposts, that's a lot of room to put a football between those two goalposts. 0.64

00:19:27.000 Yeah, it's true.

00:19:28.000 And I think about the designee, Mike Waltz, to be the national security advisor.

00:19:33.000 When the first Ukraine military aid package debate came up, this is directly relevant to your point about President Trump, he and Heritage were on different sides of that debate.

00:19:43.000 Totally as friends.

00:19:44.000 I mean, that never threatened our friendship, our desire to work together, not just on the other things on which we agreed, but even on that issue.

00:19:51.000 And a story here I think is very relevant to your point.

00:19:54.000 About a year or so ago, Congressman Waltz was doing a radio interview on WMAL in D.C., And he was talking about this wide gap between whatever it takes from America for Ukraine to win and what is being incorrectly framed as isolationism.

00:20:09.000 And I sent him a text and I said, the way you describe that is where the movement needs to go and how we talk about it.

00:20:17.000 And he says, yes, we have to remind people that there's a lot of options between those two.

00:20:23.000 And the more we're intellectually honest about what the reality is on the ground, how the United States is limited in being able to change that reality, if we ourselves know we're not going to send as a country our own servicemen and women, then we can have a real debate.

00:20:39.000 And since that time, what has happened is that basically the movement, because of President Trump largely, because of Vice President-elect Vance, I would say too, as well, is a little bit different slot than where President Trump is.

00:20:51.000 And that's not only okay, but good.

00:20:52.000 That it's gravitated to this rhetoric that both Congressman Walls and my colleagues at Heritage and you and others have used.

00:20:59.000 And it's very natural because the conservative movement in the United States is much more comfortable having conversations within itself than the left is.

00:21:09.000 But it's also vitally important because, as you know better than anyone, the hot spots, the potential hot spots around the world exist in part because of a vacuum of leadership under President Biden.

00:21:21.000 And I think the minute, not just the day, the minute Donald Trump is sworn back into office, a lot of that goes away.

00:21:28.000 I mean, it's already starting to go away before he's taken office.

00:21:29.000 Yeah, it's remarkable.

00:21:30.000 It's historically remarkable.

00:21:50.000 Partially because Joe Biden is dead and partially because President Trump is coming into office.

00:21:55.000 One of the things that's really interesting about the modern conservative movement, and I think you could describe it as attitudinal, but it actually isn't in some ways, is that if conservatism, traditionally speaking, has been about preserving institutions, conservatives tend to be institutionalists.

00:22:08.000 We tend to be very careful about removing the Chestertonian fence.

00:22:11.000 fence.

00:22:11.000 We don't want to remove the fence, want to know why it's there.

00:22:14.000 But there's been something that's happened over the course of the last half century in the United States, which is that these institutions, I'm talking everything from government institutions to campuses, have basically been hollowed out to such an extent that they're now Potemkin villages. 0.94

00:22:27.000 They're just facades.

00:22:28.000 And I think that what you're seeing from President Trump particularly, and the left's reaction to him, is that it's become clear what facades they are.

00:22:36.000 So, So even people like me, who I would say 10 years ago, I had a baseline of respect for the DOJ and the FBI. And over the course of the last 10 years, I think it's fair to say that's been pretty well shaken.

00:22:46.000 And I think that's true for an enormous number of people across the aisle in terms of faith in institutions, that the experts said that they knew what they were doing.

00:22:53.000 We figured they have degrees.

00:22:54.000 They've studied this stuff for years.

00:22:55.000 They really should know.

00:22:56.000 but instead of making themselves politically answerable they insulated themselves from any sort of political blowback they lied they used the media as their praetorian guard and now it's the position of conservatism in the trump era that many of these institutions need to be leveled and it's not about just going in and making a few fixes here or there and that is a difference between conservatism historically and sort of the revolutionary conservatism that you're seeing right now i wonder what you make of that well i'm on the same journey that you are i'm

00:23:23.000 I mean, every conservative, I think, by definition, is an institutionalist.

00:23:27.000 And over the last 10 years, like you, I have realized that so much of these institutions that I might have been slightly wary of, but certainly respected, and I respected the people who led them, even if they were on the other side politically, are rotten to the core.

00:23:42.000 And you just take this image, wonderful, very apt image of a hollowed out tree.

00:23:47.000 In my book, I talk about the idea of a controlled burn where our Forest Service used to very frequently go into forests, especially in the West, and they would do these controlled burns that they would initiate to eliminate the hollowed out trees, to eliminate the dead wood.

00:24:01.000 For what reason?

00:24:02.000 Two things.

00:24:02.000 Let the healthy growth We're good to go.

00:24:20.000 Whatever someone thinks about that, it's really the controlled burn that's the issue.

00:24:23.000 I've taken that idea and applied it to this institutional regeneration that you're getting at, that Trump's already started, I mean, even before he's been sworn back into office, right?

00:24:32.000 This is the point, though, Ben, going back to your wonderful Birkian point earlier.

00:24:36.000 We have to do this not just in D.C. with institutions like the FBI and the DOJ, my pet favorite, the Department of Education, which ought to be eliminated entirely, but we have to do this in our local lives and the decisions, our individual lives, in our local communities.

00:24:51.000 The decisions we make about where we send our kids to school, the decisions about where they go to university, whether we give money to our alma mater's, These are all very important decisions regarding the regeneration of American institutions.

00:25:06.000 As a fifth-generation educator, only gone to public schools, I think public schools are one of the noble promises of the United States, but they're rotten.

00:25:15.000 They're rotten from the top.

00:25:17.000 They're not rotten from the bottom, because those are our fellow Americans who get it, regardless of their politics.

00:25:22.000 We have to have the spirit.

00:25:23.000 We want to capture the political power of Trump and Vance winning.

00:25:28.000 We want to capture that in our individual lives.

00:25:30.000 We have to have the same verve and spirit of recapturing those local institutions or, figuratively, applying a controlled burn and starting new institutions.

00:25:39.000 I've done that myself in starting a K-12 school and running an upstart college.

00:25:45.000 Thousands of examples like that exist in the United States.

00:25:47.000 I'm as excited about that as I am about the Trump land.

00:25:51.000 I'm very excited.

00:25:52.000 It's certainly the case down here in Florida, right?

00:25:54.000 In Florida, we have universal school vouchers, and it's been an enormous difference.

00:25:56.000 I mean, the number of people who have come into Florida to bring their families with them, specifically because they now have the option to take more control over their kids' education, is an amazing thing.

00:26:04.000 And universal school choice nationally would be an incredible thing, although, as you say, whether the federal government should be involved in this issue at all is, I think, an open question.

00:26:12.000 So when you talk about, you know, cleaning out these institutions, Obviously, President Trump's nominees are designed to do just that.

00:26:18.000 I mean, these are all outsiders.

00:26:19.000 Many of them are victims of the very institutions that they're now going to be chosen to lead.

00:26:23.000 My favorite example is Jay Bhattacharya over at NIH, which I just love.

00:26:26.000 I mean, it's hilarious.

00:26:29.000 The fact that Anthony Fauci was personally from NIH targeting Jay Bhattacharya over the Great Barrington Declaration and his supposed evil in proclaiming that, hey, maybe full-scale lockdowns and universal masking and vaccine mandates weren't the way.

00:26:42.000 He was targeted by Fauci for that.

00:26:44.000 Now he gets to lead that institution and clean out the deadwood.

00:26:46.000 Whether you're talking about that, whether you're talking about Kash Patel at FBI, who is, again, targeted by a lot of the intel community.

00:26:52.000 These are moves that President Trump is making, specifically with the hope that the motivation is going to be there for people to clear out the deadwood.

00:26:59.000 But it takes two things, right?

00:27:00.000 It takes the motive, and then it takes the actual...

00:27:03.000 Ability to do it.

00:27:04.000 Because it actually is quite complex to clean out an institution.

00:27:06.000 It's easy for somebody like me to say, yeah, clean out the FBI. But the FBI has thousands and thousands of employees trying to figure out who can be fired, who should be fired, what procedures need to change.

00:27:15.000 That's a pretty complex process.

00:27:17.000 How quick is that?

00:27:19.000 How much does staffing matter here?

00:27:20.000 We have to be prepared for this to take a generation.

00:27:23.000 And by that, I don't want to be discouraging.

00:27:24.000 In fact, quite the opposite.

00:27:25.000 I think that from realism, great encouragement can come.

00:27:29.000 I'll talk about the FBI specifically, but just think about one example not far from here, and that's the new College of Florida.

00:27:34.000 You have all of the ingredients for institutional regeneration.

00:27:37.000 You have political will from the top, Governor DeSantis.

00:27:41.000 You have an institution that's worthy of being saved, and that's true, but you have all of the, and you've got financial support, which the legislature has re-upped, but you've got all of the radical left arrayed against it.

00:27:53.000 Now, they're not going to succeed in taking out that reform, best as I can tell thus far, but they've made it more difficult.

00:27:59.000 Put that, you know, multiply those factors of opposition by a thousand as it relates to the FBI or to some outdated munitions program at the Department of Defense.

00:28:10.000 And therefore, to your question about staffing, not only do you have to have a wonderful cabinet secretary or agency head, but his or her deputy secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries.

00:28:22.000 But very importantly, in the X factor we were trying to solve for in our own transition project at Heritage, are those levels 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 down, which our movement has never paid attention to.

00:28:34.000 And President Trump, with the best of intentions in 2016 and 17, was just focused on the top 300 positions.

00:28:40.000 But he learned, like the rest of us, I've had to learn this too, you've got to be focused on all 4,500 politically appointed positions, and you've got to be willing to play ball on civil service reform over a generation to make sure that these unelected bureaucrats, just posit that they're great people, I'm willing to do that, they shouldn't have the authority they have.

00:28:59.000 But we're not going to solve that overnight.

00:29:01.000 We're not going to solve that in one presidential term.

00:29:03.000 I think we're going to be deep into the 2030s before we can look back and say, and this is if we have sustained power, before we can look back and say, we did it.

00:29:12.000 We have to have that resolve, that fortitude, not just in Washington, not just in our state capitals, but our local communities, because this is just as big a problem as it is in our county commissions and school boards.

00:29:23.000 We'll get to more on this in just a moment.

00:29:25.000 First, let's talk about something that affects all of us responsible, hardworking Americans.

00:29:28.000 Taxes.

00:29:29.000 That October 15th deadline?

00:29:30.000 Long gone.

00:29:31.000 Are you prepared for what's coming next?

00:29:32.000 Do you owe back taxes?

00:29:33.000 Are your tax returns still unfiled?

00:29:35.000 Did you miss the deadline to file for an extension?

00:29:36.000 Well, now that October 15th is behind us, the IRS may be ramping up enforcement.

00:29:40.000 And let me tell you, the IRS does not play around.

00:29:42.000 You could face wage garnishments, frozen bank accounts, even property seizures if you haven't taken action yet.

00:29:47.000 There's still good news.

00:29:48.000 There's hope.

00:29:49.000 The Tax Network USA folks have been in the game for years.

00:29:51.000 They know exactly how to navigate the complex world of tax law.

00:29:54.000 They've helped taxpayers save over a billion dollars in tax debt and have filed over 10,000 tax returns.

00:29:58.000 That's billion with a B, folks.

00:30:00.000 They specialize in helping hardworking Americans like you reduce their tax burdens.

00:30:04.000 So don't let the IRS catch you off guard.

00:30:05.000 Get ahead of this right now with Tax Network USA.

00:30:08.000 Their team of professionals will work tirelessly to protect your assets and find the best solution for your unique situation.

00:30:14.000 For a complimentary consultation, call today 1-800-958-1000 or visit their website at tnusa.com slash Shapiro.

00:30:21.000 That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Shapiro today.

00:30:25.000 Don't let the IRS take advantage of you and get the help you need with Tax Network USA. So, you know, when you talk about that, that long-term project, obviously that means holding power for long-term.

00:30:33.000 One of the things that I think is a danger for conservatives, as it is for pretty much everybody else who gets elected, is the minute you win an election, you think that every future election will go in the same direction.

00:30:41.000 We saw this with Democrats after 2012. They thought they could simply replicate the Obama coalition, win in 2016. After 2020, they thought they could replicate the Biden coalition and win in 2024. It doesn't work that way.

00:30:52.000 I remember in 2004 when George W. Bush won, and he actually did really well in the Congress as well, and his immediate first move was to try and restructure entitlement programs.

00:31:00.000 By the way, he happened to be right about that.

00:31:02.000 If we'd actually done what he suggested about Social Security, everybody's 401k would have been enormous.

00:31:07.000 You would have done way better in terms of what your Social Security would have been worth today as opposed to what it's actually worth today.

00:31:13.000 Turns out the stock market's now at 45,000.

00:31:14.000 It was actually a good idea.

00:31:16.000 But regardless of that, the tendency of any winning party is to believe that this is the new status quo.

00:31:22.000 And then to push just a little too hard and the other side swings into action.

00:31:26.000 Now, I think the right has been...

00:31:29.000 President Trump has been good, and also the right's been lucky.

00:31:31.000 Both those things are true. 0.81

00:31:32.000 President Trump has—I thought he ran an incredibly smart campaign.

00:31:35.000 I think he actually ran quite a centrist campaign.

00:31:37.000 He actually occupied the middle of the political spectrum on pretty much every issue, including on abortion, where he said that the federal government should not get involved in abortion policymaking.

00:31:45.000 We also got very lucky because the left decided to lose its ever-loving mind and decided to run on the proposition that boys can be girls and that riots were fine and that we should open the southern border.

00:31:55.000 It turns out that that's actually really unpopular with Americans.

00:31:58.000 Where are your fears in terms of conservative overreach?

00:32:01.000 How incremental should conservatives be?

00:32:04.000 Or is it make hay while the sun shines?

00:32:06.000 What's the strategic approach?

00:32:08.000 I think it's a matter of priority.

00:32:10.000 In other words, what I mean by that, Ben, is on two or three issues, you've got to make hay now, both because of the urgency, the inherent importance of those particular issues.

00:32:19.000 I think DOJ is there.

00:32:21.000 I think the economy broadly defined, but that involves a lot of factors.

00:32:24.000 I would submit to you that while we've got the political capital, we ought to take action on the Department of Education.

00:32:32.000 You have to be able to message that.

00:32:33.000 And I think one of the great attributes of all of the appointees to senior positions in the Trump administration thus far is that they are capable of communicating why they're doing what they're doing, how they're going to go about it, what it's going to look like, what the timeline is.

00:32:48.000 That's essential to sustaining the political power, the popular will, in order to get it done.

00:32:55.000 But having just come back from the United Kingdom, trying to draw some lessons of what's going on with the small c conservative movement there, it's apparent to me that if you go too slow, that you, especially in Washington, D.C., it's sort of like a law of physics that, and we've seen this more often, In Washington with Republicans, that they're going to be drawn back into not just the political center, but the sclerosis that is the Washington administrative state.

00:33:20.000 So it is going to require very artful leadership, not just bold leadership, but artful leadership.

00:33:26.000 I think Trump clearly possesses the ability to do this over the first hundred days, over the next two years.

00:33:32.000 I think the rubber will meet the road, not just for the second half of the 2020s, But for the 2030s and beyond, with what conservatives are talking about in the midterm elections.

00:33:43.000 Not even for whatever the political consequences are, but for the long term priorities of our movement.

00:33:50.000 If we're still talking about The first steps of government efficiency, the first steps of reducing debt and deficit, even if those plans are long term, if we're still hemming and hawing about what it looks like to dismantle the Department of Education, then we have missed this moment.

00:34:05.000 And yet, to your point, we can't have as a priority every single agency with the most ambitious conservative reform.

00:34:17.000 Because it's just impossible to get that done.

00:34:19.000 I would love that as a conservative.

00:34:22.000 But the reality is this is a very complex, pluralistic republic.

00:34:26.000 And God bless Donald Trump for winning the popular vote.

00:34:29.000 But it's not as if it was a spread of 10 or 15 or 20 points.

00:34:33.000 So, he's got to be very disciplined about where the priorities are.

00:34:38.000 The movement has to be both bold, but also very understanding and patient about what we're able to do.

00:34:43.000 Because one thing we haven't even introduced to this equation is you have only 53 seats in the Senate.

00:34:47.000 They're not all reliable votes to be charitable.

00:34:50.000 And you've got an extraordinarily slim majority in the House, even though you've got a speaker who's one of us.

00:34:55.000 He's a lifelong movement conservative.

00:34:56.000 You might have a one-seat majority in the House, which is patently insane.

00:35:00.000 It is.

00:35:00.000 I tell Mike Johnson often, and I believe you do too, God bless you, brother.

00:35:04.000 You've got the toughest job in D.C. Absolutely.

00:35:07.000 It also means that no one can ever get sick or go home for their kids' play.

00:35:10.000 They're worried about that on a day-to-day basis.

00:35:12.000 Yes, absolutely.

00:35:13.000 Again, I love a lot of President Trump's picks, but as I've said, on the air and off the air.

00:35:18.000 Grabbing nominees from the House comes with the inherent danger that you're losing votes in the House.

00:35:22.000 Now, there will be special elections in these places, but unfortunately, unlike the Senate, it's not like the governor just picked somebody to fill that seat.

00:35:28.000 It might take a few months for all of that to materialize.

00:35:30.000 I think this sort of timeline that you're laying out is one of the reasons why the left decided they were going to target Project 2025 in particular.

00:35:38.000 It wasn't even the content of Project 2025, which reads, I mean, it's very, very long.

00:35:43.000 Maybe you've read the whole thing because you're the head of the Heritage Foundation, but I think you're the only one who's read the whole thing.

00:35:47.000 There are about four or five of us.

00:35:48.000 Exactly.

00:35:49.000 It's a very select list.

00:35:50.000 It was used as a brick bat against everyone on the right.

00:35:54.000 But it was mainly, I think, because what it essentially says is, here's a Chinese menu of conservative policy items.

00:36:00.000 Some of these will get done.

00:36:01.000 Some of these will not.

00:36:03.000 I'm sure there'll be some crossover with what President Trump will do.

00:36:05.000 I'm sure there will be other places that there's no crossover with what President Trump will do.

00:36:08.000 But because it was an actual, well-thought-out list of things, I think that's what scared the hell out of the left.

00:36:15.000 It's why they started using it as a boogeyman, was specifically because what they're afraid of is that President Trump will do what he appears to be doing, which is hit the ground running on day one.

00:36:22.000 What they really wanted him doing was futzing around looking for policy proposals a year in, 18 months in, because that's kind of how the first administration went.

00:36:31.000 It took a while for him to find a sealant.

00:36:32.000 He'd never held public office before.

00:36:34.000 He's coming in this time knowing kind of where the bodies are buried in various agencies and knowing what his policy in general is going to look like.

00:36:42.000 I think that's what scares people a lot.

00:36:43.000 It scared the daylights out of them.

00:36:45.000 The conservative movement has never before been this organized, both in the policies evidenced by our mandate for leadership component of our project, nor the thing that I think equally scared them, which is the personnel database, which saw the number of people submitting their resumes to that jump from 10,000 to 20,000 once the left started all of these scare tactics.

00:37:07.000 The left was used to the right being sort of institutionally immature, not that the organizations or the people were immature, but just in terms of the intellectual history of our movement, in terms of the national politics, not being nearly as well-developed, nearly as deep or as broad as the left has been.

00:37:23.000 And we've not only caught up to them, we have surpassed them in terms of our organizational ability.

00:37:28.000 And when you pair that with the ability, the political ability, but also the genuine, the authentic love that Donald Trump has, not just for America.

00:37:36.000 But for every single American, it is a potent political combination, and that ought to scare the left.

00:37:43.000 Because if we get this right, Starting with President Trump, Vice President Vance, and they do a good job, as I expect them to do, of prioritizing what the reforms are going to be—probably the economy, energy, immigration, obviously—then they're going to be able to build on that popular will that will allow us as a movement to go deeper into that Chinese menu, as you say.

00:38:03.000 And I think that our side more or less will be in power for most of the next generation.

00:38:08.000 There'll be some elections that we lose.

00:38:09.000 I think most of them will be congressional.

00:38:11.000 I think if we play our cards right politically, intellectually, we're honest with the American people about what the obstacles are, I think between now and 2040 that conservatives are going to be in power at the federal, state, and local level most of those years.

00:38:26.000 We got to be realistic about what happens when, for example, if the Democrats were to win the House in 2026, not see it as the end of the world, particularly if they're starting to sound, as they do today, like they're Republicans.

00:38:38.000 What are they talking about?

00:38:39.000 We've got to close the border.

00:38:40.000 We've lost track of how we should maintain public safety.

00:38:44.000 We do have to think about this woke transgender ideology.

00:38:48.000 If they're running sounding like conservatives and they win a few elections, We've moved the Overton window to our field of play.

00:38:55.000 And as you know better than anybody, conservatives have had to exist on the radical left field of play really since the 1930s.

00:39:03.000 Reagan was a wonderful interregnum there.

00:39:05.000 But only that.

00:39:06.000 And now we get to set the terms of the debate.

00:39:09.000 Pardon my optimism for the rest of the century.

00:39:12.000 So when it comes to personnel, one of the questions is it's very difficult.

00:39:16.000 There's sort of this principle with regard to the federal judiciary that if you're not pretty outspokenly originalist, you will end up on the left end of the bench pretty quickly.

00:39:23.000 Right.

00:39:24.000 I mean, if you decide to pick a stealth candidate like David Souter, he's going to end up being not the David Souter you thought you were getting, but the other David Souter.

00:39:29.000 Or if you pick Justice Roberts, I may have been the only Republican in the country who opposed Justice Roberts' nomination at the time.

00:39:35.000 You're right.

00:39:36.000 But that was basically the case I was making, is I don't know who this guy is.

00:39:39.000 You don't know who this guy is.

00:39:40.000 The sort of trust-me picks don't tend to work out all that well.

00:39:43.000 So with that in mind, when it comes to the personnel work that you've been doing, What are sort of the big litmus tests that you're using in order to determine whether you think somebody would be appropriate to serve in government or not?

00:39:53.000 Yeah, starting with the caveat, which is important because of how the left has mischaracterized the relationship between our transition project and President Trump, that he makes the decisions, his people make the decisions, but I have to say that because, you know, Media Matters will have a field day.

00:40:05.000 No, because apparently Heritage Foundation, a 501c3 that is unaffiliated with the Trump administration, is actually the Trump administration.

00:40:10.000 Yeah, that's right.

00:40:11.000 Yeah.

00:40:13.000 That ultimately what we're looking for, and really for the movement, and we do a lot of candidate briefings and we're looking for this in candidates for various offices, is someone who knows what time it is.

00:40:22.000 I mean, I know that phrase has fallen out of favor, but as a proud Generation Xer, a member of the only generation to vote, a majority of which voted for President Trump, I will continue to use it for this reason.

00:40:32.000 They have to understand that this republic has its days numbered.

00:40:36.000 If when conservatives are in power, they don't use it.

00:40:39.000 I don't mean using it illegally or certainly unethically.

00:40:42.000 I mean using it.

00:40:43.000 That too often we've been caught in the Bush trap. 0.89

00:40:46.000 With all due respect to two presidents I admire personally, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, they were largely afraid.

00:40:55.000 To wield the power that the American people gave them.

00:40:58.000 And I think it's one of the reasons that we're in the predicament we're in.

00:41:00.000 And now we understand evidence by Governor DeSantis here in Florida, Donald Trump, chief among all of our conservative leaders, that when our men and women win, They need to wield that power.

00:41:12.000 And so we're looking for personnel who understand that, who have the relevant competence and expertise to get that done.

00:41:20.000 And we believe that not all of that competence and expertise comes from inside the federal government.

00:41:24.000 In fact, we think that one of the ways you can regenerate the institution that is the U.S. administrative state is by bringing in a certain percentage of people from the outside.

00:41:33.000 Maybe they worked in state government.

00:41:35.000 Maybe they bring a fresh perspective from industry.

00:41:39.000 Maybe there's a generational diversity there, having younger people starting out.

00:41:44.000 We've not really built our bench in terms of the conservative movement.

00:41:47.000 I think all of that is not only going to happen, but already is happening with the appointments that I've seen.

00:41:53.000 We'll get to more on this in a moment.

00:41:54.000 First, you know what the radical left will never understand?

00:41:56.000 The profound, unshakable bond between the Christian and Jewish communities in the United States. 1.00

00:42:00.000 While the secular left pushes their anti-religious agenda, Christians and Jews have stood together, defending our shared values and religious liberties.

00:42:05.000 That's why I'm proud to partner with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

00:42:09.000 For over 40 years, they've been doing something remarkable, building bridges between our communities through faith, shared values, and mutual respect.

00:42:15.000 And the fellowship doesn't just talk, they act.

00:42:17.000 Right now, they're on the ground providing real help to vulnerable Jewish families and elderly around the globe.

00:42:21.000 We're talking about food, medical care, emergency assistance, and security to people who need it most.

00:42:25.000 Look, as somebody who's spent years talking about Judeo-Christian values, I can tell you, this organization represents exactly what makes our alliance so powerful.

00:42:32.000 It's about Christians and Jews coming together to do what our faiths command, helping those in need.

00:42:36.000 If you want to be part of this incredible mission, visit benforthefellowship.org.

00:42:39.000 That's benforthefellowship.org.

00:42:41.000 Your support makes a real difference in people's lives.

00:42:44.000 Give and give generously.

00:42:45.000 They're doing amazing work on the ground.

00:42:46.000 Visit benforthefellowship.org again.

00:42:49.000 That's benforthefellowship.org once more.

00:42:52.000 Benforthefellowship.org.

00:42:52.000 God bless and thank you.

00:42:54.000 So when you look at the sort of institutional obstacles to success here, obviously there's the entrenched obstacles that are going to require the kind of personnel cleaning out you're talking about inside the executive branch.

00:43:03.000 And then there's the matter of legislation.

00:43:05.000 We mentioned it briefly.

00:43:06.000 The Republicans have an unbelievably narrow majority in the House.

00:43:08.000 They have a very slim majority in the Senate.

00:43:11.000 And because Republicans are institutionalists, they don't want to blow up the filibuster.

00:43:14.000 I've made the suggestion to Senator Thune and to other members of the United States Senate.

00:43:19.000 And it's a suggestion that comes courtesy of my business partner, which I think is actually a great suggestion, which is that if you believe that the filibuster ought to be retained, which I do, but apparently Democrats only situationally believe ought to be retained.

00:43:30.000 If they are in power, it should be blown up.

00:43:32.000 If we are in power, then it should be maintained.

00:43:35.000 The suggestion that Jeremy made, boring my business partner, is that we should effectively say that we want a constitutional amendment approved through normal processes done one year from now to enshrine the filibuster in the Constitution of the United States.

00:43:49.000 And if not, we're going to nuke it.

00:43:50.000 And we're going to do what we please, because we're not going to wait around for you guys to come on in and then nuke the filibuster if you gain control of all three elected branches of the government.

00:43:59.000 What do you make of that, and what institutions should we be seeking to shore up in that way?

00:44:03.000 Well, knowing of this idea for about 30 minutes...

00:44:07.000 No, I love it, actually.

00:44:10.000 This is precisely the kind of new ideas adhering to conservative principles that our movement is just now beginning to learn to do.

00:44:19.000 And so I hope this gets legs and Heritage can participate in that.

00:44:23.000 Your question, though, is also about what particular institutions, agencies, and so on should we have this mindset about?

00:44:29.000 I think that we need to take this mindset of this filibuster idea and apply it not just to the cabinet-level agencies, But we actually need to pay attention to those third, fourth, fifth level agencies.

00:44:43.000 This goes back to personnel.

00:44:45.000 Things that, even as I sit here as a so-called policy leader, I can't think of more than six or seven of their names.

00:44:51.000 But they control not just billions of dollars of our federal budget, but more importantly, they are part of that problem of beginning to suffocate the ability of individual Americans, people in their local communities, To regenerate these institutions, to the extent that we can apply or use our political power to eliminate, tear out root and branch, those sort of sub-agencies, I think we're better off.

00:45:15.000 And we need to understand that so doing is not violating our conservative principle of wanting to maintain institutions.

00:45:20.000 We're actually tearing out the weeds.

00:45:22.000 We're actually making the institutions healthier, as your idea of the filibuster reform suggests.

00:45:26.000 So let's talk for a second about what you think needs to be done inside that first year.

00:45:30.000 As you say, by the time we get to the midterms, there needs to be a record of accomplishment.

00:45:33.000 It is President Trump's record of accomplishment that won him his second term.

00:45:36.000 It is really that simple.

00:45:38.000 President Trump ran on, here's what my term looked like.

00:45:40.000 Here's what Joe Biden's term looked like.

00:45:41.000 Do you want second Biden or do you want second Trump?

00:45:43.000 It's that simple.

00:45:44.000 And that is really the argument, I think, that won him election in the end, that people had more nostalgia for 2019 than they had for 2024, obviously.

00:45:52.000 So what do you think are the big things that can get done in those first two years that Republicans should be able to point at and say, these are wins, again, considering the incredibly narrow majorities that are held in the House and Senate?

00:46:04.000 I'll be specific and go in chronological order.

00:46:07.000 The first, literally the first, as soon as his hand comes down from taking the oath, someone needs to be at the White House as he's giving his, what I'm sure will be a great second inaugural, and we need to close the southern border. 0.57

00:46:21.000 As we sit here, there's already progress being made.

00:46:24.000 Because the mere appointment of my friend and heritage colleague, Tom Homan, the border czar...

00:46:28.000 He's the best.

00:46:29.000 He's just the best.

00:46:30.000 I'm not supposed to have favorites in this and have a lot of friends who've been appointed and they know I mean no slight to them.

00:46:34.000 But he's just the best because he's the best at what he does.

00:46:39.000 I saw President Trump last night refer to Tom Homan as from central casting for this role. 0.89

00:46:43.000 Yes, he's a bulldog. 0.98

00:46:44.000 He's a bulldog. 0.99

00:46:44.000 He looks like a bulldog, he acts like a bulldog, and he is a bulldog, yes. 0.99

00:46:47.000 And he's a great man. 0.97

00:46:48.000 But the point in terms of policy is he's already had a disincentivizing effect on the nation states, the cartels that are complicit in all of this.

00:46:58.000 And so that is going to happen.

00:47:00.000 And what that's going to do...

00:47:02.000 Is tell the American electorate, yeah, I knew Trump would get this done.

00:47:05.000 It's nice to have it confirmed on the first day.

00:47:08.000 But the second thing that needs to happen is the economy writ large.

00:47:12.000 I'm very high on Scott Besant, who's a friend.

00:47:16.000 As Treasury Secretary, his 3x3x3 agenda is very smart. 0.99

00:47:21.000 I think we're going to get 3% annual growth.

00:47:23.000 I think we're going to be able to cut 3% of the federal budget as well.

00:47:28.000 And very importantly, because energy is vital to this, I think we're going to get to 3 million barrels of oil a day.

00:47:34.000 Let's say someone doesn't like oil.

00:47:36.000 Let's say someone's listening or watching this and say, oh, Kevin, I really wish we could get away from fossil fuels.

00:47:41.000 With more time, I'd explain why that's a bad idea.

00:47:43.000 But let's just posit that's okay.

00:47:45.000 In the near term, if you want to end inflation and you want American national security, you do that.

00:47:50.000 Congress has to play ball on that.

00:47:52.000 And there's a little bit of heterodoxy even among some House Republicans on some of these questions.

00:47:56.000 But I think Trump and Besant will have the ability to close the deal on those things.

00:48:02.000 Then they've got a decision to make.

00:48:04.000 What's the third priority you want to take on?

00:48:07.000 You've built popular will by addressing the border, beginning to address the economy, and simultaneous to this, as we were talking about earlier, there's already peace being established across the world.

00:48:17.000 And that's where the rubber will meet the road.

00:48:19.000 Will it be education?

00:48:20.000 Will it be the FBI? Will it be something else, the Department of Defense?

00:48:23.000 You can probably do more than one.

00:48:26.000 But that one that you decide next is going to be vital for what the conclusion the electorate draws from how willing you are to play ball for the rest of your administration.

00:48:37.000 And I'm high on whatever they choose.

00:48:40.000 If they were asking me about which to choose, I would pick education.

00:48:44.000 As much as the FBI needs to be reformed, cash is going to get confirmed.

00:48:48.000 He's going to do a great job.

00:48:49.000 I think the Department of Defense will be reformed.

00:48:51.000 But if you want to use political will to completely cement this mandate for disruption across our institutions, it's getting rid of this top-down, top-heavy nonsense of the Department of Education.

00:49:03.000 And there's a bunch that can be done in education, ranging from exploring the Qatari contributions to higher universities to defunding universities if they're in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

00:49:13.000 You know, all those things ought to be on the table.

00:49:15.000 One of the big things that's obviously going to come up pretty quickly is the re-enshrinement of the Trump tax cuts, making permanent those Trump tax cuts.

00:49:20.000 And there's a little bit of dyspepsia, I noticed, among some of the Republicans about what exactly that looks like, whether it's just, you know, kind of rubber stamp what was before.

00:49:29.000 Are they going to try to go for more?

00:49:30.000 What do you think that looks like?

00:49:31.000 Well, there's more dyspepsia than there ought to be.

00:49:34.000 This ought to be really simple, just a clean renewal of the tax cuts, given the small majorities in the House and Senate.

00:49:41.000 I think that's the way to go.

00:49:42.000 There are a few channels of complicating efforts, none of which I agree with, none of which Heritage agrees with, to be really clear.

00:49:50.000 And one of them is this really, I think it will be ill-fated, but it's a powerful attempt thus far, To use the Trump tax cut renewal to do a safety net reform that really isn't much of a reform.

00:50:03.000 And in other words, just bottom line up front to you and your audience, anything that any proposal that is anything other than just a clean renewal of the Trump tax cuts is a bad idea.

00:50:15.000 Are there, in a perfect world, some even bolder ideas that we at Heritage would love to attach to?

00:50:21.000 Of course, yes, exactly.

00:50:24.000 We would love to do that.

00:50:25.000 And if we do that and eliminate the tax code as it currently exists, we'd love to talk about a universal tariff.

00:50:30.000 That's not going to happen next year.

00:50:32.000 And so, politics, policy, the art of the possible.

00:50:35.000 Just renew a clean tax bill.

00:50:37.000 And then the other benefit of that is you have more time, and a legislative calendar is a real issue.

00:50:42.000 Senator Thune understands this.

00:50:43.000 You know, he's got this radical proposal that senators work five days a week rather than just three.

00:50:48.000 They need the time to figure out what that other priority is going to be for administrative state reform.

00:50:54.000 So swiveling back to sort of the foreign policy sphere, one of the things that I think actually, it's a rare area of bipartisan agreement, is a new orientation toward China.

00:51:03.000 And that really is something that President Trump let off in his first term.

00:51:05.000 Prior to President Trump, people tend to forget, we were trying to open up China again, we were trying to be very friendly to China, and President Trump came in and he said, these people are opponents of the United States, we should be viewing them with a sort of Gimlet I. We should be very harsh with regard to how we view their interference.

00:51:22.000 China's been interfering, obviously, not only in East Asia.

00:51:25.000 They've also been interfering all over the world, in Africa, in South America. 0.94

00:51:28.000 They're beginning to have a real impact in a lot of the countries in South America, trying to take control of trade routes.

00:51:34.000 What do you see as the first moves that the administration should make with regard to China?

00:51:39.000 Obviously, the president's talked about tariffs, but I assume there will be more than that as well.

00:51:42.000 Well, God bless him for his clear-eyed understanding about China going back decades.

00:51:47.000 In fact, I'm one of those many conservatives who was first convinced by Donald Trump in 2016 and 17 that our good intentions about turning China into America actually were only good intentions.

00:51:58.000 The opposite was happening.

00:52:00.000 I think he's got to slap a tariff on them first day, and there are going to be people who squawk about it, including on our side.

00:52:07.000 But the reality is that tariff is a vital tool for negotiation and for national security.

00:52:14.000 I also happen to think if you're able to do some other things economically, that it becomes a very good economic tool.

00:52:20.000 I'm very much a Hamiltonian in that regard.

00:52:22.000 But the second thing is, He needs to use the bully pulpit he has in not just with the tariff, but leading the effort in Congress to eliminate the ability to make illegal that K Street lobbying firms can lobby on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.

00:52:38.000 The fact that this exists Shocks most Americans.

00:52:42.000 You know why?

00:52:42.000 Because most Americans just adhere to common sense.

00:52:45.000 It makes no sense that the greatest adversary to the United States in the history of our country, greater than even the Soviet Union, is allowed to pay at least $100 million to lobbying firms on K Street.

00:52:58.000 And then the third thing is, and this is a real pet focus of President Trump's rightly, is the investment by the Chinese and American military companies.

00:53:08.000 Part of the huge reform that's needed at the Department of Defense to make it a more lethal, less woke fighting force is the elimination of that because it is a real national security risk.

00:53:17.000 I mean, there's so many things that need to be done inside DOD. One of them needs to be a dramatic refocus on the weapons tech that we've been funding.

00:53:24.000 It's terrible.

00:53:25.000 We're still building aircraft carriers in a time when those aircraft carriers can be targeted by drones forms.

00:53:32.000 Mike Gallagher, former congressperson from Wisconsin who You know, obviously has tremendous knowledge on both China and military tech.

00:53:39.000 He suggested that we need to radically reshift our thinking about how to, for example, create technologies capable of turning the Taiwan Strait into what's called a boiling moat, right, to make it very difficult for China to actually invade Taiwan.

00:53:51.000 That's going to take some real commitment, and it runs directly into the teeth of entrenched interests that want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on weapon systems that are no longer nearly as effective as they used to be.

00:54:02.000 Well, what the Republican establishment in Washington, still led by Mitch McConnell, wants you to believe is that you have to continue spending money on those outdated weapons systems.

00:54:12.000 I'll leave to your audience how they draw the conclusions of why that continues to be the issue.

00:54:17.000 But let's just impute the purest of motives there.

00:54:20.000 They're dead wrong.

00:54:43.000 The best thing the Secretary of Defense can do on day one is actually, this sounds so boring coming from a think tank guy, is to update procurement procedures.

00:54:52.000 Because you're going to allow in innovators.

00:54:55.000 And these are innovators who are ready to fight the next war, as opposed to what most people at the Pentagon do today, unfortunately, and with all due respect to their military service, which is still fighting the last war.

00:55:06.000 The wave innovation inside the United States military has been broken for a generation at least.

00:55:11.000 I mean, it really is amazing.

00:55:12.000 If you visit smaller nations, whether you're talking about Ukraine or Israel, for example, because they have to constantly bootstrap and jerry-rig things in order to make them work for actual battle, that means the innovative process is really shortcut.

00:55:22.000 There's an author named Edwin Ludwak who's written specifically about innovation in the Israeli military.

00:55:27.000 He talks about how you basically have to Put things together on the fly, directed at the problem of today as opposed to the problem of yesterday.

00:55:35.000 But in the American military, everything has to go through 25 different layers of checks that are specifically designed to wipe out the innovative process.

00:55:41.000 As you say, opening up the procurement efforts, opening it up to different firms like, for example, Palantir.

00:55:45.000 These are firms that need to be given much more of a broad hand in innovating.

00:55:53.000 Well, it's true.

00:55:54.000 As I travel the world, I hear from allies about procurement, which when I first heard about that, because of my own ignorance, I thought, well, that's kind of boring.

00:56:02.000 And then you realize, no, they've been given, they've given the United States money through Congress for weapon systems.

00:56:09.000 They still don't have.

00:56:10.000 And so in addition to the procurement process, as it relates to our own direct benefit, the arms sales that we make very appropriately to our allies who want to step up and sort of be models for what we do, those are slow because of an outdated system.

00:56:23.000 And the problem is both a Republican and Democrat problem.

00:56:26.000 The problem is that members of Congress, too few members of Congress, are willing to take the hard votes because some of those munitions programs are based in their district.

00:56:34.000 And this is where I think the messaging is very important.

00:56:36.000 This is where President Trump is going to have to spend some political capital.

00:56:40.000 His secretary of defense will have to do the same.

00:56:42.000 Speaker Johnson, Senator Thune, and say, this is actually about improving our military.

00:56:47.000 And you know who will benefit the most, who will be the most excited about this, are our rank and file American servicemen and women, who I can tell you firsthand are decidedly frustrated with military leadership in this country.

00:56:59.000 I think the American people can not only get behind that, but remain focused on that because, again, it's a common sense issue.

00:57:07.000 And then when it comes to deregulation, which obviously is a big focus of yours and people over at Heritage, that is going to be, I think, maybe the biggest thing that President Trump can do on his own.

00:57:15.000 He's made a proposal that we ought to be removing, what is it, three regulations for every one that we add to the books today?

00:57:19.000 Now, there was two, I think, in the last administration, and now he's increased the number, I believe, to three.

00:57:23.000 That's going to be enormous.

00:57:25.000 I think one of the most important things that President Trump has said in the recent past is during his victory speech on that wonderful night in November, he had what a lot of people perceived to be a throwaway line about Elon Musk, where he said, we have to protect our geniuses.

00:57:36.000 And I thought to myself, that's not a throwaway line.

00:57:38.000 That's an actual philosophy of economics.

00:57:40.000 I mean, that's a very sort of...

00:57:41.000 Joseph Schumpeter, protect your entrepreneurs, protect your innovators' philosophy of economics because it's those people who are going to grow the next brand, the next industry that is going to revolutionize the American economy.

00:57:52.000 And that seems precisely to be what President Trump is doing.

00:57:56.000 I think the reason you've seen crypto take a jump is because this administration is going to be very much oriented toward loosening up restrictions on business so that innovators can actually innovate.

00:58:04.000 And the guys that I know in Silicon Valley, they're pumped up beyond imagination about the administration.

00:58:08.000 Yes, it's both common sense, it is a core part of American conservatism, perhaps best personified in the early Republic by Treasury Secretary Hamilton, and it is also, in the modern context, something that I think is one of the definitive characteristics of Trumpian conservatism.

00:58:24.000 And it isn't just because he's an entrepreneur.

00:58:26.000 It's because at the core, I think this actually is the core principle of Trumpian conservatism, is the belief in the nation state.

00:58:32.000 And how in the world could you have a healthy nation state if in all of the relevant policies from education to regulation to defense procurement, etc., you weren't protecting your geniuses?

00:58:44.000 This, by the way, is also why I will never stop talking about the importance of improving our education system by starting with the elimination of the Department of Education.

00:58:53.000 So, you know, we've been very positive throughout this conversation.

00:58:56.000 I'm not used to that.

00:58:56.000 I know that.

00:58:57.000 That's why I apologize.

00:58:58.000 As a natural pessimist, I'm having some trouble here.

00:59:00.000 And so now I'm going to drag you onto my side of the tracks.

00:59:04.000 Good luck.

00:59:04.000 So tell me, here's the open-ended question.

00:59:07.000 Tell me the things that you're worried about going wrong.

00:59:10.000 So you've talked about the things that can go right here.

00:59:12.000 Where do you think the dangers lie, the pitfalls that need to be avoided in order to allow for this possible success?

00:59:19.000 The first and most obvious is top of mind for me as we sit here because the swamp is doing the swamp thing, going after cabinet appointees.

00:59:27.000 It's not just a Democrat problem, it's a Republican problem.

00:59:30.000 And so my first worry is that conservative leaders, I think President Trump understands this, but other conservative leaders don't understand, to the extent I've come to understand in the three years I've led Heritage, what an obstacle the establishment is.

00:59:46.000 And that's a handful of Republican senators.

00:59:49.000 It's a handful of House Republicans.

00:59:53.000 Their political power is greased by K Street.

00:59:56.000 And we have to understand as conservatives, until we figuratively break the political backs of these establishment leaders, The promise of Trump's victory in restoring the American dream is impossible.

01:00:12.000 And that's why Heritage and Heritage Action are spending a bundle of money focused on these Senate Republicans who are really obstinate when it comes to the president implementing his will.

01:00:23.000 The second is perhaps a little more obvious to people paying attention, and that is Very related to the first point.

01:00:28.000 The legacy media, in spite of great exceptions and rivals to that, starting with you and Daily Wire, will continue to hold sway over the American people.

01:00:38.000 And so what I've been saying for months, since the nonsense of mischaracterizing our project, is if people aren't canceling their subscriptions, To all of the legacy outlets, then you're participating in regime nonsense.

01:00:52.000 And I worry that people will forget that lesson that we learned from most of the pollsters being wrong, most of the prognosticators being wrong.

01:01:02.000 And then the third thing I worry about is that all of us, this is a little bit of self-reflection for us at Heritage too, but all of us in the conservative movement will get the priorities wrong.

01:01:14.000 Not that we will misread the mandate for disruption, that clearly exists, but that we will put the policy priorities in the wrong order.

01:01:23.000 And some of that's just a little bit of intuition, and Trump's the master of intuition.

01:01:27.000 And that's why over the next weeks and months, I think it's very important, particularly for those of us who have the ears of policymakers, to be listening to them.

01:01:36.000 But also to be appropriately forceful about what we think the right priority is and that there ought to be a conversation about that.

01:01:45.000 Because this isn't just about President Trump being successful as much as we want it to be.

01:01:50.000 This isn't just about the conservative movement being ascendant as much as we want that to happen.

01:01:54.000 This is our last best chance, speaking to your pessimism, to save the American Republic.

01:01:59.000 We can't let it go wrong.

01:02:01.000 Well, Kevin, thank you so much for stopping by.

01:02:02.000 Heritage is doing an amazing job, and everybody should go pick up the book Dawn's Early Light.

01:02:06.000 You can hear much more about these ideas in much more depth in that book.

01:02:09.000 Kevin, again, appreciate what you're doing.

01:02:10.000 Ben, thanks for everything you do.

01:02:11.000 Take care.

01:02:12.000 The Ben Shapiro Sunday Special is produced by Jessica Kranz and Matt Kemp, a Associate producers are Jake Pollock and John Crick.

01:02:24.000 Editing is by Olivia Stewart.

01:02:26.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koremina.

01:02:28.000 Camera and lighting is by Zach Ginta.

01:02:30.000 Hair, makeup, and wardrobe by Fabiola Christina.

01:02:33.000 Title graphics are by Cynthia Angulo.

01:02:45.000 The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday special is a Daily Wire production.

The Ben Shapiro Show - December 15, 2024

A New American Century | Dr. Kevin Roberts

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript