Latest / Pod Save America / 2020: Andrew Yang on the universal basic income and why he hates the penny

Transcript

2020: Andrew Yang on the universal basic income and why he hates the penny · Pod Save America

0:04
Speaker 1: Welcome to Positive America. This is Tommy Vitor.
0:07
Speaker 2: Thanks for tuning in to the latest of our interview
0:10
Speaker 2: series with the 2020 presidential candidates. Today's discussion is with entrepreneur, philanthropist,
0:18
Speaker 2: Andrew Yang. He stopped by the Crooked Media Studios on Wednesday.
0:21
Speaker 2: We spent about an hour talking about his proposal for
0:24
Speaker 2: a universal basic income. We talked about a whole bunch
0:27
Speaker 2: of political questions.
0:28
Speaker 1: That were going on.
0:30
Speaker 2: And because it is my obsession, we did some foreign
0:33
Speaker 2: policy at the end He's a very thoughtful, good guy.
0:36
Speaker 2: He wore a hat that said math on it for
0:39
Speaker 2: the duration, so check out the video. He actually gave
0:42
Speaker 2: me a signed version of the math hat, which I
0:44
Speaker 2: believe Lovett is wearing around the office. Thanks for tuning in.
0:50
Speaker 2: Give this one a listen. And if you haven't subscribed
0:52
Speaker 2: to Pod Save the World.
0:53
Speaker 1: I don't know what's wrong with you.
0:55
Speaker 2: I need you to pause this thing, reopen the app,
0:59
Speaker 2: subscribe to Pod Save the World, go back to Pod
1:02
Speaker 2: Save America, listen to Andrew Yang, That's all I need.
1:06
Speaker 2: And if you're a member of the Yang gang and
1:09
Speaker 2: you are angry at anything in this interview, please tweet
1:11
Speaker 2: at John Lovett.
1:12
Speaker 1: Okay. Here's the conversation.
1:19
Speaker 2: I would like to welcome to Crooked Media HQ, Andrew Yang,
1:23
Speaker 2: a entrepreneur running for president with the Democratic nomination in 2020.
1:27
Speaker 1: It's great to have you here.
1:29
Speaker 3: It's great to be here, Tommy. Thanks so much for
1:30
Speaker 3: having me.
1:31
Speaker 1: Straight from Iowa or you've been here a couple of days?
1:33
Speaker 3: Um, I've been in LA for about a day.
1:37
Speaker 1: Okay, cool. Well, it's good to have you. Let's jump
1:40
Speaker 1: right into it.
1:40
Speaker 2: So your candidacy has really been like laser focused on
1:44
Speaker 2: a big central idea, which is the need for universal
1:47
Speaker 2: basic income. And I want to get to that in detail,
1:50
Speaker 2: but I was hoping we could start with how you
1:52
Speaker 2: arrived at the need for UBI through your work at
1:55
Speaker 2: Venture for America. Can you talk to us about what
1:57
Speaker 2: that was and.
1:58
Speaker 1: What you did?
1:58
Speaker 3: Yeah, very much so.
2:00
Speaker 4: So I started my career as an unhappy corporate attorney
2:04
Speaker 4: and then worked in startups. I started my own business
2:07
Speaker 4: that flopped, and then I worked at another startup in software,
2:10
Speaker 4: and then became the head of an education company that
2:14
Speaker 4: did very well and was bought by a bigger company
2:18
Speaker 4: in 2009. And in the wake of the financial crisis,
2:21
Speaker 4: I thought, wow, we have so many talented people doing
2:23
Speaker 4: the same things in the same places, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, consulting.
2:29
Speaker 4: And I thought, well, we need more people generating jobs
2:32
Speaker 4: and businesses in places like Detroit, Cleveland, St.
2:35
Speaker 3: Louis, Birmingham, New Orleans.
2:37
Speaker 4: So I spent the last seven years helping hundreds of
2:39
Speaker 4: entrepreneurs create jobs in those cities. As part of this organization,
2:43
Speaker 4: I started Venture for America. And it was during my
2:46
Speaker 4: time in these cities that I realized that we were
2:50
Speaker 4: automating away jobs much more quickly than we were creating them,
2:53
Speaker 4: particularly where the Midwest and the South were concerned. And
2:56
Speaker 4: if you look at 2016, when Donald Trump became president,
2:59
Speaker 4: he won Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, all states
3:04
Speaker 4: that we'd automated away 4 million manufacturing jobs. And working
3:10
Speaker 4: in technology, you know that we're going to do the
3:12
Speaker 4: same thing to millions of retail jobs, call center jobs,
3:15
Speaker 4: fast food jobs, truck driving jobs. So when you realize
3:18
Speaker 4: that we're in the midst of the greatest economic and
3:20
Speaker 4: technological transformation in the history of our country, and the
3:23
Speaker 4: third inning has brought us Donald Trump, then you think, okay,
3:26
Speaker 4: what can we do about that? What's a realistic countermeasure?
3:29
Speaker 4: And when I've dug into it, universal basic income was
3:33
Speaker 4: the most powerful measure response that we could adopt. And really,
3:39
Speaker 4: universal basic income is the reason I'm running for president.
3:41
Speaker 2: So I've listened to a ton of your interviews in
3:43
Speaker 2: preparation for this. Everyone includes a part where you just
3:46
Speaker 2: scare the shit out of everybody about how automation is coming.
3:49
Speaker 3: Well, I'm good at that.
3:50
Speaker 1: Can we just let rip on that? I want to
3:52
Speaker 1: hear it. I want to see it in person. Sure.
3:56
Speaker 4: So the five most common job categories in the United
3:58
Speaker 4: States are administrative and clerical, retail, food service and food prep,
4:03
Speaker 4: truck driving and transportation, and manufacturing. Those five jobs comprise
4:08
Speaker 4: about half of all American jobs.
4:09
Speaker 3: They're all going to shrink very, very fast.
4:12
Speaker 4: 30% of American malls and stores are going to close
4:14
Speaker 4: in the next four years because of Amazon sucking up
4:17
Speaker 4: $ 20 billion in business. And the average retail worker is
4:20
Speaker 4: a 39-year-old woman making $ 10 an hour. So if you
4:23
Speaker 4: think about her mall or store closing, what's her next
4:25
Speaker 4: move going to be? Driving a truck is the most
4:28
Speaker 4: common job in 29 states in this country. There are 3.5
4:32
Speaker 4: million truck drivers, average age 49, 94% male. And so
4:37
Speaker 4: if robot trucks start hitting the highways in 5 to
4:38
Speaker 4: 10 years, what does that mean for them as well
4:41
Speaker 4: as the over 7 million Americans who work in truck stops, motels, diners,
4:45
Speaker 4: and retail establishments that rely on the truckers getting out
4:47
Speaker 4: and eating? Google just recently demoed AI that can do
4:52
Speaker 4: the work of an average call center worker, and there
4:55
Speaker 4: are 2.5 million call center workers in the United States.
4:57
Speaker 4: They make $ 14 an hour, average education, high school. So
5:00
Speaker 4: when you start digging in, you realize that we're going
5:02
Speaker 4: to automate away the most common jobs in our society.
5:06
Speaker 4: And we're already in the midst of doing so. I
5:08
Speaker 4: studied economics. And when you look in a textbook, what
5:11
Speaker 4: happens to 4 million manufacturing workers who lose their jobs,
5:15
Speaker 4: the textbook says they get retrained, reskilled, find new jobs
5:17
Speaker 4: and all as well. But in real life, almost half
5:21
Speaker 4: of those workers left the workforce and never worked again.
5:24
Speaker 4: And of that group, about half filed for disability again.
5:27
Speaker 4: And then you saw surges in suicides and drug overdoses
5:29
Speaker 4: in those communities to the point where it's brought down
5:31
Speaker 4: America's life expectancy for the last three years in a row,
5:34
Speaker 4: which is unheard of. The last time American life expectancy
5:37
Speaker 4: declined for three years in a row was the Spanish
5:39
Speaker 4: flu of 1918. It's been 100 years, and it's highly
5:43
Speaker 4: unusual for life expectancy in a developed country to decline
5:46
Speaker 4: even one year, let alone three. So if that's what
5:49
Speaker 4: happened to the manufacturing workers, it's clear that that's what's
5:51
Speaker 4: going to happen to the retail workers, call center workers,
5:53
Speaker 4: and on and on. And it's not just blue-collar workers
5:56
Speaker 4: who Bookkeepers, accountants, insurance agents, financial advisors, pharmacists. There are
6:04
Speaker 4: many white collar jobs that will also be upended by AI.
6:07
Speaker 4: And you're already seeing this in many organizations. I spoke
6:11
Speaker 4: at a group of CEOs in New York and I
6:14
Speaker 4: asked them how many are looking at having AI replace
6:16
Speaker 4: thousands of back office workers. And out of 70 CEOs,
6:19
Speaker 4: 70 hands went up. So this is not just an
6:22
Speaker 4: us versus them thing. This is a human thing. And
6:24
Speaker 4: we need to wake up to the fact that it
6:26
Speaker 4: is not immigrants, it is technology, and then have meaningful
6:30
Speaker 4: solutions that will actually help America manage this transition. Yeah.
6:34
Speaker 3: So was that scary? Did it work? Yeah, that was
6:37
Speaker 3: pretty scary.
6:37
Speaker 2: I mean, and it's also, you know, I think people
6:40
Speaker 2: maybe hear, okay, robot trucks are coming. I mean, wasn't
6:43
Speaker 2: that one of the first companies that.
6:44
Speaker 1: Uber acquired was a... Auto.
6:48
Speaker 3: Yes.
6:49
Speaker 1: Right? So, like, this is something people are putting big
6:50
Speaker 1: money into. Oh, yeah.
6:52
Speaker 4: The savings behind automating... freight are estimated to be $ 168
6:57
Speaker 4: billion per year. And that's not just labor savings. That's
7:00
Speaker 4: fuel efficiency, equipment utilization, because a robot truck never needs
7:04
Speaker 4: to stop. A human truck driver has to get out
7:06
Speaker 4: after 14 hours and go to sleep. The robot truck
7:09
Speaker 4: never needs to stop. It would also save about 4,000
7:12
Speaker 4: lives a year because that's how many people die in
7:15
Speaker 4: accidents with human truck drivers right now. So if you
7:19
Speaker 4: have $ 168 billion a year in potential savings, then that
7:23
Speaker 4: would justify investing tens of billions a year to try
7:25
Speaker 4: and make it happen.
7:26
Speaker 1: Right, right.
7:27
Speaker 2: Okay, so let's go just with the basic question. What
7:30
Speaker 2: is the universal basic income plan you're proposing, the Freedom Dividend?
7:33
Speaker 4: Well, the Freedom Dividend is a universal basic income plan
7:36
Speaker 4: where every American adult gets $ 1, 000 a month starting at
7:39
Speaker 4: age 18 until the day they die. So every American
7:42
Speaker 4: adult gets $ 1, 000, and then you get it, you can
7:45
Speaker 4: do whatever you want, $ 12, 000 a year, and it continues
7:48
Speaker 4: until you expire.
7:50
Speaker 2: So I want to start by saying, like, I really
7:53
Speaker 2: respect and appreciate the fact that you aren't just naming
7:56
Speaker 2: the problem of automation because I think every candidate out
7:58
Speaker 2: there is like automation is coming.
8:00
Speaker 1: People are going to be displaced.
8:01
Speaker 2: Then we pivot back to so we need more retraining
8:04
Speaker 2: and all the things you've recommended that failed. I have
8:07
Speaker 2: some questions about the way the freedom dividend works if
8:11
Speaker 2: you don't mind indulging me because I'm learning about this
8:14
Speaker 2: on the fly.
8:14
Speaker 3: Please.
8:15
Speaker 1: Let's say I'm a truck driver.
8:16
Speaker 2: I make 50 grand a year. I get laid off
8:18
Speaker 2: because of automation. I get a freedom dividend worth $ 12, 000
8:22
Speaker 2: a year. Aren't I still in a pretty tough spot economically?
8:26
Speaker 3: Oh, yeah.
8:27
Speaker 4: But right now, so I'm running for president. I become
8:30
Speaker 4: president in 2021. The dividends go out in 2022. And
8:34
Speaker 4: then the truck driver looks up and says, wow, apparently
8:37
Speaker 4: my job is going to disappear pretty soon. It's not
8:39
Speaker 4: gone right now. So then I get $ 12, 000 a year,
8:42
Speaker 4: but I haven't lost my job yet. So maybe- not
8:44
Speaker 4: being a total idiot. Like, you know, president Yang is like, Hey,
8:47
Speaker 4: your job's going to disappear.
8:48
Speaker 3: You get a 12,000. So I save it.
8:50
Speaker 4: And then when my job does disappear three or four
8:53
Speaker 4: years later, I've got 50,000 in savings. President Yang has
8:56
Speaker 4: appointed a trucker transitions are to take some of that
9:00
Speaker 4: $ 168 billion a year and put it towards new resources
9:03
Speaker 4: and opportunities for me. Uh, and when I go home,
9:06
Speaker 4: having lost my job, at least now it's not an
9:08
Speaker 4: existential threat. Like it's not that I'm going to fear
9:11
Speaker 4: for my very existence. I'm not going to take my
9:14
Speaker 4: gun and riot because tens of thousands of truckers are ex-military.
9:19
Speaker 4: And right now, if you said, look, you're about to
9:21
Speaker 4: lose your life savings and you're being 50,000, it's going
9:24
Speaker 4: to go to zero. Then you'd expect some very terrible
9:28
Speaker 4: catastrophic type of reaction to that.
9:31
Speaker 1: Whereas like a militia force. So what do you mean ex-military?
9:36
Speaker 1: What are we talking about?
9:38
Speaker 4: Well, dozens of truckers in Indianapolis protested several months ago
9:43
Speaker 4: by doing something called a slow roll, So they started
9:45
Speaker 4: driving their trucks slowly and gummed up traffic. The entire
9:49
Speaker 4: highway starts going 45 miles an hour. Now what they
9:51
Speaker 4: were protesting was the digital monitoring of their driving time.
9:54
Speaker 4: They didn't like the fact they have a timer. So
9:56
Speaker 4: if you take three and a half million truckers who've um,
10:00
Speaker 4: in many cases sunk their life savings into a small
10:03
Speaker 4: fleet of trucks, and then you say, Hey, you're now
10:05
Speaker 4: competing against robot trucks that don't need to stop. Uh,
10:09
Speaker 4: then to me, it's entirely reasonable that some of those
10:12
Speaker 4: truckers will park their trucks in a highway in a
10:15
Speaker 4: place that that's going to really, uh, screw things up. Um,
10:19
Speaker 4: Or even worse, they'll park their truck, bring their guns
10:22
Speaker 4: out and say, the robot truck should not be allowed
10:27
Speaker 4: because in this case, they feel like their very existence
10:30
Speaker 4: might be at stake.
10:31
Speaker 2: So we're thinking like a post-automation Mad Max trucker scenario.
10:35
Speaker 2: I mean, you're worried about actual violence, not just people
10:38
Speaker 2: losing their jobs, it sounds like.
10:39
Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, you can see right now that, again,
10:42
Speaker 4: you've had these record levels of suicides and drug overdoses
10:44
Speaker 4: in response to the decimation of manufacturing jobs. It's only
10:48
Speaker 4: a matter of time before some of that despair ends
10:51
Speaker 4: up becoming externalized. And that would include violence. If you
10:57
Speaker 4: look at the first industrial revolution at the turn of
10:59
Speaker 4: the century, there were mass riots that killed dozens of
11:02
Speaker 4: people and caused the equivalent of billions of dollars worth
11:04
Speaker 4: of damage. And this industrial revolution is projected to be
11:07
Speaker 4: two to three times faster and more severe than that one.
11:11
Speaker 4: So if you're into history and you say, OK, this
11:14
Speaker 4: is what happened last time. and this time will be
11:17
Speaker 4: two to three times worse, then it would almost be
11:18
Speaker 4: surprising if there were not some form of violence.
11:20
Speaker 1: Okay.
11:21
Speaker 2: Um, another question I had about the freedom dividend. So
11:24
Speaker 2: my understanding is it doesn't come on top of other
11:27
Speaker 2: welfare programs.
11:28
Speaker 1: You have to sort of choose one or the other.
11:30
Speaker 1: You have to opt in.
11:31
Speaker 2: So if you're getting social security, disability insurance, or food stamps,
11:34
Speaker 2: you have a choice between the existing welfare state and
11:37
Speaker 2: the freedom dividend. I guess my question is why wouldn't
11:40
Speaker 2: you want to help the poorest people more? Like why
11:43
Speaker 2: structure this?
11:44
Speaker 1: So Jeff Bezos is, gets the same money as a
11:47
Speaker 1: homeless guy.
11:48
Speaker 4: Yeah. So one of the lessons we took was from Alaska,
11:52
Speaker 4: which has had this petroleum dividend in effect for almost
11:54
Speaker 4: 40 years.
11:55
Speaker 3: And it's not means tested.
11:57
Speaker 4: Everyone in Alaska just gets between $ 1, 000 and $ 2, 000 a year,
11:59
Speaker 4: no questions asked. And because of that, it's politically very popular.
12:05
Speaker 4: And everyone sees it as just like something that they
12:07
Speaker 4: get as an Alaskan. And so if you want to
12:10
Speaker 4: get people in America excited about the dividend, then... having
12:14
Speaker 4: it be distributed across the board to every citizen seems
12:18
Speaker 4: like something that would become universally popular. I'm all for
12:22
Speaker 4: taking steps to try and see to those who have
12:25
Speaker 4: a greater need in different ways. And the freedom dividend
12:28
Speaker 4: is not intended to solve all problems. It would channel
12:33
Speaker 4: tens of billions of dollars into the hands of Americans
12:36
Speaker 4: every day. And anyone listening to this, you know, $ 1, 000
12:39
Speaker 4: a month would be a huge difference maker in many,
12:40
Speaker 4: many people's lives. But to me, there are other things
12:44
Speaker 4: that we should do to help those who need, frankly,
12:47
Speaker 4: even more than any amount of money. I mean, there
12:49
Speaker 4: are certain programs that you need to have in place.
12:53
Speaker 4: Money is not a cure-all, but this to me is
12:56
Speaker 4: the best way to provide a floor for everyone. And
12:59
Speaker 4: then we can start attacking some of the other systemic
13:01
Speaker 4: issues of poverty in different ways.
13:03
Speaker 2: But wouldn't there's some argument for just sort of like,
13:06
Speaker 2: Finding some tiering, say it cuts off after $ 250, 000.
13:10
Speaker 1: A year or $ 500, 000.
13:11
Speaker 2: I hear what you're saying in that if you make
13:14
Speaker 2: a benefit universal, everyone gets it. They're less likely to
13:18
Speaker 2: resent it. But I feel like you could maybe manage
13:20
Speaker 2: the cost because I've heard you talk about it costing
13:23
Speaker 2: maybe $ 2 trillion or $ 1. 8 trillion a year for the
13:26
Speaker 2: freedom dividend fully implemented. I mean, that's pretty significant, right?
13:30
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's significant. And you and I know this.
13:32
Speaker 4: It's that, unfortunately, there aren't even that many rich Americans
13:35
Speaker 4: such that it doesn't even bring the cost out because
13:37
Speaker 4: of the way our income is distributed. But one of
13:40
Speaker 4: the great things about not having means testing is that
13:43
Speaker 4: you destigmatize it.
13:44
Speaker 3: So it's not like, oh, I get it.
13:46
Speaker 4: You don't. You're giving it to me somehow. There's no
13:50
Speaker 4: rich to poor transfer. So if it's truly universal, if
13:52
Speaker 4: it truly is something that everyone enjoys, then you get
13:55
Speaker 4: rid of any stigma and you also get rid of
13:57
Speaker 4: any monitoring requirement or need to try and under-report your
14:00
Speaker 4: income or change in circumstances. There's no issue around timing
14:03
Speaker 4: of payments. So I love the EITC. The EITC has
14:06
Speaker 4: been great at fighting poverty, but 30% of families that
14:10
Speaker 4: should get the EITC don't get it because of various
14:13
Speaker 4: administrative hurdles. And there's also this massive timing of payments
14:16
Speaker 4: problem because if I lose my job this year, maybe
14:20
Speaker 4: the EITC will give me some extra money next year
14:22
Speaker 4: when it's tax time, but I needed the money right now.
14:25
Speaker 1: Right now, yeah.
14:26
Speaker 2: So my understanding is the primary way you finance the
14:29
Speaker 2: freedom dividend is through a value added tax on tech companies.
14:32
Speaker 1: Like, say, Amazon.
14:33
Speaker 2: But a VAT tax or a sales tax, they tend
14:36
Speaker 2: to be the really the most regressive form of taxation.
14:39
Speaker 2: Companies tend to pass those costs along to consumers. I mean,
14:42
Speaker 2: those costs are likely to disproportionately hurt people who are poorer.
14:47
Speaker 2: So I guess my question, why finance it that way?
14:50
Speaker 4: So in a vacuum, like a value-added tax does tend
14:53
Speaker 4: to be regressive because poor people just spend a higher
14:56
Speaker 4: proportion of their buying power on consumer staples. And there
14:59
Speaker 4: are things you can do where you can tailor it.
15:01
Speaker 4: You can exempt certain consumer staples. You can have the
15:03
Speaker 4: VAT be higher on luxury goods. In this case, because
15:08
Speaker 4: we're taking every dollar from the value-added tax and putting
15:11
Speaker 4: it directly into Americans' hands and then adding another $ 2
15:13
Speaker 4: on top of it, then it would be the opposite
15:17
Speaker 4: of regressive. It would increase the buying power for approximately
15:19
Speaker 4: the bottom 90% of Americans who aren't making and spending
15:24
Speaker 4: hundreds of thousands of dollars.
15:25
Speaker 2: But if you're the bottom 90%, let's say you're on welfare,
15:28
Speaker 2: you're getting food stamps, so you're not taking the freedom dividend,
15:31
Speaker 2: and then there's a VAT on a whole bunch of
15:33
Speaker 2: things you buy.
15:34
Speaker 1: Isn't that going to hurt you?
15:35
Speaker 3: Yeah.
15:35
Speaker 4: In certain situations, we'd have to do more. So the
15:40
Speaker 4: easiest thing to do would be to take And so
15:42
Speaker 4: I have a physician principle of do no harm. Last
15:45
Speaker 4: thing I want to do is stick it to someone
15:46
Speaker 4: who's relying upon benefits or a fixed income. And so
15:50
Speaker 4: the easiest thing to do is just to say, hey,
15:52
Speaker 4: if you're on one of these programs or benefits, we're
15:54
Speaker 4: just going to scale up your benefits to a point
15:56
Speaker 4: where that is immaterial to you.
15:58
Speaker 1: Got it.
15:59
Speaker 2: So I guess here's probably the most important question I
16:01
Speaker 2: have is, I mean, how do you think you can
16:03
Speaker 2: get this passed? Because I think, not to be cynical.
16:06
Speaker 3: But You've been in government for a while, man.
16:09
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell is a pretty cynical guy. You know, he's
16:11
Speaker 1: got his wife, like, cutting deals for him in Kentucky.
16:13
Speaker 3: That's madness. I know. I couldn't believe that stuff.
16:15
Speaker 2: It drives me crazy. So, you know, a lot of
16:18
Speaker 2: Republicans say this is welfare, this is socialism, whatever. I mean,
16:21
Speaker 2: what's your plan to get this through? I guess you're
16:24
Speaker 2: also talking about proposing Medicare for all. I mean, the
16:26
Speaker 2: cost of both is going to give people some sticker shock.
16:30
Speaker 1: Yeah.
16:30
Speaker 4: So this is the fun part of it is that
16:33
Speaker 4: when I'm president in 2021, the Democrats, thanks to you all,
16:36
Speaker 4: thank you, Pod Save America. will be so pumped to
16:39
Speaker 4: have gotten Donald Trump out of there, we'll all be
16:40
Speaker 4: dancing a jig in D.C. And so everyone will be
16:44
Speaker 4: super excited about the dividend because it's going to get
16:46
Speaker 4: more money into the hands of everyday Americans and make
16:49
Speaker 4: families and children.
16:51
Speaker 3: Stronger and healthier.
16:52
Speaker 4: And then on the conservative side, they're going to look
16:54
Speaker 4: at this and be like, wait a minute, this is
16:56
Speaker 4: actually a big win for rural areas and red states
17:00
Speaker 4: that have been decimated by automation. And a lot of
17:04
Speaker 4: their constituents will say, what I don't like is government
17:09
Speaker 4: making my decisions, but this is actually the freedom dividend.
17:11
Speaker 4: This is pro-economic freedom. And so there'll be at least
17:15
Speaker 4: some conservatives who will look at this and say, well,
17:18
Speaker 4: Alaska passed something just like this. And Alaska is a
17:21
Speaker 4: deep red conservative state. That was a Republican governor. There's
17:24
Speaker 4: some native appeal on the conservative side because it feels
17:29
Speaker 4: like it's somehow increasing people's economic autonomy. Now, that's not
17:36
Speaker 4: going to work on everyone. I mean, obviously, there'll be
17:37
Speaker 4: some Republicans who are like, I hate this. It's like
17:40
Speaker 4: a massive government handout, et cetera, et cetera. But we
17:42
Speaker 4: don't need 81% of Congress. We only need 51% because
17:46
Speaker 4: this is just a bill like any other. And so
17:47
Speaker 4: when the dividend goes out, then Americans will be so
17:50
Speaker 4: pumped that the government did something that actually changes people's
17:53
Speaker 4: lives in such a direct, concrete way that then we'll
17:57
Speaker 4: be able to hopefully get some other big things done too.
17:59
Speaker 2: I mean, I feel like you're a thoughtful... logical, rational
18:03
Speaker 2: human being.
18:04
Speaker 3: Well, thanks, man.
18:04
Speaker 2: Trying to apply those principles to a party that has
18:07
Speaker 2: lost its mind. I mean, they're likely to call this
18:09
Speaker 2: like the death.
18:10
Speaker 1: Panel dividend, right? Like they did with Obamacare.
18:12
Speaker 2: Mitch McConnell prioritized defeating Barack Obama in the reelection above
18:18
Speaker 2: saving the economy, giving people hope. Oh yeah, I remember too, yeah.
18:22
Speaker 2: That's where my cynicism comes from is like, I just
18:25
Speaker 2: wonder how we will get Republicans to to change their mind.
18:28
Speaker 1: Or if you've thought.
18:29
Speaker 2: Through like what it would take politically to try to
18:32
Speaker 2: bring people over.
18:33
Speaker 4: Well, one thing I've found is that cash is hard
18:35
Speaker 4: to demonize. It's like, like if you say, Hey, I'm
18:39
Speaker 4: going to change your healthcare, be like, Oh, death panels,
18:41
Speaker 4: doctor is like, it's going to screw it up. But
18:43
Speaker 4: it's like, Hey, the Asian man wants to give you money. Um,
18:46
Speaker 4: it's a little trickier to be like, Oh, the money's
18:48
Speaker 4: going to kill you.
18:48
Speaker 1: It's like demonized, right. And stigmatized.
18:52
Speaker 3: They have been.
18:53
Speaker 4: And that's one reason why the dividend is so powerful
18:55
Speaker 4: is because the food stamps, it's like, uh, it's like
18:58
Speaker 4: something for other people. Like you go to folks in
19:01
Speaker 4: various parts of the country to go, Oh, they're getting something.
19:03
Speaker 4: They're pulling one over on you this time. It's like,
19:05
Speaker 4: everyone gets it.
19:06
Speaker 3: Chill out.
19:07
Speaker 4: It's going to be great. Uh, and I'm already getting, uh,
19:11
Speaker 4: people from, you know, the, like the conservative end of
19:15
Speaker 4: the spectrum and libertarians and independence folks in Iowa, uh,
19:19
Speaker 4: in Ohio have said to me that they, uh, actually, uh,
19:23
Speaker 4: hoped they were getting someone like me when they voted
19:24
Speaker 4: for Donald Trump, which I take as like a very
19:26
Speaker 4: mixed bag because that part of me is like, oh, no.
19:28
Speaker 3: But that part of me was like, oh, well, you're
19:30
Speaker 3: going to vote for me. I guess that's a win.
19:32
Speaker 1: All right.
19:33
Speaker 2: I'm going to move away from UBI if that's okay.
19:37
Speaker 3: No, we must talk about UBI. I'm kidding.
19:39
Speaker 1: I mean, look, it's an interesting topic. I learned a
19:41
Speaker 1: lot about it.
19:42
Speaker 3: So you were at.
19:44
Speaker 2: The Iowa Democratic Party Hall of Fame dinner this weekend
19:47
Speaker 2: along with 18 of your best colleagues. candidate friends. I
19:51
Speaker 2: noticed you kind of you dinged Biden for missing the dinner.
19:55
Speaker 2: You repeated that criticism in a tweet today. I guess
19:57
Speaker 2: he was at his granddaughter's high school graduation. Is that
20:00
Speaker 2: sort of like a weird thing to attack him for?
20:02
Speaker 4: Well, so when I first did it, and you look
20:05
Speaker 4: at the quote-unquote attack, it was like, you know, a joke.
20:08
Speaker 4: It was like, I guess Joe Biden really doesn't like
20:09
Speaker 4: to travel.
20:10
Speaker 3: Right.
20:11
Speaker 4: And it just struck me as really jarring that there
20:13
Speaker 4: were literally 19 candidates there and everyone but the frontrunner.
20:17
Speaker 1: Right. Sure.
20:18
Speaker 4: And it was something of like this elephant in the room.
20:20
Speaker 4: So I just said like, you know, hey, like, I
20:23
Speaker 4: guess Joe Biden doesn't really like to travel very much.
20:26
Speaker 3: And then, you know, from there.
20:30
Speaker 4: He said something about how like he has values of
20:34
Speaker 4: a different kind that led him to attend his. And
20:37
Speaker 4: I wouldn't begrudge anyone like making a choice not to
20:39
Speaker 4: attend an event. But there was like this implication there
20:42
Speaker 4: that was like he had somehow like made this decision
20:48
Speaker 4: that the other 19 candidates like had not made. And
20:52
Speaker 4: so I pointed out, I was like, look, 19 candidates,
20:55
Speaker 4: like 19 candidates have families. Like we all are going
20:57
Speaker 4: to miss stuff. Um, and so it's fine if you
21:01
Speaker 4: decide to, to miss stuff too, but, uh, you know,
21:03
Speaker 4: it's like making it seem like it was a, um,
21:05
Speaker 4: a value judgment on his part that other people weren't making,
21:08
Speaker 4: I thought was like, you know, a little bit unfortunate, truly.
21:11
Speaker 2: We have seen recently, uh, that abortion rights have just
21:14
Speaker 2: been under assault by the Trump administration, by the courts,
21:17
Speaker 2: by states. Have you thought about how you would ensure that.
21:21
Speaker 1: Reproductive rights are protected across the country?
21:24
Speaker 4: Well, uh, I think it's, crazy that in 2019, we
21:29
Speaker 4: have states passing laws that bring us back to the
21:31
Speaker 4: Stone Age in terms of women's reproductive rights. So I
21:34
Speaker 4: want to protect women's reproductive rights at the highest possible levels.
21:37
Speaker 4: And there's nothing in the Constitution about the number of
21:39
Speaker 4: Supreme Court justices. I think we should very, very much
21:44
Speaker 4: consider increasing the number of justices past nine and appointing justices.
21:48
Speaker 3: That would protect women's reproductive rights.
21:50
Speaker 4: There's really nothing off the table when it comes to
21:52
Speaker 4: protecting women's reproductive rights for me.
21:55
Speaker 2: So the primary goal would be to really think about
21:58
Speaker 2: packing the courts as soon as possible and preserving Roe
22:01
Speaker 2: or preventing it from being overturned.
22:02
Speaker 1: In that way. Yeah.
22:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
22:04
Speaker 2: And what about sort of enshrining Roe in legislation? Is
22:07
Speaker 2: that something you think we should pursue?
22:08
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that that's the right move, too.
22:11
Speaker 4: And, you know, I mean, I understand that Americans have
22:13
Speaker 4: different feelings on this, but I'm very much pro women's
22:16
Speaker 4: reproductive rights.
22:17
Speaker 3: I do not think it's the role of government to
22:18
Speaker 3: be curbing that.
22:28
Speaker 2: The Trump administration talks relentlessly about immigration. If you're the nominee,
22:34
Speaker 2: I imagine that will be the attack every day. There
22:36
Speaker 2: will be some caravan headed to your house or the
22:38
Speaker 2: border or wherever, you know, whatever bullshit they make up.
22:42
Speaker 1: But like that aside, you know, there is also a massive.
22:44
Speaker 2: Surge of migrants coming to the U.S. from so-called Central
22:48
Speaker 2: Triangle countries, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc., What would you do
22:53
Speaker 2: to reduce the flow of asylum seekers and fix what
22:55
Speaker 2: I think people in both parties view to be a
22:58
Speaker 2: broken system?
23:00
Speaker 4: Yeah, so the first thing to do is try and
23:03
Speaker 4: adequately resource the system we have. Because if you go
23:07
Speaker 4: near the process, you see that we have a massive
23:09
Speaker 4: shortage of not just judges to administer asylum cases, but
23:13
Speaker 4: case managers and facilities and border officers. There was one
23:19
Speaker 4: thing I saw where there are something like hundreds of
23:21
Speaker 4: unfilled job openings because it's just hard for them to
23:24
Speaker 4: hire in.
23:25
Speaker 3: These stations.
23:27
Speaker 4: So one, if you have a process, you have to
23:28
Speaker 4: adequately try and resource and implement it. But the big
23:31
Speaker 4: thing there, and this is one reason why cutting back
23:33
Speaker 4: international aid was so destructive, it's like obviously if you're
23:36
Speaker 4: going to try and get people to migrate less out
23:40
Speaker 4: of an area, then you try and support the existing
23:44
Speaker 4: government and way of life so that people feel like
23:46
Speaker 4: they don't need to migrate hundreds of miles over dangerous
23:50
Speaker 4: conditions for, for another opportunity that they have an opportunity
23:53
Speaker 4: closer to them.
23:54
Speaker 2: So you're thinking about increasing foreign aid as part of
23:56
Speaker 2: an immigration policy?
23:57
Speaker 3: Yeah.
23:58
Speaker 4: Yeah.
23:58
Speaker 3: I think that would be the right thing to do.
24:01
Speaker 2: Um, so I've noticed like, as I was prepping for this, I,
24:06
Speaker 2: your voice was in my head for hours, most of
24:07
Speaker 2: the drive in Iowa. It was, it was magnificent, frankly. Um,
24:11
Speaker 2: but I mean, I I've noticed you've done a lot
24:13
Speaker 2: of outlets, non-traditional stops in the Democratic primary circuit, let's
24:18
Speaker 2: say like Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin. So there
24:21
Speaker 2: have been some reports that are unrelated to you and
24:24
Speaker 2: your candidacy that suggest that some of those guys are
24:27
Speaker 2: a gateway via YouTube to more radical fringe outlets like
24:32
Speaker 2: InfoWars or like worse. Um, does that worry you at
24:36
Speaker 2: all that, that some of these guys like the Ben Shapiro's, uh,
24:41
Speaker 2: could provide a way for people to find that kind
24:44
Speaker 2: of content?
24:44
Speaker 1: Or is that YouTube's problem? How do you think about it?
24:48
Speaker 4: You know, it's a really profound question. And it's becoming
24:51
Speaker 4: all the more pressing in an age where white nationalism
24:56
Speaker 4: and tribalism are surging into very, you know, like, like tragic,
25:01
Speaker 4: murderous behaviors. And there's a guy named Jaron Lanier is
25:06
Speaker 4: one of the pioneers of the internet. And he said
25:08
Speaker 4: something that stuck with me. He said that the internet
25:10
Speaker 4: is more powerful at conducting negative ideas and sentiments than
25:14
Speaker 4: it is positive ones. So the, the YouTube, um, controversy
25:18
Speaker 4: on clamping down, I mean, it's so core because if
25:21
Speaker 4: you have toxic ideas that are out there, they, they
25:23
Speaker 4: can spread like wildfire and end up, um, like leading
25:26
Speaker 4: people to, uh.
25:28
Speaker 3: Terrible ideologies.
25:30
Speaker 4: The conversations I had with various thinkers, I mean, as
25:32
Speaker 4: you say, it's like, I mean, uh, one of the,
25:36
Speaker 4: the things I'm trying to do, and this also being
25:38
Speaker 4: very candid, um, uh, Starting out, there weren't a lot
25:41
Speaker 4: of mainstream press outlets that were having me on. So
25:44
Speaker 4: someone's like, oh, was this a strategy? It's like, actually,
25:46
Speaker 4: my strategy is just to try and reach Americans. And
25:49
Speaker 4: if there was like someone who wanted to have me on.
25:53
Speaker 4: I do think that it's important, particularly if you're going
25:55
Speaker 4: to try and win a general election, to try and
25:57
Speaker 4: reach people at different points in the political spectrum.
26:00
Speaker 3: I certainly would.
26:00
Speaker 4: Never go on a program where I thought it was
26:05
Speaker 4: like a direct gateway to hateful ideologies. But this is
26:09
Speaker 4: one of the most pressing problems of our time is
26:11
Speaker 4: to figure out how we can manage freedom of speech
26:15
Speaker 4: and First Amendment rights with the fact that, unfortunately, the
26:17
Speaker 4: Internet is highly conductive for toxic and poisonous ideologies.
26:23
Speaker 2: So I think I've read that you don't agree with,
26:27
Speaker 2: I think, Elizabeth Warren's proposal, for example, to break up
26:30
Speaker 2: some of the biggest technology companies, the Facebooks, the Googles.
26:33
Speaker 3: Why is that?
26:34
Speaker 1: Am I right first? And why is that?
26:36
Speaker 3: No, you're generally right.
26:38
Speaker 4: And this is not to say I'm against breaking up
26:39
Speaker 4: tech companies because some of them you should break up
26:41
Speaker 4: certain parts of their businesses. And it has gone really
26:44
Speaker 4: haywire in Silicon Valley where the primary business model is
26:48
Speaker 4: to get bought by one of the behemoths now. It's
26:50
Speaker 4: not like build a company for 20 years and.
26:52
Speaker 3: Stand the test of time.
26:53
Speaker 4: It's just like, hey, if I become enough of a pest,
26:56
Speaker 4: then someone will throw some money at me and I'll
26:58
Speaker 4: get absorbed into the Borg.
27:00
Speaker 1: Innovation, competition at its best, right? Yeah.
27:03
Speaker 3: So there are massive excesses.
27:05
Speaker 4: We should have some of these companies get, quote unquote,
27:08
Speaker 4: broken up in some respects. The problem is that assuming
27:12
Speaker 4: that if I break up Amazon into four mini Amazons,
27:15
Speaker 4: that then competition will take hold and that will improve
27:17
Speaker 4: the situation, doesn't take into account some of the dynamics
27:20
Speaker 4: of technology marketplaces. So the comparison I make is that
27:25
Speaker 4: no one wants to use the fourth best navigation app
27:28
Speaker 4: and no one is binging anything.
27:29
Speaker 1: I was binging your name all weekend.
27:31
Speaker 3: Well, then you're the only one, man. The CEO of
27:34
Speaker 3: Bing is like... Who is the CEO of Bing? I
27:37
Speaker 3: don't know. I think it's still a division of Microsoft.
27:39
Speaker 1: Okay, got it.
27:40
Speaker 4: So saying like, hey, are there quasi monopolies that need
27:43
Speaker 4: to be curbed?
27:44
Speaker 3: Yes.
27:45
Speaker 4: If I break them up into four mini versions of themselves,
27:48
Speaker 4: it probably does not solve the problem. And one of
27:51
Speaker 4: the problems that I cite is that right now our
27:53
Speaker 4: young people are in a mental health crisis with the
27:57
Speaker 4: anxiety and depression coincident with smartphone adoption, and social media apps.
28:03
Speaker 4: And my friend Tristan Harris says that we are the
28:05
Speaker 4: smartest engineers in the country turning supercomputers into slot machines
28:10
Speaker 4: and dopamine delivery devices for teenagers. Now, if you say, hey,
28:15
Speaker 4: now Facebook and WhatsApp and Instagram have separate ownership structures,
28:19
Speaker 4: does that make our kids less depressed?
28:22
Speaker 3: Probably no impact.
28:24
Speaker 4: And so the break-em-up solution to me is not necessarily...
28:29
Speaker 4: digging in and solving the true problems that technology is causing,
28:33
Speaker 4: sometimes break up, breaking them up, having them divest parts
28:36
Speaker 4: of the business would be the right solution. But in
28:38
Speaker 4: other cases, you'd want to adopt different types of approaches.
28:42
Speaker 1: All right. I'm going to ask Jeeves that answer later
28:44
Speaker 1: and see if it's right. But like, you know, you
28:45
Speaker 1: look at a Facebook, right?
28:46
Speaker 2: They acquired Instagram, they acquired WhatsApp. So suddenly they are,
28:52
Speaker 2: by some major order of magnitude, the biggest messaging platform
28:56
Speaker 2: on the planet. Do you think a company like that Well,
29:00
Speaker 2: let me ask this differently. Do you think we should
29:02
Speaker 2: update our antitrust laws?
29:03
Speaker 3: Oh, yeah.
29:04
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
29:05
Speaker 4: So price is the wrong framework for antitrust. Because a
29:08
Speaker 4: lot of the stuff, they're like, it's very gouged you,
29:10
Speaker 4: like I wouldn't dream of it. Man, if I just
29:12
Speaker 4: want to give it to you, and then like absorb
29:13
Speaker 4: all your data.
29:14
Speaker 3: And then the rest of it.
29:15
Speaker 4: So certainly we need an updated framework. And what I've
29:19
Speaker 4: been saying is we can't have 20th century solutions to
29:21
Speaker 4: 21st century problems. And having a price and competition framework
29:25
Speaker 4: is a 20th century solution. And those are not the
29:27
Speaker 4: problems we face.
29:30
Speaker 1: Why do you hate the penny?
29:33
Speaker 4: Um, because someone threw one at me when I was
29:35
Speaker 4: a kid and I swore I would get all of
29:37
Speaker 4: the pennies out of the world. Now, um, no, it's,
29:40
Speaker 4: it's that there's actually, uh, like there are several economic, um,
29:45
Speaker 4: and environmental rationales to get rid of the penny.
29:47
Speaker 1: Really?
29:47
Speaker 3: Like we, we actually spend more than one cent, uh,
29:50
Speaker 3: per penny on its production.
29:51
Speaker 1: That's stupid. Yeah.
29:52
Speaker 4: We lose, uh, I think it's something along an order
29:55
Speaker 4: of magnitude, maybe like, uh, like $ 25 million a year
29:58
Speaker 4: making pennies.
29:58
Speaker 2: What's the argument against getting rid of the penny then?
30:02
Speaker 3: Inertia.
30:04
Speaker 4: And that's one of the greatest things that's happening in
30:07
Speaker 4: this country is that inertia is taking over a lot
30:09
Speaker 4: of things where like, why do we have lifetime appointments
30:11
Speaker 4: for Supreme Court justices when that clearly makes no sense anymore?
30:14
Speaker 4: Like we should change it to 18 year term limits.
30:16
Speaker 4: Why haven't we?
30:17
Speaker 3: Inertia. So why do we have pennies? Inertia.
30:19
Speaker 4: And, you know, one of the themes of my campaign
30:22
Speaker 4: is that we have to examine things and say, look,
30:24
Speaker 4: we can improve that.
30:24
Speaker 3: We totally should.
30:26
Speaker 4: Also, pennies are bad for the environment because extracting copper,
30:29
Speaker 4: it costs energy.
30:31
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, if you hate inertia, you are going to
30:34
Speaker 1: hate the government.
30:36
Speaker 3: All right. Can I ask you a heads up? Yeah, right.
30:40
Speaker 2: There's no more annoying question than when you say, why
30:42
Speaker 2: do we do this? And the answer is because that's
30:44
Speaker 2: how we've always done it.
30:45
Speaker 1: It's like, come on.
30:47
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, I, I admire you and your team
30:49
Speaker 4: so much. I mean, you, you fought the fight, you know,
30:52
Speaker 4: you spent time in Iowa and like helping, uh, get
30:55
Speaker 4: Obama elected and served in government. And you got a sense,
30:57
Speaker 4: like I have friends who worked the administration, the Obama administration,
31:00
Speaker 4: and they saw what was going on in DC and
31:02
Speaker 4: they were like, holy cow, like the best of them
31:04
Speaker 4: were frustrated. Um, you know, and, and like, I'm definitely
31:09
Speaker 4: ready to enter the frustration zone, uh, you know, when
31:12
Speaker 4: I become president. with the knowledge that a lot of
31:16
Speaker 4: the stuff that we're going to try and get done,
31:17
Speaker 4: it's going to be like a massive challenge because of
31:20
Speaker 4: the nature of the institutions.
31:21
Speaker 1: Yeah. All right. I'm going to close with some foreign policy,
31:25
Speaker 1: if that's all right.
31:26
Speaker 3: Sure.
31:26
Speaker 2: So President Trump, he's a fantastic president. He's done a
31:30
Speaker 2: number on basically every alliance we have since taking office.
31:34
Speaker 2: He's called into question the value of NATO. He wouldn't
31:36
Speaker 2: reaffirm Article 5. He's undercut the Japanese and the South
31:39
Speaker 2: Koreans in negotiations with North Korea.
31:41
Speaker 1: Have you thought about how you would, undo that damage?
31:45
Speaker 2: Is there like a hundred day plan to try to
31:46
Speaker 2: fix some of the damage that's been done?
31:49
Speaker 4: Well, I'm the fourth candidate after Bernie and Elizabeth Warren
31:52
Speaker 4: and one other to sign the end the forever war pledge,
31:56
Speaker 4: which is that we need to try and push the
31:59
Speaker 4: power to declare war back to Congress where it belongs
32:02
Speaker 4: in the constitution. And having that as like my, my,
32:06
Speaker 4: one of my first acts, then the rest of the
32:08
Speaker 4: world would be like, Oh, I get it. This president
32:10
Speaker 4: is different than the last one that I'm kind of
32:13
Speaker 4: the opposite. And so the second thing I would do
32:17
Speaker 4: is then go to our longest standing partners and say,
32:20
Speaker 4: America's open for business again, that that guy's gone.
32:23
Speaker 3: It's this guy.
32:24
Speaker 4: And this guy wants to work with you, wants to
32:26
Speaker 4: rebuild longstanding relationships and make it seem that we're reliable.
32:32
Speaker 4: We'll be here for the test of time. One of
32:34
Speaker 4: the things I've said is that our foreign policy reflects
32:36
Speaker 4: how we're doing at home. To me, Donald Trump's our
32:38
Speaker 4: president because our way of life has been disintegrating for years,
32:42
Speaker 4: you know, life expectancy, uh, income and affordability, mental health crisis.
32:47
Speaker 4: Like there's so much despair and suffering and anger, anger
32:50
Speaker 4: in this country so much so that we ended up
32:52
Speaker 4: with this guy as president. And then he's going around
32:55
Speaker 4: breaking partnerships and alliances around the world. And everyone's like,
32:58
Speaker 4: what the heck's going on with the U S.
32:59
Speaker 3: So, um, my.
33:00
Speaker 4: Goal is to be the opposite of Donald Trump. The
33:02
Speaker 4: opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes
33:04
Speaker 4: math and.
33:06
Speaker 3: That on your hat, it does say out of my hat.
33:08
Speaker 3: And then it doesn't say that entire phrase. That'd be
33:09
Speaker 3: a very long, long phrase.
33:12
Speaker 4: But then the rest of the world, if you can
33:13
Speaker 4: imagine President Yang coming in, like the rest of the
33:15
Speaker 4: world would be like, wow, like America has a very
33:17
Speaker 4: different leadership style. And they'll find that I'm someone that
33:22
Speaker 4: they can work with.
33:23
Speaker 1: Would you repeal the AUMF?
33:25
Speaker 3: Yes, I would. That's one of.
33:26
Speaker 4: The things that to me has been such a, like
33:30
Speaker 4: a concession of power on the part of Congress. And
33:34
Speaker 4: so it should be in Congress's hand whether or not
33:36
Speaker 4: we go to war, have any sort of military intervention.
33:39
Speaker 4: And one pipe dream of mine, I know this one's
33:40
Speaker 4: going to be tough. Not only do I want Congress
33:42
Speaker 4: to have the ability to declare war, I also want
33:45
Speaker 4: one adult child of Congress to have to participate in
33:48
Speaker 4: whatever military action we take. Because to me, there's something
33:51
Speaker 4: fundamental that if you're going to send, uh, America's young
33:54
Speaker 4: men and women into battle, at least one, uh, one
33:57
Speaker 4: of your kids should also be going.
33:59
Speaker 1: Yeah.
33:59
Speaker 2: Well, so knowing that you want to return that authority
34:03
Speaker 2: to where it belongs to Congress, um, I'm wondering when
34:06
Speaker 2: you think it's appropriate to use military force because, for example,
34:10
Speaker 2: Obama used military force in Libya to prevent what he
34:13
Speaker 2: thought would be like a catastrophic loss of civilian life
34:16
Speaker 2: in Benghazi that I think the near-term objective was achieved,
34:21
Speaker 2: but the long-term situation in Libya is a mess. He
34:24
Speaker 2: was criticized for not responding fast enough in Syria after
34:28
Speaker 2: Assad used chemical weapons, the so-called red line debate. I mean,
34:32
Speaker 2: like how do you view when it's appropriate for the
34:34
Speaker 2: U S to use military force to intervene?
34:37
Speaker 4: Well, well, this is one of the reasons why I
34:38
Speaker 4: think it's so important to have Congress actively involved with
34:40
Speaker 4: this is that if, uh, the people of the United
34:44
Speaker 4: States and the Congress agree that it's, uh, the right
34:47
Speaker 4: thing to do to, to intervene militarily, then that to
34:51
Speaker 4: me is like a huge, uh, source of, uh, popular judgment,
34:57
Speaker 4: like in a way that's to me more powerful than if, uh,
35:00
Speaker 4: if an individual, even the President of the United States,
35:03
Speaker 4: thinks that it's the right thing to do. In terms
35:06
Speaker 4: of principles, if you can avoid catastrophic loss of life
35:10
Speaker 4: in a way that doesn't bog us down for years
35:14
Speaker 4: on end with an indeterminate timeline, then that to me
35:16
Speaker 4: is like a more appealing use.
35:20
Speaker 3: Of military force.
35:20
Speaker 4: But even then, I would push it to Congress and say, look, guys,
35:23
Speaker 4: this is what I think we should do. Like, do
35:25
Speaker 4: I have the go-ahead? Because that's the way the Constitution
35:28
Speaker 4: set it up.
35:29
Speaker 2: But I mean, Congress is a bunch of cowards who
35:33
Speaker 2: don't want to take votes that are difficult. The population
35:36
Speaker 2: writ large is understandably and rightly reticent to get involved.
35:41
Speaker 2: But World War I, World War II, if there's not
35:43
Speaker 2: presidential leadership, we're probably not entering those wars, right? I mean, like,
35:48
Speaker 2: they're going to look to you regardless of your efforts
35:52
Speaker 2: to restore their authority.
35:53
Speaker 1: You know what I mean?
35:53
Speaker 2: So I just don't know if you, if you, if
35:55
Speaker 2: there's a conflict in recent history, you think that was just,
35:58
Speaker 2: that made sense, that was appropriate.
36:00
Speaker 4: You know, to me, the times I get most excited
36:03
Speaker 4: about it is if you feel like you can help
36:06
Speaker 4: maintain the integrity of society in some way, or if there's,
36:10
Speaker 4: it's not quite like humanitarian intervention, because I know we're
36:12
Speaker 4: talking about military action.
36:14
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, you know, you could debate.
36:16
Speaker 3: Sorry, continue.
36:17
Speaker 4: No, no, like that, if there is a way that
36:21
Speaker 4: we can essentially prevent like a collapsing society or failed state,
36:26
Speaker 4: those are the situations I'm most drawn to. And I
36:29
Speaker 4: would be very happy to champion that cause in Congress
36:33
Speaker 4: and say, look, if we do this, we can help
36:35
Speaker 4: preserve the integrity of this society in a way that's
36:37
Speaker 4: going to end up being very positive, not just for them,
36:39
Speaker 4: but for American interests over the long term or globally.
36:42
Speaker 4: I would love to make that case.
36:44
Speaker 2: So when I hear when I imagine a near term
36:47
Speaker 2: failed state, I think Venezuela.
36:49
Speaker 4: Yeah.
36:49
Speaker 1: Is that an example of someplace where you think it
36:51
Speaker 1: might be appropriate?
36:53
Speaker 4: Particularly if there is a constituency in Venezuela that welcomes,
36:57
Speaker 4: you know, that sort of move. Like, you know, unilaterally,
36:59
Speaker 4: I would not want to do it because I do
37:01
Speaker 4: not think it's the United States' place to decide, you know,
37:04
Speaker 4: the regimes of other countries, if we can at all
37:08
Speaker 4: prevent being that sort of outside force. But if there
37:13
Speaker 4: was a group in Venezuela, which there may well be,
37:15
Speaker 4: that says, look, we'd actually welcome your intervention because we
37:18
Speaker 4: need to try and have some sort of infrastructure while
37:22
Speaker 4: we establish our new government or something along those lines.
37:25
Speaker 4: And I'd love to, to work with them on that.
37:27
Speaker 1: Chris, how you think about diplomacy?
37:28
Speaker 2: I mean, do you, are you sort of in a,
37:31
Speaker 2: I'll talk to anyone anywhere camp like Obama was, I mean,
37:35
Speaker 2: or let me say it this way. Do you think
37:36
Speaker 2: Trump's negotiations with North Korea had been appropriate or successful?
37:42
Speaker 4: I don't think his exact negotiations have been, uh, the
37:45
Speaker 4: way I'd go about it, but I do agree with, um,
37:49
Speaker 4: the principle that it's very hard to get things done
37:51
Speaker 4: if you're not willing to talk to someone or engage them.
37:54
Speaker 4: And I also am not the sort who thinks if
37:55
Speaker 4: you talk to someone, you're somehow endorsing their government or
38:00
Speaker 4: their approach to things. So my first position would be
38:06
Speaker 4: we should be engaging directly even with people that we
38:08
Speaker 4: might consider adversaries.
38:09
Speaker 2: So if you win, would you re-engage in those talks
38:13
Speaker 2: with Kim Jong-un in North Korea? I mean, clearly the
38:16
Speaker 2: problem he's trying to solve is very real. In fact,
38:19
Speaker 2: it's gotten considerably worse since he took office because the
38:23
Speaker 2: DIA estimates they're making a new nuke a month. So
38:25
Speaker 2: it's something we're going to, it's going to come to
38:27
Speaker 2: a head at some point. I'm just curious how you
38:28
Speaker 2: would approach what past presidents have viewed as really like
38:32
Speaker 2: an existential threat to the U.S.
38:34
Speaker 4: Yeah. And like my sister-in-law is in Seoul right now.
38:36
Speaker 4: I mean, this is something where, you know, it's like
38:38
Speaker 4: I have some personal, yeah. To me, a lot of
38:41
Speaker 4: these actors are going to do whatever they think is
38:42
Speaker 4: in their best interest. And what we have to avoid
38:44
Speaker 4: is we have to avoid a situation where they think
38:46
Speaker 4: stockpiling nuclear weapons and acting, um, erratically, uh, is in
38:51
Speaker 4: their best interest and the best way to show them
38:53
Speaker 4: that it's in their best interest to, uh, to scale
38:56
Speaker 4: down and possibly give up some of these weapons is
38:58
Speaker 4: to engage with them and say, look, what's it going
38:59
Speaker 4: to take?
39:00
Speaker 3: Uh, you know, right.
39:02
Speaker 4: Because right now, unfortunately, some of them think if I
39:04
Speaker 4: don't have these weapons, the U S would come in and, um,
39:06
Speaker 4: oust me tomorrow. Uh, and you know, if that's the
39:09
Speaker 4: situation they're in, then it gets more dangerous.
39:12
Speaker 1: Last question.
39:13
Speaker 2: Um, The New York Times wrote a piece suggesting you
39:16
Speaker 2: are too nice to be president or to run for president.
39:18
Speaker 2: So I was hoping you would roast me or somebody
39:21
Speaker 2: in the room. Just say something really shitty. Pick your poison.
39:24
Speaker 2: There's like eight people over there you could, you can
39:28
Speaker 2: go for.
39:28
Speaker 3: I don't like the look of that one. Um, no,
39:33
Speaker 3: what do you, what do you make of it?
39:34
Speaker 2: What do you make of a political process? So cynical
39:36
Speaker 2: that someone could be, could be too nice to run
39:39
Speaker 2: for president.
39:40
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I appreciated the headline. I was like, wow,
39:43
Speaker 3: I'm a nice guy.
39:44
Speaker 4: Um, because the, the, the approach that I have to
39:48
Speaker 4: the campaign is, and in life is just like, we
39:50
Speaker 4: have to solve the problems that are, that are, um, uh,
39:54
Speaker 4: making people's lives, uh, miserable. And in this case had
39:57
Speaker 4: threatened to tear us apart. Um, and so I don't
40:01
Speaker 4: particularly like to demonize people because I don't find it
40:03
Speaker 4: to be helpful or productive. Um, but no one runs
40:06
Speaker 4: for president unless they have a deep, uh, fighting spirit,
40:10
Speaker 4: I would say. And you've been on the trail, you
40:12
Speaker 4: know what I mean? Like you have to go out
40:13
Speaker 4: there and make the case, um, every day. Plus, I
40:16
Speaker 4: think I'm a bigger asshole than that particular journalist thought.
40:20
Speaker 3: Okay.
40:21
Speaker 4: So it's like, I'd love for them to, like, if
40:23
Speaker 4: they just saw me, you know, like in other circumstances,
40:27
Speaker 4: they might be like, I take it back.
40:29
Speaker 3: All right.
40:31
Speaker 2: Well, we'll find a chance to correct them. Andrew Gang,
40:34
Speaker 2: thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate
40:36
Speaker 2: you taking the time.
40:36
Speaker 3: Oh, thank you for the opportunity, Tommy.
40:38
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.