All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 11, 2025 - The Ben Shapiro Show
44:21
CIVIL WAR: Red America vs. Blue America; Plus... Fmr. PM Liz Truss Stops By
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, folks.
So I'm not live today, but a few weeks ago I sat down with Liz Truss, the former Prime Minister of the UK, who is unfairly maligned by the media, treated as though she had done something terrible by talking about the necessity for tax cuts and regulatory cuts in Great Britain.
We sat down to talk about the essentially invasion of the West by people who really, really hate the West.
It's a pressing issue for not just Europeans, but for Americans.
Here's what it sounded like.
Well, Liz Truss, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, thanks so much for taking the time.
Really appreciate it.
Great to be here.
So why don't we start with what went wrong in Great Britain?
Kirst Darmer is now the Prime Minister of Great Britain to the shock and despair of many of us.
How exactly did that come about?
Because you had conservative dominance for a period of time, it appeared the Conservative Party moved in a basically leftward direction.
There's a there's a heavy emphasis on things like Green New Deal type things that you would see in the United States, an unwillingness to revise any of the bad fiscal bargains of the past.
How do you arrive at a point in British politics where Kirst Armour and the Labour Party are dominant and you have a rising Reform Party with Nigel Farage and the Tory Party, which had been dominant for well over a decade here, now seems to be kind of fading?
I think a lot of Britain's problems go back many, many years and we've always had a problem with our bureaucracy and the power of the administrative state in Britain.
But Tony Blair made it a whole lot worse in 1997.
He gave more powers to the Bank of England.
He outsourced huge powers to the Human Rights Act, to the judiciary.
He made the judiciary unaccountable.
So what happened under Blair is a massive shift to the left and all of these institutions, whether it's the police, the judiciary, they've been captured by left-wing ideology.
So you see the promotion essentially of Islamism, of the net zero zealotry, of things like pro transgender extremism.
This is all now baked into British institutions.
And the problem for the Conservatives is rather than saying we're going to reverse all that stuff, they said we're the heir to Blair.
We want to copy him.
want to triangulate and we didn't take the steps necessary to get
And this is ultimately why I ran to be Prime Minister in 2022.
I wanted to take on the orthodoxy, the net zero orthodoxy, the Keynesian orthodoxy, the mass migration orthodoxy.
But what I discovered was when I tried to do a package of essentially keeping taxes low, getting on with fracking, controlling government spending, I just faced the most massive barrage.
And it wasn't just the bureaucrats.
It was some people in the Conservative Party that I would call conservatives in name only, but it was also the whole international.
or, you know, Davos elite, the IMF intervened, even Joe Biden criticized my policies.
And what I found out was just how powerful in Britain the system is.
And what we've had is we've had for many years a failing system.
Tony Blair made it a lot worse.
He took the levers out of the hands of politicians.
We failed to turn it around as conservatives.
And the British public hate it.
That's why they voted Brexit in 2016.
They wanted things to change in our country.
They voted again in 2019 for Boris Johnson because he said the things would change.
And they voted again for Kirstalmer, which is kind of last.
ditch attempt.
But the problem is the same people are still in charge of whoever you vote for.
You still have the same governor of the Bank of England.
You still have the same people running the Home Office.
You still have the same people in the police force.
You still have the judges that are unaccountable, making these crazy decisions, like locking up people for posting on X. That is what is going on in our country.
And frankly, I think in 2029, which is when the next election is going to be, people will vote for change and they may well vote for Nigel Farage.
But if he doesn't deal with the bureaucracy, if he doesn't reverse those laws that Tony Blair put in, he is not going to be able to deliver change either because I've seen it on the front line.
You know, you can't deliver massive system change with people who are against you and people who want to undermine you.
And they don't just want to undermine me.
They want to undermine Western civilization.
That's what we're talking about.
And I think this is what Trump has learned from his first administration is you've got to actually take on the Harvards of this world.
You know, you've got to take on the State Department.
You've got to take on the Congressional Budget Office.
All of these people that make up the system are part of the problem.
I mean, I think that your example is such a telling one because when you came into the office when he became prime minister, essentially you were trying to push forward a package of deregulation and tax cuts.
And this ended the financial world apparently.
Everyone went nuts.
The Bank of England suggested that the entire country would no longer be creditworthy.
And that sort of bizarre reaction can only be explained by a desire to maintain the status quo because all of those budgetary issues still exist under Kirst Darmer.
It's not as though the spending has dramatically decreased under Kirst Darmer.
Or as though they're bending the cost curve on the National Health Service or something.
They're not touching any of the underlying dramatic drivers of Britain's national debt and slow growth.
But the minute you say, let's try to unleash the economy through tax cuts and deregulation, they're like, oh my gosh, you've now created a gap between government revenues and government expenditures, and that gap is unsustainable.
It was unsustainable before, it's unsustainable now.
You're just trying to actually change the system to actually get some growth and dynamism in the system, from what I understand.
That is right.
And in fact, after the fact, the Bank of England admitted that two thirds of the rise in bond prices was down to their failure to regulate the pension industry.
So they successfully blamed what was a market jump on me, although they subsequently admitted that it's their fault, but nobody.
in the mainstream media in Britain wants to report that.
In fact, only today, Kirst Armer is attacking Nigel Farage, saying he would implement the same economic policies as me.
So they used me as a kind of bogeyman of what happens when you cut taxes, but of course, my tax cuts weren't allowed to stand.
So the policy was never even tried.
What happened was that some relatively small changes in taxes plus unleashing the supply side as you're talking about, like getting on with fracking were essentially blocked by the economic establishment.
And they didn't just like, they didn't just dislike my policies.
They also dislike the fact that I wanted to make the decisions, rather than them making the decisions.
And this is what I'm saying about Keir Starmer.
Keir Starmer is not coming up with these policies.
These policies are being designed by the Treasury and the Bank of England, and he is going along with what the bureaucracy wants to do.
And because I challenged them, they went for me, and they smeared me, and they lied about me.
And as you rightly say, the taxes were raised, were, were increased after I left office what happened the revenues didn't come in because surprise surprise businesses left britain millionaires left britain people decided not to work the extra hours because the taxes were so high so there's an even bigger gap so if my policies had remained in place there would be a smaller gap between revenue and expenditure because it would have encouraged activity and this is what ronald reagan understood this is what donald trump
understands but the fact is we have a very powerful orthodoxy that's not just in britain it's also there in the congressional budget office that refused to score trump's tax cuts it's there in the i who provide the commentary.
It's their endowment.
So we are fighting against a massive leftist machine and all of these issues are connected because they believe migration is a good thing for the economy.
So they won't let politicians cut migration.
They believe that net zero is good for the economy.
Do you remember when Mark Carney was saying that we're going to get all these green jobs and net zero is going to power the economy?
No, it's not.
The British economy is on its knees.
But what has Mark Carney been rewarded with?
The Prime Ministership of Canada.
So you have all these people circulating, sharing bad ideas, undermining the West and yet.
there's just a circuit of those people getting promoted into ever, ever higher positions.
Feeling overwhelmed by the back taxes?
Well, you're not alone.
Maybe you missed that April deadline or your financial records are still all over the place.
Whatever the situation, don't put it off any longer.
The IRS is not getting any friendlier and those penalties, well, they pile up really quickly.
We're talking five percent every month you don't file, max out at twenty five percent and that adds up quickly.
Here's the thing.
You don't have to handle this alone.
Tax Network USA specializes in exactly these situations.
They've worked with thousands of Americans employees, small business owners, people who haven't filed in years messy books.
They've literally seen it all and they know how to sort it out.
What sets them apart is their direct access to IRS programs that most people don't even know exist.
Plus, they have expert negotiatorsors who actually know how to get results.
They'll start with a free consultation to assess your situation.
If you qualify, they may be able to reduce or even eliminate what you owe.
More importantly, they can protect you from the really scary stuff like wage garnishments and bank levies.
The bottom line, don't wait for that next IRS letter to appear in your mailbox.
The sooner you act, the more options you will have.
Call 800 958 1000 or visit tnusa dot com slash shapiro to talk to a real expert at tax network USA.
Take the pressure off at tax network USA handle your tax issues.
You know, that this kind of sad history of Great Britain over the course of the last several decades, and it really is a sad history because as someone who loves British history, as someone who loves the Anglo American tradition, the decline of Britain, not just from an empire, but toward a sort of second rateness just generally, is truly a tragedy in world history because of the amount of good that the British Empire was capable of spreading and the amount of good that it did historically.
I mean, I know that there are a lot of people out there who want to rip on the British Empire and British imperialism, but let's be real, it was the British Empire that ended world slavery.
It was the British Empire that brought capitalism and free markets to huge swaths of the globe.
It was the British Empire that guaranteed freedom of the seas.
There wouldn't be the United States, Australia or Canada without the British Empire.
Well, I like to say you're our greatest invention.
Yeah, exactly.
We were pretty good if we don't screw it up, right?
As Franklin likes to say.
But it was 1695 that the free press was invented in Britain.
That was before, you know, the United States of America was established.
We came up with these things, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights.
I find it utterly shameful that those ancient liberties which have promoted so much freedom around the world, including, I think, the jewel in the crown, the United States of America, have become, you know, completely bastardised in Britain.
I mean, imagine people being arrested and jailed for a post on X. And typically, this is what is happening.
And typically, a post on X that is deemed anti-Islamic because the post on X will be against a terrorist march in the middle of London or something.
I mean, it really is a.
I mean, literally, somebody was arrested the other day for mocking a terrorist who had been bombed, you know, bombed as part of the Paternity Movement.
For mocking a terrorist, they were arrested.
I mean, how and how and this is not policies that any parliament has passed.
These are policies that have been come up with by so called independent bodies.
So they're not legitimate.
They don't have the authority of the electorate, but they are being imposed on the British people.
The whole concept of a non crime hate incident, which sounds completely Orwellian.
No politician came up with that.
That was invented by the College of Policing, which is a body that is completely unaccountable.
And we just live, we now live in a kind of Orwellian state in Britain where lots of people are worried about what they say.
And this is the whole purpose.
The whole purpose is to cover up what's going on in our country because people know there are massive issues with the grooming gangs of young girls being.
of the authorities not being held to account for that.
They know that our economy is in decline.
They can see steel works closing down because of the environmental policies.
They can see businesses not being able to start up.
And the, you know, the authorities and the establishment don't want people really to know how bad it is.
And that is why they're going for suppressing, distorting, using the mainstream media to try and cover up this stuff.
So you And it won't work.
It won't work.
There will be, and there is, a brewing rebellion against this.
There really is.
And the Lucy Connolly case, you know, people are now coming out and saying she needs to be freed.
She needs to be let out of jail.
So when you look at the sort of the current political dynamics in Great Britain and you look at the Labour Party, which and the policies are bad.
So I assume that they are going to they are just the globalists.ist establishment.
I mean, they're just the Democrats.
They're the same as Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton.
That's what they are.
Right.
There is a support base for them.
It's people that work in the public sector.
It's woke people.
You know, there is a support base for them, but it's not the majority of the country.
And then if you look at the other side of the aisle, do you think that the Tories are capable of reconstitution?
Obviously, they've gotten some new leadership.
I think it's very difficult because I think there are far too many conservative MPs that are conservative in a name only and don't want to take on the establishment.
They don't want to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.
They don't want to challenge the judiciary.
They don't want to challenge the Bank of England.
And I think if unless they are prepared to do that and say, we got it wrong.
for fourteen years.
We got it wrong because we didn't deal with these institutions that have become corrupted.
You know, they are corrupted.
If you look at one of the chief constables recently said they were not going to police some activities by Islamicist terrorists because they were dealing with the local community.
I mean, it's astonishing.
These institutions are being corrupted.
They need to be brought under parliamentary control.
And the Conservative Party is not saying that at the moment.
What should be done about immigration policy?
Obviously, this is sort of the elephant in the room that is really not the elephantphant in the room because everybody in Britain is talking about it.
Everybody is talking about it.
You've got to leave the human, you've got to repeal the Human Rights Act, you've got to change the judiciary so they're actually accountable.
At the moment, we have a Supreme Court that was only invented in 2005.
You know, we had a thousand years of the Lord Chancellor who was a democratically appointed individual deciding who the senior judges were.
Tony Blair changed all that.
He created a Supreme Court.
It's not accountable.
You've got to change all that.
You've got to make sure you've got a proper judiciary making proper decisions.
You've got to get rid of these human rights excuses for allowing to stay in the country because that is what is going on at the moment.
And you just have to say no to more immigration.
And that means taking on the Treasury and the Bank of England because those are the people pursuing the high migration policies because they're saying the only way we're going to keep Britain afloat is not by Britain's having more children, which is obviously what we should be doing.
It's actually by importing more migrants and those people have to be taken on.
So that is what has to happen.
It is kind of amazing how for well over twenty years there's been open talk in Britain about how multiculturalism has failed.
I remember when David Cameron was saying this, he was saying that multiculturalism was not a success.
And yet the importation of migrants from third world countries who hate the West just continued.
This is all part of the absurd idea that that's the way you balance the books.
And that's driven by the Treasury, the Bank of England, all of their people in the media.
They're saying, if you cut migration, the British economy will go bust.
I have news for them.
The British economy is going bust anyway.
It's happening anyway.
If you look at the rates of bonds, the bond price, it's much higher than when I was in office now.
But nobody is creating a fuss about it because they've all bought into this the idea that net zero is going to give you more jobs, that migration is going to make everybody richer.
That's obviously not true, but nobody wants to admit that they've got the last 40 years of policy so deeply wrong.
And this is why the establishment is fighting back so viciously and fought back so viciously against what I said, because it would force them into a massive rethink.
And it's the same, you can see the same thing going on in the United States with the attacks on Donald Trump's economic policies, because people don't want to admit that they got it so badly wrong.
One of the things that just keeps occurring to me every time I look at the news from Britain is something that is true of the United States also and maybe the West more generally, just an incredible shyness about championing what Britain is and what it historically has been.
And so what comes to mind here is when Britain hosted the Olympics and there was an entire display about the NHS, a gigantic display of dancing syringes and such for the National Health Service.
It's like, this is the country that brought the world the Magna Carta, as you mentioned, free speech, parliament, right?
Like, these are all concepts that built the modern world, all of it.
And what they chose to celebrate was a giant welfare system that has many women giving birth in hallways.
And she's like, what was the trade?
here?
And can there be a restoration of a true pride in what Great Britain was and should be in the middle of this bizarre sort of melange of multiculturalism that has taken over London.
The views expressed in the Olympic ceremony are not the views of the average Briton.
The problem is we have an elite that hates Britain and they have done for some time and that is the history of people like Jeremy Corbyn, Kir Starmer.
They want to help the human rights of anyone who doesn't live in Britain, but they're very reticent about actually defending our own interests and we need to be much more, we need to galvanize.
The people who are patriots in our country, but they have been neglected.
They generally don't live in London.
They live in small towns.
They live in rural areas.
They don't have a much of a voice.
And what is happening is the elite are trying to suppress those voices.
So we need a media revolution like you've had in the United States with things like the Daily Wild, with Joe Rogan, all of that actually gets the message across about what people are actually thinking about what's actually going on in our country.
That has to be the start of changing because I know people in Britain do want change.
They voted for Brexit, even though the establishment told them it would be a disaster and it would be terrible for the British economy and, you know, no one would ever speak to us again.
You know, they voted for it because they want change.
The problem has been that when politicians get into office, they get captured by this establishment bureaucracy.
And I know because I tried to go against it that you get pretty harshly punished if you go for it.
So what we've got to do is we've got to learn from Trump.
You know, he had the experience in his first term of having people in his administration that were disloyal.
He had a media that was actively hostile.
And what's happened in between is Project 2025 was built up, alternative media was built up to give the Trump campaign more momentum.
And when he got into office, he had a plan of what to do.
That is exactly what needs to happen in Britain.
And to be honest, the leadership is one part of it, and we can talk for hours about whether it should be reform or the conservatives or a combination of the two.
But there's a hell of a lot of other stuff that needs to happen in our country so that the voices of normal Brits are actually driving the country's policy rather than the Davos elite.
I mean, Kirst Darmer was famously asked, Which do you prefer?
Westminster or the World Economic Forum?
And he chose the World Economic Forum.
I thought it was the most revelatory interview he's ever given, because he just, he said it.
He said it.
He literally is batting for the Davos elite, and that is not what the people of Britain want.
So you mentioned before that question that obviously is coming up a lot right now, the Conservative Party versus the Reform Party.
What is the future of the right in Britain?
Is the Reform Party just kind of cannibalizing a chunk of the Conservative Party or are the two parties together going to be more than the sum of their parts?
What do you think of that question?, which, which, if you're, if you were of the right in Britain, where should you be putting your eggs?
Where should you be putting your pressure?
Where should you be putting your vote?
What's interesting about reform is they are winning areas from Labour now.
So the traditional working class areas, people that are patriots, people who believe in Britain are thoroughly, you know, annoyed with Kirsthama.
So they are voting and supporting the Reform Party.
So it's a different electoral coalition, just like in America, the way that Trump was able to win over bits of the Rust Belt.
The same thing is happening with reform in Britain.
And Boris Johnson to some extent won those people over.
But the problem is.
once he got into office the conservatives didn't deliver the policies because so many conservative MPs are part of the establishment they don't want to be unpopular at dinner parties they don't want to upset their friends who work in the big corporations or the bank of England or are human rights lawyers so they don't want to fight and I think that the winning coalition has to be people in Britain who are prepared to take on that establishment.
I think there's an open question about whether Nigel Farage is actually prepared to do that or, you know, does he just become another David Cameron who goes into office promising all sorts of things and doesn't deliver it.
But the big message I want to get across to the British public is we have a problem, not just with politicians, but with the deep state, with the administrative state, with our establishment.
And those are the people who also need to be challenged.
And, you know, a lot of those institutions need to be dismantled because they're, they're simply not working for Britain.
And what I think has happened over the last ten years is people have now become skeptical of the police.
They've become skeptical of the judiciary.
They've become skeptical because they can see that justice is not being done.
And that's a very dangerous position for a country to be in.
I mean, this does raise a broader sort of European question that we're seeing repeated in a wide variety of countries, which is a party that's to the right of the normally right party that starts to gain an enormous amount of sway, AFD in Germany or National Rally in France.
And then moves that are made by the establishment parties to bar those and even cross the aisle to the far left rather than trying to make any concessions to that right.
Where does the Conservative Party in Britain lie along that spectrum?
I don't think that's so true in Britain because I think the danger is that reform becomes part of the establishment.
That's the British way is to infiltrate and to try and smooth things over and any any incoming Prime Minister, the civil service will say, Oh, yes, Prime Minister, we will get straight to it.
We will act everything you say.
And what you find out is they haven't acted it.
And a week later, nothing's happened.
So that the British approach, I mean, you've probably seen yes, Minister and yes, Prime Minister, is more manipulative than a'right ban'.
So I don't think we'd see a'right ban' of reform.
I think the danger is that these issues that have plagued Britain, certainly since the nineties, but even way back, it goes right back to the 1850s and Northcote Trevelyon, where the permanent bureaucracy was invented.
These issues that have plagued our country for over a century need to be dealt with.
And that's the discussion that I want to see the Conservative Party and the Reform Party having.
They need to get serious about what the problem is in our country, otherwise we're not going to fix it.
And Donald Trump, by talking about the deep state, by talking about the swamp, he started explaining to people what was actually going wrong.
And that discussion hasn't really happened yet in Britain, partly because we have an incredibly supine media that just feeds on leaks from the bureaucracy.
You know, that's where they get all their information from and they're completely part of the cabal.
So what's next for you personally?
Obviously you've been out of government for a little while.
What, what, what do you want to do next?
Well, I'm still very committed to getting the change we need in Britain.
I believe the media is absolutely key.
So I'm working on a new free speech media network to try and bring the type of energy that you're bringing in the United States to the UK and Europe.
I think that's incredibly important.
I think it's important we work with other conservative, other patriots across Europe and America.
That's why I'm here at CPAC, because we all face the same battle against what is a very powerful international network, the Davos elite, the EU, all of these organizations.
We even found out that USAID was funding Tony Blair.
You know, they were funding the Tony Blair Institute.
So, you know, they've been funding a lot of the Soros activity.
So I think it's, I'm interested in how we work together to take these forces on people that believe in freedom of speech, that believe in sovereignty, that believe in the family, that believe in patriotism.
That's where the future lies and that's what I'm working on.
Well, Liz Truss, thank you so much for sta stopping by.
It's been wonderful.
It's great to see you.
I always assumed that restless sleep was inevitable night after night, tossing, turning, waking up with that aching back.
I convinced myself that test sleep was supposed to be.
And honestly, when I'm on the road, like I am right now, I have to say I don't sleep as well.
Why?
Well, because at home I have Helix Sleep and it transformed my sleep quality because they made a mattress just for me at my house.
I easily fall asleep in minutes.
Even when, you know, the family and the news, they would normally keep me awake.
I'm out like a light on that mattress.
What makes Helix different is they don't just sell you a random mattress.
They actually match you with the perfect mattress for your body and sleep style.
Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper or somewhere in between, they have you covered.
They make it so simple to get your best night sleep every night.
Every night, all you have to do is take their sleep quiz and get matched with a custom mattress based on your body type and sleep preferences.
Believe me, when you find the right mattress, they'll wonder how you ever slept on anything else.
Again, I got that firm but breathable mattress.
That's precisely what I need to make sure that my sleep quality is what it needs to be right now.
Helix is offering an incredible deal.
Visit helixleep dot com slash Ben, get 27% offsite wide.
That's helixleep dot com slash Ben for 27% offsite wide.
Make sure you enter our show name after check out so they know we sent you again.
Visit helixleep dot com slash Ben for this exclusive offer.
Okay.
Meanwhile, the controversy around gerrymandering continues over in Texas where Republicans are looking to change the congressional districts, pick up a couple of seats.
In fact, there are new reports that are out right now that Republicans may nationwide look to pick up many up many more seats than that.
There's a reason for that.
I asked our friends over at Comet, which is the new web browser from Perplexity, our sponsors, how many Democratic Congress people are there in states that Donald Trump won in the 2024 election?
How many Republican Congress people are there in states Kamala Harris won in the 2024 election?
And the answer is pretty astonishing.
Actually, there are 67 Democratic House members in states that Donald Trump won.
There are 39 Republican House members in states Kamala Harris won, which means that theoretically, if everybody were to gerryman her to the maximum extent possible, like do a Massachusetts where in Massachusetts, literally all nine congressional districts are Democrat.
That means that Republicans would pick up, by my math, 28 seats in the House if everyone purely gerrymandered along state control lines, right?
I mean, California gerrymandered out all the Republican seats, Texas gerrymandered out all the Democratic seats.
So you can see why Republicans are looking to do what they are doing.
They're saying that they are underrepresented in Congress, and that's kind of true by the electoral map.
That also happens to be true thanks to the terrible 2020 census.
We've talked about this before.
The 2020 census radically undercounted populations in several Republican-inclining states, notably Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
Again, our sponsors at Comet point out Florida was undercounted by about three quarters of a million people.
That's a seat in the Electoral College.
Texas was undercounted by roughly 548,000 to 560,000 people, resulting in the state missing out on at least one additional seat beyond the two that it did receive.
So the sort of best supported estimate is that Republican states should have picked up at least three Electoral College votes in the last election cycle that they did not.
So Republicans are looking at the map and saying, yeah, we are wildly undercounted.
And so you can see why, according to Jake Sherman over at Punch Bowl News, House Republicans are now aiming to pick up a dozen or more House seats.
in an unprecedented Donald Trump backed redistricting drive, looking to head off a democratic wave in the 2026 midterms and cement the president's power.
So Republicans are looking at a possibility of three additional house seats in Florida, five seats in Texas, one in Missouri, one in Indiana, two or three in Ohio.
In Ohio, they have to do a redistricting anyway because state law mandates a redraw ahead of 2026.
Also, the Supreme Court has a high profile Louisiana redistricting case that they have yet to rule upon.
So what does that mean?
I mean, that is a lot of seats.
That is a lot of seats.
So if you add all that up, you're talking about an add addition of twelve to thirteen Republican seats right off the bat, which could be enough to preserve Congress for them.
Now, again, you can see why Republicans would obviously want to do this.
Right now, Republicans have the power to do it.
And, you know, midterm elections typically go badly for the party in power.
Here, for example, was Harry Enton on Friday explaining that right now the congressional generic ballot is looking pretty good for the Democrats.
It seems as though their enthusiasm is up.
And again, that is not unusual when you have the president of the United States of one party and he controls Congress.
It is quite unusual in American politics for that party to do better in the midterm elections rather than worse.
Here is Harry Enton explaining.
So, you know, we're talking about warning signs for the Republican Party.
And I will just say, uh-oh, for them.
That is the phrase of the day.
Uh-oh.
Democrats lead the generic congressional ballot.
And you can see their lead is expanding.
It's becoming bigger.
Look at this in spring.
CNBC, it was two.
Now it's five.
How about Ipsos?
It was one for the Democrats.
Now it's four.
How about the Wall Street Journal?
It was one.
And now it is three.
So now the average lead here is four, which is up from just about a point.
That's about a three-point move on average in the Democrats' direction.
And of course, Kate Paul, when this is coming amidst the fights over redistricting, and I think there's going to be a lot of people wondering, wait a minute, are Republicans wanting to change the lines because they are losing, which they absolutely are on the generic congressional ballot.
At this point, Democrats are winning, Republicans are losing, and maybe they're trying to change the lines in order to give themselves a little bit more wiggle room given what we're seeing, a clear Democratic momentum on the generic congressional ballot.
So you can see why they are doing what they're doing.
Democrats, of course, are freaking out about it as well they should.
According to Punchbowl, Democrats are scrambling to counter this redistricting offensive primarily with a hasty attempt to amend California's constitution.
But Democrats can't come close to matching the potential GOP gains in red states where Trump has those enviable approval ratings and compliant legislatures looking to do his bidding.
So the chair of the DCCC, Susan Delbeny, said, quote, Republicans are running scared.
They know they can't win on the issues.
So they are resorting to rigging the system in a desperate, desperate scheme to save their minuscule majority.
Democrats everywhere are prepared to fight back using every tool at our disposal.
We refuse to play by a different set of rules while Republicans cave to Trump's demands to light the rulebook on fire.
Now, again, that part is ridiculous.
Democrats, if they had the power, would in fact light the rulebook on fire.
The Kathy Hochul in New York who has been complaining about Republican redistricting in Texas, again called an early redistricting in New York just within the last couple of years.
So it's not as though if Democrats gain the power, they're not going to actually use that power.
Now, Punchball points out that a lot of moderates in swing districts are going to get squeezed out of office.
And this is sort of the longer downstream effect of what is happening right here, which is that blue states, if they get bluer, more Republicans will move out.
Red states, as they get redder, more Democrats will move out.
And so the continuing sort of voting with their feet will continue.
You will see red states get redder.
You'll see population movements.
You'll see the gigantic culture gap that has emerged in American life.
continue to grow and grow.
And that is why, you know, silly sort of cultural stories that don't seem to matter very much, they actually kind of matter a lot.
There's a fascinating set of charts from a columnist named John Bern Murdoch, who works for the Financial Times, in which he looks at young adults and how their personalities have been changing over the course of the last few years.
And a large part of that is due to social media and due to memery and due to the fact that they are spending less time with people they disagree with in common contexts.
But polarization and siloing actually does have a pretty significant effect as it turns out.
See, it used to be that if you'd go to a church or a synagogue or anywhere else, common social situation with somebody you disagreed with politically but you recognized that they were a decent human being and you could get along that made for a better social fabric.
Well then we lost trust in one another and our institutions and now we're siloing.
So what does that mean?
It's only going to get worse from here.
I mean, it's a real problem.
That doesn't mean Republicans shouldn't gerrymandering or that this isn't the natural consequence of what is happening.
But if you are predicting the future, it's the polarization is likely to get significantly worse before it gets better at this point.
According to these charts put together by Bern Murdoch, if you look at young adults' personalities, like actual personalities, there's a massive pol change in different personality traits by age group.
So, for example, conscientiousness, which is basically your willingness to take responsibility for your own actions, dutifully doing the thing you're supposed to do, that has declined among people aged 60 plus from maybe 55 percent of people down to about 50 percent of people.
For people aged 40 to 59, it's declined from just above 50 percent to just above 40 percent.
For people aged 16 to 39, it has declined from 45 percent in 2016 to below 30 percent in 2025, which is disastrous.
Conscientiousness is a good thing.
Conscientiousness dictates whether you are going to actually be a productive member of society.
And it's diving in America right now.
You don't feel responsible for other people and you barely feel responsible for yourself.
Neuroticism, which is essentially kind of a worried aspect of mind.
Jordan Peterson talks about this a lot.
Neuroticism.
being a sort of predictor of stress levels, high stress, exploding, particularly among young people.
People 60 plus, basically where they were in 2016.
People who are between 40 and 59 have increased slightly.
People who are 16 to 39 exploded.
Neuroticism went from 60 percent in 2016 to over 70 percent today.
Agreeableness, meaning do you get along with other people or try to get along with other people?
People aged 60, pretty steady.
People who are aged 40 to 59, agreeableness has declined by about 8 to 10 percentage points.
Again, people 16 to 39, it has fallen off a cliff when from the mid forties all the way down to the mid thirty.
So people are less agreeable, more neurotic and significantly less conscientious if they are young.
And meanwhile, for all groups, extroversion has gone down, meaning people are just not associating with each other.
They're not talking.
with one another.
They're not talking with one another.
So that is leading to some pretty terrible behavior as well, like sociopathic behavior that is then treated as normalized by the internet.
And that cuts in, I think, a bunch of different ways, like really a lot of different ways.
In one way, it means that sort of traditional American normalcy is treated as totally crazy because the neurotics treat it as nuts.
A good example being Sidney Sweeney Gate.
Sweeney Gate is now entering week three.
which is totally insane.
It is just a jeans ad with an attractive woman wearing a low-cut jean jacket, essentially.
And this blew up the internet why because agreeableness down because neuroticism up those would be the reasons and apparently the expectation in the media is that American Eagle which is the company that did the ad is supposed to cave to all of the neuroticism good for American Eagle they are not I guess the disagreeableness goes both ways.
American Eagle said on Instagram that the ad campaign quote is and always was about the jeans her jeans her story will continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence their way gray jeans look good on everyone and this of course is taking off some of the usual sort of politically correct sources.
Nathan Miller, founder and CEO of the crisis management firm Miller Inc.
said, quote, The corporate com script is you apologize when you offend people.
Now they do the cost benefit analysis and realize if you do apologize, it's not going to placate the critics and will also promote further ire from those that initially applauded the campaign.
Miller says you're seeing a lot of brands trying to distance themselves from what was previously described as woke culture.
They believe there's a market for those who don't abide by the cultural norms that were previously enforced.
And that's a good thing, right?
Again, that is a good thing that they're not abiding by those norms.
But there have been no replacement norms.
There has been no reversion to traditional norms.
Instead, what you are getting is memory on all sides.
So you're getting the memoryery of the idea that Sidney Sweeney is a Nazi or that people who like her ad or think she's pretty are Nazis.
And then on the right, you're getting what is clearly meme material and is funny, but is also kind of sociopathic behavior.
I mean, both those things can be true.
So, for example, big controversy has now broken out over WNBA games where people are throwing toys on the court.
Now, just by any normal stretch of human behavior, this is a bad thing to do.
You should not go to games and throw toys on the court.
It's obscene.
It's ridiculous.
And no matter how much you dislike WNBA, you probably shouldn't go there and throw a giant on the court, right?
I mean, just as a human, you probably shouldn't do it.
Is it funny?
Sure.
A lot of things are funny.
A lot of violative and transgressive behavior is funny.
Does it mean it's good?
Not really, but the internet culture and subculture has become so reactionary, so reactive and so disagreeable that this thing is now like actually driving economic decision making.
There's an article in the New York Times over the weekend.
WNBA Soy incidents may be linked to cryptocurrency groups' money scheme.
Well, I mean, that reads like a fever dream.
Late in the first half of a LA Sparks Indiana fever game on Tuesday night, a neon green Soy thrown from the stands landed on the floor of crypto dot com arena at the feet of Indiana Guard Sophie Cunningham.
Simultaneously, a group of people during an audio live stream on X reveled in the moment and celebrated its potential to help boost the value of a particular meme coin, a cryptocurrency deriving from an internet meme, but traded through very real markets online.
The coin was created July 28, the day before the first occurrence of soy being thrown on a WNBA court.
As of Thursday, the coin's worth had nearly tripled in its first week.
Someone is tweeting there's one at the Sparks game, one person said on the stream.
That is literally the best case scenario we could possibly imagine, another replied, because the soy had fallen near Cunningham, who had previously posted a ple plea for spectators not to throw the objects onto the court, which was met with numerous replies of memes involving the fallic object.
The disruption in LA appeared to be part of a coordinated effort born out of conversations held in some particularly murky, often mysterious corners of internet culture, social media and opportunistic plays in the cryptocurrency markets.
And in the normal world, all this would be treated as psychopathic or sociopathic behavior, truly.
Like going to games and throwing toys on the court, regardless of how much you dislike the sport, would be considered at the very least bizarre and at the worst kind of vile..
It could be funny.
Sure, a lot of vile behavior is funny, but it just shows it.
A country with a robust social fabric does not have this kind of behavior, or at least it has less of this kind of behavior because you wouldn't do this in your community, would you?
And again, I know I'm treating seriously what is a frivolous topic, but I think that we are now entering with the merger of the internet and the real world, we are now entering a time where there are no more frivolous topics.
Every frivolous topic becomes a an indicative symptom of true social ills that are dividing us from one another.
Like if you can't get together and say, yeah, we probably shouldn't do that.
Or yeah, you know what, a Jean's ad with Sydney Sweeney, like, who cares?
Like, that's fine.
Like, what happened to normalcy?
As normalcy disintegrates and as people take one side or the other on ridiculous meme sociopathy, what you end up with is a very, very polarized electorate.
And that's particularly true as young people age into the voting population.
You're seeing it in terms of sexual polarization between men and women.
Women are swinging wildly to the left.
Men are moving significantly more to the right.
You're seeing in terms of political polarization where it's more about aesthetic feel than it is even about policy for a lot of these folks.
And so, you know, is it a problem?
How does this tie into gerrymandering?
I mean, it doesn't in the sense that gerrymandering has been going on since 1812 when Elbridge Gary was first doing it.
But it does say something about the continuing social polarization of a country addicted to its phones, addicted to memes, addicted to.
to the laws as opposed to the things that actually build a society, namely you spending time with other human beings in a physical setting with a common goal of making your society, country or community better.
Already meanwhile, speaking of this, President Trump is taking some significant action against foreign drug cartels, which actually is quite a good thing.
The New York Times reported late on Friday that President Trump has secretly signed a directive to the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels, his administration has deemed it terrorist organizations, according to people familiar with the matter.
This is the most aggressive step so far in the administration's escalating campaign against the cartels, and it signals President Trump's continued willingness to use military force to carry out what has primarily been considered a law enforcement responsibility to curb the flow of fentanyl and other illegal drugs.
So apparently military officials are starting to drop options on how the military could go after those groups.
I mean, it's certainly the case that using the U.S. military to go after those drug cartels south of the border that are making our border into bloody chaos or at least war while Joe Biden was president, that going after that is just as much of a national security threat or more than going after the Houthis in Yemen, for example.
Directing the military to crack down on the illicit trade raises legal issues, including whether it would count as murder if US forces acting outside of a congressional authorized armed conflict were to kill civilians or criminal suspects who pose no imminent threat.
No, the answer there is no.
With that said, President Trump obviously taking significant action to end, for example, the fentanyl crisis in the United States.
It's not as though he didn't run on this.
He did run on this.
This is what many people voted for.
Indeed, most people voted for.
All right, you folks, we have reached the end of today's show.
We'll be back here with much more on Wednesday, but stay tuned to our channel for more updates.
▲
Export Selection