Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 5, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

56:37

Is The Left Creating A New Agenda? | Ep. 574

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	New calls emerge for Republicans to abandon their party, Tom Perez says the wave of the future is socialism, and Supreme Court talk gets even dumber.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Well, believe it or not, even though it's the day after Independence Day, there's still a lot of news going on.
	I know everybody's groggy.
	I know everybody's just getting back to work and everybody's depressed about it, but don't worry.
	We'll get through it together.
	First, I have to remind you that this August, I'm taking The Ben Shapiro Show live to audiences in Dallas and Phoenix.
	You'll be able to see me in person and join in an audience Q&A.
	Tickets are going fast.
	We're nearly sold out in Dallas and we are approaching near sold out in Phoenix.
	Visit dailywire.com slash events to get your seats and additional info.
	So go check that out.
	Dailywire.com slash events.
	I look forward to seeing you there.
	It should be a blast.
	We have all sorts of fun and games planned for you, so check that out.
	Also, before we begin, I want to remind you that it is time for you to make sure that all of your most precious memories are preserved.
	Like, this is an actual advertiser that I think is vital to your life.
	Like, this is actually a vital thing to your life.
	As you get older, as time goes by, you have all these memories.
	But most of them are in your garage, and they are moldering in your garage.
	It's all these old tapes that you had from when you were a kid, and your parents handed down to you, or your grandparents have tapes about your parents.
	And all these things are just sitting out there doing nothing.
	And you don't know what to do with them.
	Well, now you know what to do with them.
	That's what Legacy Box is for.
	It's a simple, affordable way to get your recorded moments digitally preserved on DVD or thumb drive.
	So here's how it works.
	You load Legacy Box with your old tapes, film, pictures, audio recordings, and then you send it back, and you'll get them back in a couple of weeks on DVD or a convenient thumb drive, ready to watch, Share and relive.
	Legacy Box takes care of every step of the process and they provide updates at every step of the process as well.
	We've used it in the Shapiro household.
	I used it for some of my old family tapes.
	My parents are using it as well for some of the old reels that they have from their parents.
	Go check it out.
	It is amazing.
	LegacyBox.com.
	When you go to LegacyBox.com slash Ben and enter my code Ben, you get a 40% discount on your order.
	When you enter that promo code Ben, LegacyBox.com slash Ben, you get a 40% discount on your order.
	The price is already affordable.
	This makes it a particularly good deal.
	Legacybox.com slash Ben.
	That's Legacybox.com slash Ben.
	Go check it out right now.
	It really is a vital thing, and it's gonna make your life a lot better.
	Plus, if there's a fire, you don't have to worry about carrying out seven stacks of crap.
	Instead, you just have a USB drive that you can grab and run.
	So check it out.
	Legacybox.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so.
	On July 4th, it's time for all Americans to come together in scaling the Statue of Liberty and making fools of themselves.
	So, the left has decided that everything is political, up to and including Independence Day itself.
	July 4th is a time for political protest.
	We now know that a vast majority of Democrats are not extremely proud of their country.
	This led Brit Hume of Fox News to tweet out that Democrats don't love their country.
	I think that's a little much.
	I think Brit Hume deleted the tweet because it was a little much as well.
	There's no question that the inherent patriotism of Democrats is very different from the inherent patriotism of Republicans.
	We discussed this a little bit earlier in the week.
	The idea that for Democrats, they're only proud of their country when their country is doing stuff that Democrats like.
	For Republicans, they are proud of their country because of the foundational principles upon which the country stands.
	And so the president can change, but those foundational principles never do.
	And that means that you're proud of your country, whether Obama is president or whether Donald Trump is president.
	And indeed, that's what the Gallup polls show.
	They show that over 70% of Republicans were proud of America when Obama was president, and over 70% of Republicans are proud of America when Trump is president.
	When Obama was president, by contrast, 56% of Democrats were proud of America.
	That has now dropped all the way down to the low 30s, like 32% of Democrats are proud of the United States.
	That means that it's time to virtue signal on July 4th.
	It's time to talk about why Donald Trump is ruining July 4th.
	He's ruining America.
	The most obvious example of this sort of tomfoolery happened Yesterday, when a woman tried to scale the Statue of Liberty.
	Now, this is just asinine.
	It's just bad tactics.
	The reason it's bad tactics is because they had to then evacuate all of Liberty Island.
	They actually had to evacuate the entire island because this dolt decided to go up there and protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
	At the Statue of Liberty.
	There's certain irony to that, given the fact that the Statue of Liberty, right, is inherently tied with immigration, and that everyone who was legally going through the system was doing so by, you know, following the Statue of Liberty, and then going over to Ellis Island, where they would then be integrated into the American system legally.
	It was not that there was no ICE back in the day.
	There was ICE's equivalent, right, there were Actual law enforcement mechanisms in place to vet people who are entering the country when they were entering the country, particularly in the early 20th century.
	In any case, this lady hates ice.
	And so she gets up on the on the foot of the of the Statue of Liberty with a giant sign that says abolish ice.
	So here's a little bit of tape of that.
	I will narrate it for you.
	So here is here's the lady.
	She's climbing around.
	She's sitting there.
	She's waving, carrying up a shirt that says that she wants to abolish ice.
	And and then eventually the cops get up there.
	And they take her away.
	She's just a delight.
	You know, crawling around up there for the media attention.
	Finally, here come the cops.
	They hook themselves up to ropes on their day off, and they go up there, and they grab her, and then they bring her down.
	So, just brilliant stuff.
	It's very important that Liberty Island had to be evacuated.
	People's entire Independence Day had to be ruined because one idiot decided that she was going to climb up there with some of her friends.
	She spent nearly two hours on the base of the statue.
	At times, she sat under Lady Liberty's foot.
	She claimed she refused to come down at all until all the children had been released.
	She failed because they have not been released and she is still in jail right now.
	She also waved a t-shirt reading, Trump makes us sick and rise and resist.
	And then finally after being nabbed by police, she relented and came down from her dangerous perch.
	The reason this is foolish is because anybody who's watching this thinks, I may agree with you, but why are you getting, you know, 3,000 people kicked off Liberty Island because you decided to pose?
	Why was that an important thing to do?
	Plus, the radicalism of Democrats who are now embracing the abolish ICE position is pretty insane.
	They're not actually suggesting a replacement.
	They're not suggesting that ICE should be reassessed and that it should be put again under the Department of Justice.
	Remember that Immigration Enforcement, Border Patrol, all this stuff was under the auspices of the Department of Justice, not under the Department of Homeland Security until after 9-11.
	Before that, it was under the DOJ.
	I have a good sense that Democrats would not be fond of the idea of taking ICE and putting it under the auspices of Jeff Sessions.
	I have a feeling that they don't want Jeff Sessions to determine border policy.
	But to be clear, this is a 70-30 issue.
	Most Americans do not want to abolish ICE.
	Most Americans want the borders enforced.
	President Trump knows that.
	And President Trump is saying so.
	He says, listen, we're not abandoning ICE, guys.
	I mean, this is not a thing that's happening.
	I hear Democrats saying, we want to abandon ICE.
	We want to abandon.
	We're not abandoning ICE.
	And we're not abandoning our law enforcement.
	Just the opposite.
	Okay, and this is actually a popular issue for President Trump.
	It always was a popular issue for President Trump.
	The left is misconstruing things.
	Just because people don't like the policy of separating parents from children at the border does not mean that they don't want the border enforced at all.
	And it is so like the reactionary nature of the times that the left has decided this means that no border enforcement should be the replacement for border enforcement that they don't like.
	Also, the utter kind of asinine reactionary nature of some members of the left is coming out in spades now.
	Kamala Harris, who is the senator from my state of California and is a full-fledged adult, she tweeted out a reminder this 4th of July.
	It was eight immigrants who signed the Declaration of Independence.
	Happy Independence Day!
	Well, no, that's not right, actually.
	It was 56 British citizens who signed the Declaration of Independence.
	It was 48 people who were born in the United States.
	There were 56 people, not 8.
	It was 48 people from the United States who were born in, you know, what existed prior to the United States, in the British colonies in America.
	48 of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were born here, and then 8 of them were born in Great Britain.
	I think it was 4 were born in England, and 2 were born in Wales, I believe, and 2 were born in Scotland, 1 was born in Wales, 1 was born in Northern Ireland, 2 were born in Ireland itself.
	So that's the 8.
	So Kamala Harris, giant fail once again.
	But all of this is just about trying to pretend that America was built by quote-unquote immigrants or illegal immigrants.
	Like, listen, I'm a very pro-immigration person.
	So none of that makes any sense.
	So Kamala Harris, giant fail once again.
	But all of this is just about trying to pretend that America was built by, quote unquote, immigrants or illegal immigrants.
	Like, listen, I'm a very pro-immigration person.
	America was built by British citizens.
	Okay, really, America was built by British citizens in the inception.
	And then over time, it was built by a lot of people, including many immigrants who came over across the centuries.
	So the answer is both.
	If you consider American colonists to be immigrants, I suppose that America was built by immigrants, but all of the founders were British citizens.
	So there's a bit of an odd argument to be making.
	Meanwhile, the ire against the right has driven some people absolutely out of their mind.
	One of those people, obviously, So Max Boot wrote a piece yesterday in the pages of the Washington Post called, This is echoing George Will.
	George Will, the syndicated columnist, who has said that Republicans should no longer hold office because Republicans are just too Well, Max Boot goes even further.
	He says the entire Republican Party is now similar to Japanese fascism or Nazism, because this is where we have to go.
	He tweeted that out yesterday.
	He said like Japan after Japanese fascism or Germany after Nazism, the country has to be cleansed of sort of the stain of Republicanism.
	Which is a weird thing to say.
	So here is what Max Boot writes.
	And this is, you know, this is sad because the reality is that Max Boot is a guy who's written some really good stuff in the past, right?
	I like Max Boot's work on war.
	He's written several very good books.
	I've recommended some on the program, actually.
	But there's a certain cadre of people who consider themselves conservative who really have been driven mad by President Trump.
	I'm somebody who didn't vote for President Trump, but that didn't change the fact that when President Trump does conservative things, I cheer.
	And he's the President of the United States.
	And he's governed a lot more conservatively than anyone could possibly have expected.
	He's governed more conservatively than pretty much anybody in my lifetime.
	So the idea that President Trump is now representative of an evil, brutal, terrible Republican Party It doesn't make any sense to me.
	Max Boot, however, has been apparently just driven nuts by this.
	He says, should I stay or should I go now?
	That question posed by the eminent political philosophers known as the clash is one that confronts any Republican with a glimmer of conscience.
	You used to belong to a conservative party with a white nationalist fringe.
	Now it's a white nationalist party with a conservative fringe.
	If you're part of that fringe, what should you do?
	First of all, that's insane.
	In what world is the Republican Party a white nationalist party with a conservative fringe?
	How exactly are you coming up with that as an answer?
	I mean, I talked about during the election cycle how I hated the fact that President Trump sort of winked and nodded at the alt-right.
	But now he's kicked out Steve Bannon, the alt-right are persona non grata inside the Trump administration, and the fact is that this is a conservatively governing party.
	Trump himself is actually a rather peripheral figure when it comes to the Republican Party itself.
	He's important in the sense that people have to negotiate with him, but to identify Donald Trump as the root and branch of the entire Republican Party is to ignore the fact that there are elected Republicans in majorities in the Senate, in the House, in a majority of state legislatures, in governor seats in a majority of states.
	I just don't understand this argument that this is now a white nationalist party.
	It just doesn't make any sense to me.
	It's clearly not a white nationalist party.
	This is just factually false.
	It's a conservative party, and if you want to say that there's a white nationalist fringe, I would say that even that is a little bit exaggerated.
	At least you can make the argument for that.
	Say it's a white nationalist party.
	It seems to me fully crazy.
	He says veteran strategist Steve Schmidt, who ran John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, is the latest Republican to say no more.
	Recently, he issued an anguished Twitter post.
	29 years and nine months ago, I registered to vote and become a member of the Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life, he wrote.
	Today, I renounce my membership in the Republican Party.
	It is fully the party of Trump.
	And he talks about how George Will, Gordon Humphrey, Joe Scarborough, Peter Wehner, and other Republicans have left the party and he says he is now re-registered as an independent.
	He says, I noticed that, he said, I noted that Trumpkins want to transform the GOP into a European-style nationalist party that opposes cuts in entitlement programs, believes in deportation of undocumented immigrants, white identity politics, protectionism and isolationism, backed by hyper-macho threats to bomb the living daylights out of anyone who messes with us.
	I still hope then that traditional conservatives might eventually prevail, but I wrote, I can no longer support a party that doesn't know what it stands for, and that in fact may stand for positions that I find repugnant.
	Now, many of the things Trump has said, I am not a fan of.
	When it comes to the transformation of the GOP into a European-style nationalist party, I've said the same thing, that this is a concern for me.
	But Trump has not governed that way.
	The Trump administration has not governed in that manner.
	They just haven't.
	The only evidence I'm seeing of a European-style quote-unquote nationalist party is with regard to Trump's tariff policy.
	But otherwise, Trump has not become an isolationist.
	Trump has not actually attempted to grow government radically in size and scope.
	The main policy agenda that he's driven, domestically speaking, has been regulation cutting and tax cuts.
	I'm not sure where you get all of this.
	I'm going to explain a little bit more why Max Boot is off the rails in just a second.
	But first, I want to talk about your air filters.
	Now, I know, I know, I know it isn't the sexiest stuff to talk about your air filters.
	You don't sit around at night thinking, man, my air filters.
	But that's probably the reason why you're breathing in gunk every day.
	Your air filters are not just a necessary component of your life.
	They actually make your life a lot better.
	And by the way, a lot more energy efficient if you have the right air filters.
	Well, that is why you need to talk to my friends over at filterbuy.com.
	According to the Department of Energy, the most expensive utility for most Americans is their electricity bill.
	It makes up roughly 9% of their annual housing expenditure.
	And that number is aggravated depending on where you live.
	If you live in California, for example, you are getting clobbered on your energy bills because it's hot out all the time, and you got your air conditioner on all the time.
	And adding insult to injury, this allergy season has been pretty bad, further straining your system.
	This is why you need to go over to Filter Buy, America's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses.
	They carry over 600 sizes, and if you are one of those difficult people, they can even make custom filters directly for you, and they ship free within 24 hours.
	They're manufactured right here in the United States, so there's no excuse.
	Set up auto delivery, and that makes things a lot easier, because then you never have to think about filters again.
	They just show up.
	when they are scheduled to show up.
	And you save 5%.
	Additionally, it extends the life of your system.
	You don't need a busted age fact.
	That could cost you thousands of bucks.
	So don't do that.
	Instead, go over to filterby.com, filterby.com, filterby.com, tell them Ben sent you.
	We use it here at the Daily Wire offices.
	I use it at my home as well.
	Filterby.com, go check it out.
	Okay, so Max Boot in the Washington Post, he says that Republicans ought to think about leaving the Republican Party despite the fact that the Republican Party is currently more conservative than it has been any time in my lifetime in terms of its governance.
	It could be more conservative.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I'm not supremely happy with all aspects of how the Republicans have governed.
	They haven't taken on entitlement reform.
	My understanding is they're going to take on welfare reform, which is something that is deeply necessary.
	But to pretend that this is a party of quote-unquote white nationalism, of deep immorality.
	Again, when Trump says stuff that's immoral, I'm happy to say that I think it's immoral.
	And when I say I'm happy to say, I mean, I'm willing to say that it's immoral.
	I think it is important to say that it is immoral when people do immoral things.
	But to pretend the entire party is immoral because of President Trump seems to me utterly asinine.
	To pretend everything Trump does is tainted by the touch of Trump is similarly asinine.
	Now, I guess the counter argument to this is that if you believe that Trump really is the death of the Republican Party, then everything good that he does contributes to his success, which contributes to the death of the Republican Party.
	I don't see it that way.
	I really don't think that that's accurate.
	I think that the good stuff that President Trump does is good stuff that President Trump does, but this is why it's necessary when President Trump commits heresies for us to sound out on that, for us to spout off and say, listen, that's wrong.
	Because if we don't, then it is true that Trump will have hijacked the Republican Party in every sense.
	But I don't think that we have to take the bad along with the good.
	I think that we can say this is really good and a lot of stuff has been really good.
	Max Boot says, I'm more convinced than ever I made the right decision.
	The transformation I feared has taken place.
	Just look at the reaction to President Trump's barbarous policy of taking children away from their parents as punishment for the misdemeanor offense of illegally entering the country.
	That's not what happened.
	There was a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that mandates that when you arrest somebody at the border, you have to remove their children from them.
	That is just the reality.
	But Max Boot suggests that he has thrown up his hands in despair at the debased state of the GOP.
	I don't want to be identified with the party of the child snatchers.
	And then he says that these people are political ostriches.
	He says, when I can't respect our head-in-the-sand conservatives who continue to support the GOP by pretending that nothing has changed.
	He says, like post-war Germany and Japan, the Republican Party must be destroyed before it can be rebuilt.
	If this is your perspective on the Republican Party, I think that you are missing the fact that the left in this country is incredibly radical, and you are missing the fact that the Republican Party has not, in fact, been completely taken over by every element that has to do with President Trump.
	But this sort of crisis mentality isn't just on the right, it is also extending to the left as well, and it's driving everybody mad.
	Trump's election has driven nearly everybody up a wall.
	So, on the left, the Democrats have decided to move as radical, as humanly possible, as well.
	How do I know?
	Well, let's take, for example, Michael Avenatti.
	Now, you may only know Michael Avenatti as the guy who represents porn star Stormy Daniels, who once had sex with Trump, and now is claiming that Trump threatened her in some way.
	Michael Avenatti is famous for being her lawyer.
	She's the lawyer of a porn star.
	That's his entire credential.
	He now says he wants to run for president of the United States if Donald Trump runs for re-election.
	Michael Avenatti, who has set up a pup tent over at the CNN headquarters, he appears so often.
	He actually has set up a fax machine from the CNN green room just so he can do his minor legal work for Stormy Daniels between sending off press releases about immigrant children.
	He says he wants to run for president.
	Why?
	Because Trump is president.
	I think I'd be qualified because I have three things that this president lacks, Jim.
	Brains, heart, and courage.
	And I think I have those in spades compared to this president.
	Didn't he just say brains, smarts, and courage?
	Is that what he just said?
	Brains, smarts, he has three things.
	Brains, smarts, and courage.
	Brains and smarts are the same thing.
	Brains, heart?
	Okay, brains, heart, and courage.
	I see, okay, so he's like, so now he's like the characters in The Wizard of Oz.
	He's got brains, he's got heart, and he's got courage.
	He's the cowardly lion, he's the scarecrow, and he's the tin man.
	He literally just named the things that people lack, the characters lack in Wizard of Oz.
	Brains, heart, and courage.
	So he went to the lizard, All the way in the wonderful city of Oz.
	And he receives all of those things so he can fight the Wicked Witch of the West, Donald Trump.
	His entire base of credentials is that he represents a porn star.
	That's everything.
	That's the entire thing.
	That he's a lawyer who represents a porn star who stripped the president consensually and then is whining about it after signing a non-disclosure agreement that paid her $130,000, allegedly.
	So yeah, this guy's gonna run for president.
	The left may have lost its way a little bit here.
	Now, there's some folks who are suggesting that I'm giving the left short shrift.
	I'm not giving the left enough credit.
	The left has new ideas.
	It's not just that the left is about identity politics and reaction to Trump, although it seems that they're bases.
	It's not just that the left is ensconced in this view of the United States as deeply nasty and bigoted, and that it's a coalition of the dispossessed, the racially and sexually dispossessed, who are going to come together to swamp the system and destroy the hierarchy.
	That's me just strawmanning them.
	The left is a party of ideas that they've hit upon a new way of doing things.
	And as evidence of this, they have now presented this woman, Ocasio-Cortez, who's first, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	I always forget her name because it's kind of long.
	Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, this minor candidate who beat Joe Crowley in New York.
	This is sort of like if the Republicans had suggested that Dave Brat, defeating Eric Cantor, Dave Brat was now going to run for president of the United States.
	That's basically what the Democrats have done.
	They're so desperate for direction that they now say that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old former bartender with an econ degree, because apparently an econ degree comes along with the belief that everything is free, that she represents the future of the party.
	Tom Perez is the head of the DNC.
	He says that she does, she indeed represents the future of their party.
	My daughters, they were both texting me about their excitement over Alexandria, because she really, she represents the future of our party.
	She ran a spirited campaign.
	Now, I've been saying this for a long time, is that she represents the future of the party.
	That Bernie Sanders represents the future of the party.
	And people have been telling me, apparently on the left, people are upset about this.
	Because they say, well, I'm giving short shrift to Bernie Sanders' ideas.
	I'm not giving short shrift to Bernie Sanders' ideas.
	I'm giving no shrift to Bernie Sanders' ideas.
	They're stupid.
	They've resulted in the destruction of economies all around the world, the destruction of hundreds of millions of lives, the ideas that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is proposing with her brains and her heart and her courage.
	are exactly the same policies that were proposed by Karl Marx 150, 200 years ago, 180 years ago.
	And those policies have resulted in the worst suffering in human history.
	So I'm not sure why I should be giving lengthened shrift just because a good-looking 28-year-old woman from the Bronx is now promulgating these ideas publicly.
	Well, why should they get any more shrift?
	In a second, I want to go through some of those ideas that are supposedly going to be earth shattering.
	These ideas that are going to cure how everyone thinks in the United States and going to make America a better place.
	Because I've been told that she is the future of the Democratic Party.
	I've been told that she is the future of America.
	Indeed, people very excited about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the same people who are excited about Bernie Sanders.
	I said before that the Democratic Party was split along three lines.
	There's the Hillary Clinton establishment, folks.
	There are the people who are the intersectional politicians.
	And then there was the Bernie Sanders wing.
	The intersectional politicians and the Bernie Sanders wing have been in a bit of a battle because the Bernie Sanders wing says socialism overcomes all and the intersectional politics wing says socialism doesn't overcome racism.
	But it seems like the socialistic wing is winning.
	And I'm going to talk about some of their brilliant ideas in just a second because there's an article that directly addresses this.
	First, I want to talk about Skillshare.
	So, in today's economy, You're not going to be at the same job that you are at right now for the next 30 years.
	It's just not going to happen.
	You need to be constantly making your resume better.
	You need to be constantly making your resume stronger and bringing more skills to bear.
	This is why Skillshare exists.
	It's an online learning platform with over 20,000 classes in business, design, technology, and more.
	You can take classes in social media marketing, illustration, data science, mobile photography, creative writing.
	You name it, they've got it.
	And whether you're trying to deepen your professional skill set, or start a side hustle, or just explore that new passion, Skillshare is there to keep you learning and thriving.
	We here at the office have taken a bunch of these classes.
	I have taken classes in not only watercolors, as I have explained to you before, but I've also taken classes in social media marketing as well.
	As well as data science, because I think it's more important to know how my business operates.
	They have classes taught by experts, and all of these are like 45-minute classes, and they are first-rate.
	Much better than anything that you can find on any normal social media site.
	These are classes taught by experts with feedback.
	Go check it out.
	It's two months of Skillshare right now for just $0.99.
	Two months of unlimited access to over 20,000 classes for just $0.99.
	Sign up.
	Go to Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	That's Skillshare.com slash Shapiro to start your two months right now.
	That's $0.99 for two months.
	Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	You're going to love it.
	You're going to want to keep doing it.
	You're going to want to keep making your skill set broader and better.
	That's what Skillshare does.
	Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	Use that slash Shapiro for the special offer.
	Okay, so, there's an article in a place that I'd never heard of, The American Interest, which I guess is a left-wing news magazine, I guess, online.
	It's an article by a guy named Ben Judah, and it says, Here's what it says.
	One of the most exhausting tropes in American conservatism is that the left has no ideas.
	I've lost count of the amount of times I've been informed that all they have to offer is identity politics.
	It is all the more exhausting because it is simply not true.
	Rather than look, conservative think-fluencers have built themselves a straw leftist, an irate, dogmatic, anti-Semitic campus activist with a gender-fluid agenda railing against the patriarchy and campaigning against white privilege.
	But the right's straw left has become something of a comfort blanket, easy to beat up in op-eds and own in stand-up politics acts.
	Okay, so, first of all, that is how it is on campus.
	This irate, dogmatic, anti-Semitic campus activist with the gender-fluid agenda.
	That's basically what's happening on campus.
	And it is still a strong wing of the Democratic Party.
	But, I think that Ben Judah is right to point out that there is the socialist wing of the Democratic Party that has taken prominence when it comes to electoral politics.
	Here's what he says.
	The shock win of 28-year-old socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should be a wake-up call because, whilst the right was feeling smart watching the Ben Shapiro show, Because you are.
	The left, the real left that is, not the confused democratic establishment, has been living through the most dramatic policy renaissance in decades.
	Hint, it has nothing to do with bathrooms.
	Not only is a populist policy platform coming together, but the left has increasingly found the persuasive policy wonks and the campaigners like the Democratic Socialists of America to exert real influence among the ranks of the Democrats.
	I love this.
	It's a dramatic policy renaissance.
	Where are they getting their ideas?
	From FDR.
	Legitimately.
	Like, this is their policy renaissance.
	Their policy renaissance is they're going to go back to FDR's policies during the Great Depression, which lengthened the Great Depression by somewhere around eight years, according to economists at UCLA.
	This is the policy renaissance they're talking about.
	We're going to reinstate policies and expand policies that have bankrupted half of Western Europe.
	So here are some of these ideas.
	Whoever ends up running, says Ben Judah, a federal jobs guarantee is the big idea already set to dominate the Democratic primaries in 2020.
	This simple idea would see the government guarantee a job to 13.1 million Americans who are currently unemployed or underemployed.
	The go-to report on the topic from the Center on Budget Policy Priorities suggests a guaranteed wage which would go with each one of these jobs to the tune of $32,500.
	Okay, well, let's talk a little bit about this.
	So, after reading Ben Judah's stunning piece on the brilliant ideas that I am ignoring, apparently, I actually went and I read the entire Center on Budget and Policy Priorities piece on why we need a federal job guarantee.
	The piece is by Mark Paul, William Darity Jr., and Derek Hamilton.
	And here is what the piece says.
	The piece says that we need full employment brought to you by the permanent establishment of a National Investment Employment Corps.
	The NIEC will provide universal job coverage for all adult Americans.
	The permanent establishment of the NIEC would eliminate involuntary unemployment.
	The elimination of poverty wages through the pay structure of the NIEC.
	First of all, what jobs would they be doing?
	They'd be doing all infrastructure jobs.
	So, does this sound like a new idea to you?
	Infrastructure jobs paid for by the government?
	Hmm.
	It seems to me that every single politician ever has proposed this, including Donald Trump.
	Every one of them.
	Bernie Sanders proposed it.
	Barack Obama proposed it.
	This is what the stimulus package was supposed to do.
	It was a giant fail.
	FDR did this as well.
	Virtually every president talks about the need for infrastructure.
	Let's just hire a million people and go build some roads.
	It turns out those are temporary jobs.
	And then unless you have a plan to keep those people permanently on the government payroll, those people are going to end up doing make work projects.
	It's going to be a tax suck from people who work.
	Two people who are doing jobs that are more useless.
	It is mudslinging jobs.
	It is digging a hole and filling that hole back in.
	That's what all these jobs end up being, or at least a lot of them.
	Okay, so here's what the report continues.
	It would eliminate poverty wages through the pay structure of the NIEC.
	The federal job guarantee would provide a job at a minimum annual wage of $24,600 for full-time workers, poverty line for a family of four, and a minimum hourly wage of $11.83.
	Well, isn't that weird?
	I thought Democrats were calling for a $15 minimum wage.
	I guess now it's only just $11.83 when it's the federal government doing it.
	So the federal government will pay you $12 an hour, but the private sector will have to pay you $15 an hour.
	Is it just me or does that make the private sector somewhat less competitive?
	Hmm, maybe there's another agenda here.
	They say workers would have the opportunity to advance within the program, rising from minimum wage in the program to an estimated mean salary of $32,500.
	The wage would be indexed to the inflation rate to ensure that the purchasing power of enrollees is maintained and the wage will vary to allow for some degree of regional variation.
	The minimum wage rate in the program will also rise to meet the national minimum wage if it were to exceed the wage rate recommended here.
	So that raise, that rate of wage would continue to rise paid for by the government as inflation increases.
	Well, there are a couple of problems with this, okay?
	One of the problems is that taking money and injecting it into the system via government spending immediately creates a certain level of price inflation, which means you're going to have to increase the minimum wage as well that you're paying the members of the government, right?
	These new government workers.
	If you increase prices and everything is indexed to price inflation, not to actual monetary inflation, to price inflation, then this wage will continue to rise and rise and rise, pushing up monetary, pushing up price inflation, and then pushing up And then pushing up the wage that has to be paid for by the federal government.
	This would also include fringe benefits.
	To provide a true non-poverty wage and meet the fundamental rights of American citizens, the policy would include health insurance for all full-time workers in the program.
	So it's not $32,500 a year, it's $43,000 a year that the federal government is going to pay all of these people for make-work programs.
	And then most of the report is a long rant about how great FDR was, even though FDR was basically garbage when it came to the economy.
	My favorite part of this is when they say this.
	They need a true floor in the labor market.
	While minimum and living wage laws have historically been implemented to place a floor in the labor market, they fail to provide viable pathways to employment or out of poverty for those looking for work but unable to obtain employment in the first place.
	The job guarantee would function as a de facto floor in the labor market, greatly increasing the bargaining position of workers throughout the economy.
	What they're saying is that if you can get 12 bucks an hour from the federal government, You're not going to work for $7 an hour or $8 an hour over at the local McDonald's, which is true.
	That also means that it's going to be an increased cost to businesses, private businesses.
	Those private businesses are then going to have to increase their prices to consumers, which is going to create exactly the price inflation that leads to that spiral I was talking about before.
	Beyond that, it is also going to lead to increased costs that is going to lead to layoff of workers.
	Where will those workers go, you ask?
	Oh, they'll go work for the federal employment program.
	Look how magical this is, right?
	You're going to create a higher necessity for wages in the private sector by creating an artificial floor for wages.
	And then when people are laid off, they will then work for the federal government.
	And then when the federal government continues to increase its wages to deal with the price inflation that's happening thanks to its own regulations, then more workers will be laid off.
	Yeah, I can't see how this is going to go wrong in any way.
	This will be great.
	So they say, well, you know, let's use this as a substitute for all these welfare programs.
	They say that this will get rid of a lot of the welfare programs because then people won't have to be on welfare.
	This is sort of like UBI as proposed by Milton Friedman.
	I'm going to explain in a second why I have some problems with this, why this is still a problem.
	And why the program they are maintaining is not exactly the same as UBI, Milton Friedman's Universal Basic Income.
	First, I want to talk a little bit about Puppy Spot.
	So, you want a dog, okay?
	It's time for you to get a dog.
	I have not gotten a dog.
	I've been encouraged by many people to get a dog.
	I have two kids, so I'm a little bit busy, but When my daughter gets older, I am sure that she is going to want a dog.
	I mean, she loves dogs.
	My sister has a dog, and every time the dog comes over, my daughter is on the floor playing with the dog.
	So I think this is in my future.
	Well, the best place to find the perfect puppy is over at Puppyspot.com.
	It's a trusted service connecting the nation's top breeders to caring, responsible individuals and families.
	A puppy joining a home shouldn't feel too big to handle, and that's why Puppy Spot makes it easy.
	It's more than a service.
	Their advocates, their 200-plus dog-loving team members, ensure that only the highest level of licensed breeders enter their exclusive breeder community.
	And you can view thousands of puppies from Golden Retrievers to Yorkies to Labradoodles, and their puppy concierge service will help find the right breed for you.
	And then once you find the pup that you like, then you can relax because Puppy Spot handles the rest.
	Their industry-leading health guarantees mean that your puppy's vaccinations are up-to-date.
	They receive a full nose-to-tail health exam from a licensed vet Before they're brought safely home to you.
	For a limited time, all Ben Shapiro listeners receive access to the Puppy Spot VIP program, which discounts on everything you need for your new puppy.
	From food to walking services, go to Puppyspot.com slash Ben.
	That's Puppyspot.com slash Ben for the special offer.
	Again, all of my listeners receive access to the Puppyspot VIP program.
	Go check it out right now.
	Puppyspot.com slash Ben.
	It's too cute to handle.
	Puppyspot.com slash Ben for this special offer.
	Go check it out.
	Right now.
	Okay, so I want to talk a little bit more about the brand new magical ideas I apparently have been ignoring among leftists.
	But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com.
	So over at dailywire.com for $9.99 a month, you will get the rest of this show.
	When you get the rest of the show, you also get to be part of the mailbag, which we'll be doing tomorrow.
	Ask all of your questions and get all of your answers.
	Plus, you can also go and check out the Michael Knowles show.
	You can also go check out the Andrew Klavan show.
	All of those are available In full, plus the annual subscription gets you this, the very great Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr, refilling daily over here at the Ben Shapiro Show.
	So go check that out as well.
	Also, when you subscribe at YouTube or iTunes, then you can check out our Sunday special, which will arrive automatically for you.
	It is awesome.
	And our latest Sunday special features the great Sam Harris.
	I'm Sam Harris, and I'll be speaking to Ben this weekend on the Ben Shapiro Sunday Special.
	Please tune in.
	And we talk about pretty much everything on that Sunday Special.
	It is pretty awesome.
	So go check that out by subscribing to YouTube or iTunes.
	We are the largest, most conservative, fastest growing podcast in the nation.
	Check it out.
	So there's a difference between this federal jobs guarantee that is being talked about and the universal basic income proposed by Milton Friedman.
	So there are a bunch of people who have proposed this.
	Charles Murray, who's a libertarian, has proposed this.
	Elon Musk has proposed this.
	Zuckerberg has proposed this.
	There are a lot of people suggesting this.
	There are a few problems with a comprehensive universal basic income policy.
	Number one, It would transfer funds away from certain vulnerable people to more rich people because it's universal, right?
	It applies to everyone.
	This is according to Heritage Foundation.
	Social Security and Medicare payments and transfers funds to able-bodied, non-working adults.
	This is according to Heritage Foundation.
	I agree with this analysis.
	They have virtually all policies advocating a guaranteed minimum income.
	Eliminate Social Security and Medicare payments, which means that you are redistributing income from people who are more vulnerable to people who are less vulnerable.
	Also, it increases government spending and the scope of government.
	Current government policy makes a distinction between elderly and disabled.
	Universal basic income does not actually distinguish between the elderly and the disabled who can't work and able-bodied non-elderly adults.
	It could also reduce work, increase recipient dependence, and it could increase pressure for greater redistribution to eliminate income inequality.
	So, you know, there are many problems with UBI.
	This federal jobs program seems to be more specifically problematic.
	The notion that you are just going to be able to pay people for make work programs and this is going to fix everything makes no sense.
	What they are talking about In order to come to this conclusion, they have to say that minimum wage doesn't actually cost jobs, which is false.
	Minimum wage does cost jobs.
	They have to assume that this is not going to cause price inflation, which it undoubtedly will.
	They have to assume also that the costs of the program are not going to be exorbitant, which is a lie.
	The cost of the program will be exorbitant, according to this report that I was referred to by Ben Judah over at the American Interest.
	He says that this is the best report.
	They say that this total annual program cost will be $543 billion, 3% of GDP.
	It will likely be a lot more than that.
	Any talk about how it's going to be less than that or how it's going to be that, anytime you say there's a government program, try doubling it and it's more along the lines of what it's actually going to cost.
	And then they say that, don't worry, we'll be able to cut in certain places.
	Yeah, I am sure that Democrats who are going to propose a federal jobs guarantee I'm sure that that's what's going to happen.
	They're not going to leave any of those things in place.
	Yeah, yeah, sure.
	Okay, so, back to the article.
	What they're really arguing in the end is that money grows on trees.
	Seriously.
	This is literally what they are arguing.
	So according to Ben Judah, he says, By revolutionizing how we think about government spending.
	Not revolutionizing government spending, mind you.
	jobs guarantee would be a new idea.
	But how are you going to pay for that?
	The emerging left has an answer.
	By revolutionizing how we think about government spending, not revolutionizing government spending, mind you.
	By revolutionizing how we think, using our brains, about government spending.
	Here is what Ben Drita writes.
	According to Kelton, money doesn't grow on rich people.
	professor of public poly and economics at Stony Brook University, who advised Bernie Sanders in his 2016 campaign, is mirrored in the rise of, for lifelong cause, modern monetary theory.
	According to Kelton, money doesn't grow on rich people.
	It is, in fact, a product produced by the government, the only limits on which is inflation.
	Kelton is a founding fellow at the Sanders Institute and the latest Bloomberg columnist.
	She's pushing the Democrats to embrace a fiscal revolution, immense deficit spending, because she argues this isn't an automatic trigger for inflation.
	And crucially, the government doesn't have to balance the books for a resource it creates.
	Okay, let me explain to you what this is saying.
	What this is actually saying here is that the government can spend any amount of money that it wants because the government does not have to make up its bonds, the government does not have to tax you, the government doesn't have to do anything, and so long as it doesn't inflate things out of control, it can continue to pour money into the economy in unlimited fashion.
	This is the stupidest idea ever.
	It's legitimately a dumb idea.
	Now, everybody is buying into this idea because it's convenient, but even Paul Krugman, Who's on the left on economics.
	He says that this is idiotic.
	So back in 2011, Paul Krugman, right?
	Not me, Paul Krugman, who's as left on econ as it comes.
	He says, I wish I could agree with this view.
	And it's not a fight I especially want, since the clear and present policy danger is from the deficit peacocks of the right.
	I wish I could agree with this view.
	And it's not a fight I especially want, since the clear and present policy danger is from the deficit peacocks of the right.
	But for the record, this just isn't right.
	The key thing to remember is that current conditions, lots of excess capacity in the economy, a liquidity trap in which short-term government debt carries a roughly zero interest rate, won't always prevail.
	In other words, people are buying American bonds at exorbitant rates.
	Well, that doesn't mean that you actually are going to be able to just pump money into the economy endlessly.
	At a certain point, people are going to realize that we're not paying back their bonds or that we're going to pay back their bonds with inflated debt.
	Or, in the alternative, it is possible that we're going to have to raise taxes dramatically, because at a certain point, people are just going to realize that the money isn't worth anything.
	That if you just are printing out money, like literally going in the back room and just printing out dollars and throwing them into the economy, that those dollars aren't worth anything.
	People are going to start trading currencies in currencies that are not the U.S.' 's currency.
	Now, a lot of people say, well, yeah, but you have to pay your taxes in U.S.
	currency.
	You have to do commerce in the United States in U.S.
	currency.
	Well, if you got a credit card, how easy would it be for the credit card companies to start doing business in another currency, and you only convert the currency at point of transaction?
	It's not that hard for credit card companies to do this, since all money is basically electronic at this point.
	So, their big idea is that the federal government should hire everyone, and that won't hurt anybody.
	It won't drive up the cost of doing business, won't make business more uncompetitive, won't cripple us on the foreign markets, won't do any of those things.
	And it won't be a suck from tax dollars to other people to make work jobs.
	It won't be any of those things, it'll just be great.
	That's an idea that I apparently have not thought about enough, apparently.
	And then, there's also the idea that money is magical, and that the government can just throw it out there, and nothing will happen.
	And you can do this endlessly.
	You can just have the government continue to pump money into the economy.
	Just pump it in.
	Pump it in.
	And eventually, the government can raise interest rates if things get bad enough, or they can tax, but we won't talk about that stuff.
	We won't talk about any of that stuff.
	OK, that's the other idea that apparently I missed when I was talking about owning the libs.
	OK, then finally, there's this idea that is being proposed.
	Are you ready for this one?
	This one is great.
	Government bank accounts for everyone.
	This is going to solve everything.
	In new report, Treasury veterans Morgan Ricks and Lev Menand argue that every American citizen should be given an account at the Federal Reserve.
	Currently a privilege only banks can enjoy, these Fed accounts would revolutionize banking, bringing in the 35.5 million Americans with little to no access inside the financial system and insulating American citizens from the too-big-to-fail curse.
	First of all, how many people actually lost their bank accounts in too-big-to-fail?
	Can we count?
	The answer is approximately zero.
	Very few people in the United States lost actual bank accounts during the too-big-to-fail curse because the banks were bailed out by the government.
	Right?
	The banks were bailed out.
	Now, if you want to put your money with the federal government, and you want to have a low-interest bank account, right, you want to have a very low-interest bank account with a bank that basically just puts your money in a lockbox, you can find those banks, they exist.
	But, if you actually would like to earn a little bit of interest on your money, then you're going to put your money in a bank that actually invests that money.
	What they're really talking about here is sucking money out of, like, they're talking about guaranteeing a certain interest rate from the federal government, undercutting the entire banking system, and then preventing banks from actually having enough capital to go expend it on venture capital and investment.
	Yeah, none of this is going to be— It's all going to be great.
	It's all going to be just great.
	And I love this.
	But the right has no interest in what is being developed at the Sanders Institute.
	Right, because it's stupid.
	Did you not get that part where I said it was dumb?
	Okay, I've gone through these ideas.
	I'm happy to consider them, but I'm going to need some better evidence that they will work.
	So, this guy concludes, he says, there are no killer owns on the Ben Shapiro show for this.
	He says, the right, by beating up a straw left, has not only missed the ferment among their opposites, it has missed how it has opened a door.
	Because by embracing everything about Donald Trump, it has embraced the idea that something is terribly wrong with America, and that the country needs big, beautiful solutions for terrible, awful problems.
	When the right becomes populist, embraces deficits, dunks on free trade, and rails against elites, it suddenly becomes a lot tougher for it to ridicule a populist left that is credibly offering more.
	I agree with that part.
	I agree with that part.
	That's why the United States and Republicans should not embrace big, beautiful solutions because they're really these quote-unquote terrible, awful problems are generally best solved by the free market.
	I'm not a populist.
	I'm not embracing deficits.
	I'm not dunking on free trade.
	This is why I think it's dangerous to play in these waters.
	But when he says there are no killer owns on the Ben Shapiro show for this, we're going to have to have better economic proposals than spend endless amounts of money and then pretend that none of it matters.
	This is the brilliance that I'm apparently ignoring.
	Alright, okay.
	That's the new left.
	Congratulations, guys.
	I guess you got something solid going on here.
	Okay, now.
	The Supreme Court The picks continue to roll in.
	We are now down to three.
	Apparently we are now down to three, and that is Amy Coney Barrett, who is on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	I believe she's from Indiana, because she's a former Notre Dame law professor.
	And then there is Judge Kavanaugh, Brett Kavanaugh from the D.C.
	Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And then there is Kethledge, Judge Kethledge.
	Who I believe is on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, if I'm not messing this up.
	And my order of preference goes Barrett, Keflage, Kavanaugh.
	I think that Kavanaugh is too clever by half.
	Keflage, from what I've seen in his decisions, seems to be quite solid, particularly on the administrative state.
	I don't know where he stands on Roe, because he hasn't really spoken about it.
	But what I've seen of his judicial philosophy looks pretty good to me, and he's written some pretty strong decisions.
	There's some misinformation going out about him right now that I think is false about him being soft on immigration.
	I haven't seen evidence of that.
	Barrett is still my top pick among the three that Trump is considering.
	Mike Lee is the best pick.
	You know how he's going to vote.
	You know who he is.
	I don't see a reason why you should do anything that, like, I don't see the purpose in risking anything.
	Mike Lee is the most solid pick.
	Now, the left is going nuts over all of this because they say that Trump is going to undermine the Supreme Court.
	The stupidest line over the weekend came courtesy of Neil Katyal.
	Apparently, Neil Katyal is, I guess, a Supreme Court lawyer and law professor and former acting solicitor general.
	Here's what he had to say about the Supreme Court pick.
	You know, if you think about our Supreme Court, it's the crown jewel of our democracy.
	It's the one institution that gave us Brown v. Board of Education, the marriage equality cases, and so many other things that have moved this society forward.
	Okay, this is so stupid.
	I cannot even begin to tell you how stupid this is.
	Well, I can, so let's begin.
	The reality is that the Supreme Court is not the crown jewel of our democracy.
	The Supreme Court is a judicial institution.
	A judiciary exists in all parts of the world.
	The judiciary in the United States was not given tremendous power.
	It was, quote unquote, the least dangerous branch, according to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78.
	It was not the Supreme Court that integrated the United States.
	It was the federal government, the federal legislature, through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	Brown v. Board happened in 1954.
	Very little integration actually happened until the federal government got involved.
	Then you want to talk about the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board.
	And how the Supreme Court has made same-sex marriage legal.
	Legislatures all over the country are already moving toward doing that.
	The Supreme Court has been responsible for a lot of awful decisions.
	And to claim that it's the crown jewel of our democracy is just foolishness.
	But this is how the left thinks of the Supreme Court as a sort of magical legislature that does the things they want.
	It's not elected.
	It's lifetime appointments.
	We did not create a system with an oligarchy here.
	The idea that this is an oligarchic system where we should worship at the altar of the Supreme Court is a complete misread.
	Another thing that is a complete misread is the notion that if we leave democracy to the states, then somehow this will be something that will lead to a civil war.
	Jen Rubin, who's just been awful lately, she suggested that if Roe versus Wade were overturned, we would go to 50 civil wars.
	If they're not able to withstand this onslaught, not able to hold back a justice that would reverse Roe, what happens?
	In essence, we go to 50 civil wars in each of the states plus the District of Columbia.
	Well, that'd be 51, number one.
	Number two, if you're going to talk about civil wars, who thinks there's going to be a civil war over abortion in California?
	Anybody?
	Civil war?
	This is the point.
	There won't be a civil war in each state because most of these states have pretty solid views on abortion.
	Ain't gonna be a civil war in Alabama or Texas over abortion.
	Ain't gonna be a civil war in California over abortion.
	Won't be a civil war in New York or Massachusetts over abortion.
	There are very few states where there is not a consolidated view on abortion.
	So actually what you'll end up with is a wide diversity with regard to abortion across the United States.
	So, again, this is an exaggeration, but the left view of the court as the greatest arbiter of liberty, as the great protector of left policy priorities, betrays the fact that they are an anti-democratic party in the end, that this is a party that doesn't care about legislatures and doesn't care about elections.
	Okay, time for some things I like and then some things I hate, and then we'll do a Federalist paper.
	So, things I like.
	Today, there's a great book out by Ian McGilchrist from, I think, 2009, called The Master and His Emissary.
	The basic idea of the book Is that there are two sides to our brain for a reason, that it exists in all mammalian species, this bifurcated brain, and that the brain function of the right hemisphere and the left hemisphere are not equivalent, that basically the right hemisphere is geared toward, if I'm not screwing this up, that the right hemisphere is geared toward coping with chaos and the left hemisphere is geared toward exaggerating chaos, if I'm not mistaken on this.
	I'd have to check it out again.
	But in any case, the book is all about sort of Brain biology, how brain biology has played into the development of the Western world.
	It's a long book, it's like 500 pages of really dense text, but it is really fascinating.
	It's a great kind of Western philosophical history as well, great Western history, as well as a good social science book.
	So go check it out.
	Ian McGill, Chris, the master and his emissary, well worth the read.
	Okay, let's do a couple of things that I hate here.
	So Scarlett Johansson is apparently evil.
	Why is Scarlett Johansson evil?
	Scarlett Johansson is evil because she has now been cast in a movie called Rub and Tug, a film based on the true story of transgender massage parlor owner Dante Tex Gill, according to The Hollywood Reporter and Variety.
	And she is joining this movie.
	She's playing the transgender massage parlor owner.
	Who apparently is a transgender woman in the movie.
	So number one, sounds great.
	Can't wait to see the movie about the transgender massage bar owner running a prostitution ring.
	I think it'll just be spectacular.
	I just can't wait.
	But the part of this that is hilarious is all of these people are very upset because they say that no woman should play a trans woman.
	Only a trans woman should play a trans woman, meaning only a man who believes he is a woman or who has had surgeries to prove the point, only that sort of person should play a trans woman on screen.
	Because it would be like having a white person play a black person on screen.
	Okay, there's only a couple of problems with this.
	Problem number one is that you should then presumably be okay with having a biological man play a trans woman on screen.
	So, like, Eddie Redmayne was nominated for an Oscar for playing a trans woman on screen.
	And there were some similar screams about it.
	Like, Jeffrey Tambor has been nominated, I think he's won, a couple of Emmys for playing a transgender woman on screen.
	And there's been some screaming about that.
	Why can't we have a trans woman playing a trans woman?
	Well, either the trans woman is a biological man or a biological woman.
	You're going to have to pick.
	If the trans woman is a woman.
	Because I've heard this, right?
	We keep hearing trans women are women.
	Trans women are women.
	Now, there's two ways to read that sentence.
	Trans women are women.
	One is that trans women are a subset of women.
	In other words, they're not actually women, right?
	They're kind of distinct from women, but they are also in the category of women.
	And then there is transwomen are women, as in they are equivalent.
	Transwomen equals women.
	Well, if that's an equal sign, then women are also transwomen.
	Hmm.
	Because that way, women and transwomen are exactly the same in every way.
	I've heard.
	This is what I've been told.
	So I see no problem.
	Either transwomen should be played by biological men or they should be played by biological women.
	But the idea that they have to be played by biological men who have cut off parts to more closely resemble biological women is silly.
	Right?
	Because the fact is that if we are really going to get specific about this, this is not like a white man dressing up as a black man.
	This is like a white man dressing up as a white woman.
	Because that's actually what trans women are doing, physically speaking.
	Okay?
	Forget about whether they think that what they're doing is a reflection of their genuine identity.
	From an objective level, if you were just an alien, you came down from outer space, and you looked at a trans woman, what you'd be seeing is a man dressing up as a woman, or having surgeries to more look like a woman.
	That's what Hollywood does all the time.
	So now I'm confused.
	Also, if you're a transgender woman, I assume that there are transgender women who want to look more like women.
	Wouldn't you be flattered that Hollywood is now casting very good-looking women like Scarlett Johansson as trans women?
	None of this makes any sense.
	Scarlett Johansson responded exactly correctly.
	She said, tell them they can be directed to Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto, and Felicity Huffman's reps for comment.
	Good.
	Good for her.
	That's about right.
	But all these people on the left say, no, this is just terrible.
	Charlotte Clymer says, yeah, I'm going to avoid Scarlett Johansson movies moving forward after her response, even if this topic were complex.
	And it's not.
	Trans people should play trans people.
	Flippantly dismissing concerns over this new role really says a lot about her views regarding trans people.
	This is just ridiculous.
	I'm sorry.
	The whole thing is ridiculous.
	But that's where we have come.
	That's how far we've come in society.
	We are through the looking glass.
	Okay.
	In other ridiculous stuff, Elizabeth Brunink, who is the socialist columnist for the Washington Post, or at least a big socialist advocate at the Washington Post.
	There are a couple of them.
	She has a column today called, And she makes the case that we shouldn't pay attention to the fact that Bernie Sanders has three houses, or the fact that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grew up in a relatively wealthy suburb of New York.
	She says, It doesn't matter how comparatively humble your background is or how relatively modest your means in the context of a political class at large, it'll always be news if Bernie Sanders wears a $700 coat or buys a house by a lake because his political position on inequality is so obviously moral that the only way to impeach it is to make him seem dishonest about it.
	Right?
	That's why I'm attacking Bernie Sanders.
	Right?
	Because his position is so obviously... it's so obviously moral.
	That's my only attack on him is that he's a hypocrite.
	Now, in the past, I've made the argument that hypocrisy is not the worst thing in the world.
	That upholding a moral standard, even if you yourself are unable to meet that standard, does not undercut the moral standard.
	So, if she's making the argument that just because Bernie Sanders owns three houses doesn't mean he's wrong about the economy, That's a perfectly fair argument.
	But if she's arguing that he's not actually a hypocrite, that's another thing.
	Right?
	He is a hypocrite.
	And by the way, the underlying argument that I'm making about Bernie Sanders' hypocrisy is that Bernie Sanders doesn't even want to live like that.
	Bernie Sanders' own standard does not meet the standard that he is espousing, not just in terms of, here's my standard and I admit I don't live up to it.
	Bernie Sanders will not admit that he doesn't live up to it.
	Bernie Sanders won't say, listen, I am a socialist through and through, but I personally can't live up to that standard because I really like my lake house, right?
	Bernie Sanders won't admit that.
	There are people on the right who will admit this sort of thing, right?
	There are people on the right who say, listen, pornography is bad.
	I really think I ought to live up to it, but I just have not been able to overcome my own pornography addiction, right?
	There are people on the right who will say that.
	There are people on the right who will say adultery is bad, right?
	Divorce is bad.
	But I in my own life was not able to live up to that standard, and that's tragic.
	That's bad.
	Would you ever get that statement from Bernie Sanders?
	Would he ever say it's tragic that he owns three houses, including a lake house?
	Of course not.
	He's never going to say that.
	So, that is actual hypocrisy.
	It is not hypocrisy to say that there is a standard you can't live up to that is the actual standard that you ought to meet.
	It is hypocrisy to say, this standard should apply to everyone else on earth, but it shouldn't apply to me because I am special and I am the chosen one.
	But that's exactly what Bernie Sanders does.
	I love all of this.
	So, Elizabeth Bernie concludes by saying, Conservatives will continue to skewer as hypocritical anyone who takes exception to the unfair anti-egalitarian system outlined above by fighting for equality, even if they come from inequality's better side.
	They will do this to the detriment of anyone on its worse side, and for that reason should be ignored.
	So we should just ignore everybody who points out that Bernie Sanders has three houses, or that Elizabeth Bruning pulls down a rich salary from the Washington Post, half of which she is not donating to the poor, I assume.
	You know, again, the question is not whether you are living up to the standard.
	The question is whether you are sad that you are not living up to the standard.
	If the standard is the standard, then presumably you should try to live up to it at the very least.
	You shouldn't walk around and be praised for not living up to the standard.
	Okay, time for a quick Federalist paper.
	So, earlier in the week we missed it, which is a bad week to miss it, because it's Independence Day weekend, week, so we really should have covered Federalist 35 earlier, but we'll do it today.
	So, Federalist 35, every week we go through a Federalist paper.
	Alexander Hamilton is still trying to make the cases saying that the federal government should not be explicitly limited in the kind of taxes that it can use.
	So everyone understood that the federal government could not charge direct income taxes.
	That's why there's an amendment to the Constitution allowing the income tax.
	But there are a variety of other taxes that they were allowed to use, and there are arguments that perhaps the federal government should be explicitly told what kind of taxes it could use.
	So, for example, they could only use tariffs.
	In the course of making the argument that the federal government should have access to a bunch of different kinds of taxes, Alexander Hamilton makes a really interesting case against tariffs.
	He says we shouldn't use tariffs only as tax-increasing instruments.
	He says, quote, and Donald Trump should read this, Exorbitant duties on imported articles would beget a general spirit of smuggling, which is always prejudicial to the fair trader and eventually to the revenue itself.
	They tend to render other classes of the community tributary an improper degree to the manufacturing classes, to whom they give a premature monopoly of the markets.
	So now he's made two arguments against tariffs.
	One is that people will smuggle.
	Two is that you're benefiting certain people at the expense of other people.
	All of this is true.
	Hamilton says, So now he's saying that it benefits less qualified industries rather than more qualified industries.
	Again, which is true.
	So now he's saying that it benefits less qualified industries rather than more qualified industries, again, which is true.
	And in the last place, they oppressed the merchant who's obliged to pay them himself without any retribution from the consumer.
	So he's saying in order to keep competitive, merchants still have to take the hit.
	Okay, so Alexander Hamilton, not a tariff fan because Alexander Hamilton understood basic economics.
	Okay, and then he goes on in Federalist 35 to discuss a Marxist idea, this is actually a proto-Marxist idea, that instead of having a legislature that is represented by people at large, instead we should separate it by industry.
	We should have, like, the merchants' block, and then we should have the bankers' block, and we should have the property owners' block.
	And here is what Alexander Hamilton says about this silly idea.
	He says, the idea of an actual representation of all the classes of the people by persons of each class is altogether visionary.
	Unless it were expressly provided in the Constitution that each different occupation should send one or more members, the thing would never take place in practice.
	So you're saying you'd have to limit people to voting inside their industry because otherwise, people in manufacturing might want to vote for a priest.
	Because why not?
	Right?
	I mean, we want to vote for people who are not in our— I don't only want to vote for political pundits.
	It says, it is said to be necessary that all classes of citizens should have some of their own number in the representative body in order that their feelings and interests may be better understood and attended to.
	But we have seen that this will never happen under any arrangement that leaves the votes of the people free.
	So this is Alexander Hamilton directly responding to Elizabeth Bruning, who says that we have to make sure that Bernie Sanders stays in Congress because there are not enough poor people in Congress.
	Right?
	Elizabeth Bruning says that we need to have more people who are poor, but since we won't get more people who are poor, we're going to have to get rich people who apparently are hypocrites.
	And Alexander Hamilton says, Well, actually, you should just elect people you like.
	How's that?
	He says, We have seen this will never happen under any arrangement that leaves the votes of the people free.
	Where this is the case, the representative body, with too few exceptions to have any influence on the spirit of government, will be composed of landholders, merchants, and men of the learned professions.
	But where is the danger that the interests and feelings of the different classes of citizens will not be understood or attended to by these three descriptions of men?
	So you're saying, listen, I understand it's mostly going to be property people who are in Congress.
	It's mostly going to be people who are in commerce, people who have actually studied things.
	But who's to say they won't represent a wide variety of interests?
	In other words, is Alexander Hamilton coming down against the idea of guild representation under Marxism and identity politics of the left?
	Federalist 35, go check it out.
	Okay, we'll be back here tomorrow with all of the latest as we draw ever closer to President Trump's big announcement on the Supreme Court.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Alex Zingaro.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.

▲