All Episodes
Previous Next
July 16, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
28:26
JD Vance And The Future Of The Republican Party

Former President Trump shocked and surprised both supporters and opponents with his decision to name US Senator JD Vance (R-OH) as his running mate. While Vance is no non-interventionist, his approach is vastly different than Trump's last VP choice. Is Trump signalling a generational and ideological shift in the Republican Party away from the neocon domination of the past several decades?

|

Time Text
Israel's Political Shift 00:14:44
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, welcome to the program.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you doing today?
Very good.
We've had to improvise a little bit.
We had an electrical shortage last night again.
So I guess our hurricane problems are not over yet.
But it looks like our connections, a little bit different than usual, will be working okay.
It just happens that this is the first program we've done from my office.
And I said I wasn't for that because my office is junky and there's books all over the place.
But it's not, that's not what counts.
It's what really counts is Daniel McAdams contributing to our program.
And this is great that we've been able to improvise like this.
But we do want to visit again a little bit more because we've mentioned it and it's a big in the news and that is what's going on at the conventions and the Republican party.
So but we also have had this appointment.
Somebody often wondered why one person can pick the next president.
So the nominee, Trump, has picked JD and it looks like that's going to work out real well.
At least people are optimistic about that.
But Daniel, you know, I have, I'm always a skeptic and I think it's reasonable, but I'm also in a position where I want people to discuss things and disagree.
And sometimes they get locked in on this idea of uniformity, which is the opposite of a discussion and trying to sort out the differences.
But there's a lot of talk going on.
And of course, we've had a glimpse at the Republican platform.
And it's probably going to be a little bit better than Biden.
But, you know, Daniel, what I've concluded over the years is the platform doesn't mean very much.
I can remember early on when I was so innocent that I thought the platform was supposed to be what we did.
It was a good platform.
That probably was back in the 70s.
And I didn't look at the platform as a religious symbol and I had to do every single thing.
But I followed my promises, which was to not vote for anything that wasn't authorized in the Constitution.
But boy, the Republicans didn't know what I was up to.
And they got very upset and they wanted to sanction me.
And it came up in the Republican Party here in Texas.
And they just didn't know what to do.
And my answer to them was, all right, I'll contest any of you who will compare my votes with your votes with the platform.
And it was a safe charge because they weren't following the platform and they weren't following the Constitution.
It sort of aggravated them.
But I think as time goes on, more and more people are saying, yes, we should have some principles to follow and we should have discussions and we shouldn't depend on violence to solve our problems.
Daniel?
Yeah, Trump's decision to appoint to name JD Vance, the senator from Ohio as his running main, it's a consequential decision, I think.
And I think there's a lot to analyze.
A lot of people are upset because he frankly takes some bad positions that we wouldn't agree with.
But you know what?
I did a couple of tweets last night about it.
And I think when you look at the pool of available candidates that were being named, and you talk about people like Tom Cotton, you talk about Marco Rubio, you talk about all Nikki Haley, you talk about all these people, and then you see someone like JD Vance.
First of all, Dr. Paul, it's a generational shift.
Someone else pointed out that he's the first millennial generation person to be on the presidential, vice president, or presidential ticket.
It's an important generational shift.
And I don't know if Trump or his advisors understood the implications of it.
But what I think it means is Trump, or at least his people, choosing the future of the Republican Party.
And for all of his faults, and we would disagree on many of his foreign policy positions, but for all of his faults, he is not your standard, fair neocon who has been in control of the Republican foreign policy establishment, really since the left wing took over the Republicans under Ronald Reagan when the neocons came over from the Democratic Party and controlled Reagan's foreign policy.
So this is a significant shift.
And I think it's something, you know, we tend to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I think transitioning away from the Tom Cottons of the world, even to a flawed candidate like JD Vance, sends a very positive signal that change is underway.
And it's going to bring in a whole group, Dr. Paul, and we talk about it on the show so often: a whole group of younger generation people who do not carry the intellectual and philosophical baggage of the neocons.
They don't believe that we should be involved in all these foreign wars.
We see it over and over again in the polls that we cite during the program.
These people are going to be attracted by the infusion of someone who represents a generational change and new ideas.
You know, politics is very powerful.
And I think in this last year or two, or maybe the whole four years, that there's differences that have been very honest, even though I concentrate on the similarities where nothing really ever changes.
So I am skeptical of, you know, having platforms and promises and all these things.
And one thing I'm skeptical about, and I don't think I could be very far wrong on this, is that fact that everybody we send to Washington, guess what?
They raise their right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution.
And that to me makes us want to be vigilant.
You know, that rhetoric is there.
And Daniel, you pointed out some things that are possible and I could improve.
There is a difference.
You can't argue the fact that the political situation is the same.
I think there's been an exposure of what is common in politics.
It's demagoguing and distortion and white lies and bad lies and all this.
And they go on.
And this, I think people become aware of this because the lies told since 2016 up through this campaign has been so atrocious.
So to me, it's pretty amazing that Trump has come out of this, you know, better than ever.
No matter how many lies they could tell, and no matter what they would do, Trump usually came out better off.
So sometimes you just wonder exactly how that all happens.
But I think it's pretty definitely different.
But I also concentrate repeatedly that overall, things haven't changed.
The momentum, the direction, the disrespect for the Constitution, the progressive movement that's existed for over 100 years, the destruction of the Department of Justice.
And I think that at least if you're taking the whole picture, it has to say this is a step in the right direction, what's happening.
And yet, I think there's a place for us to politely really ask for a discussion about the other issues that we have to deal with.
I, for one, have said a thousand times that this whole system that people complain about is pay for, whether it's the domestic welfare system or the international failure for running our affairs there is spending all this money.
You couldn't do it without a Federal Reserve.
But they don't really pay attention to that.
So if you wanted to stop all this, you have to look at a big picture and yet you can't say, well, there's been no improvement.
You mean to say that all Republicans are exactly like Democrats?
No, I don't think that's true at all.
And I think steps in the right direction, I'll take any step in the right direction I can.
But at the same time, I don't want to be naive and think that writing these things down, if they don't follow the Constitution, what's a platform going to do?
But Daniel, that might be a little bit too harsh, and we should stay as optimistic as possible.
But hopefully that balance can be worked out.
I think you make a great point, Dr. Paul, in bringing up the Fed, because I think one of the things that JD Vance represents is a rise of economic populism on the right.
And that is a good and a bad thing because there's a danger, as you know better than anyone, Dr. Paul, of people embracing economic populism, of also embracing tariffs and trade barriers and more strength to the government to control outcomes.
And all of those things, we should share the concern of the economic populists.
Someone like JD Vance is interesting.
Now, he's a Scots-Irishman from Appalachia.
He wrote a book about his background.
He reminds me of a lot of people in that area that were attracted to Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign.
I mean, I think it probably is a teachable moment for people like us, like you, and also for people like the Mises Institute.
Yeah, of course we care about the working man.
We care about the shaft that the working man is getting right now.
But let's kind of look at the root causes of what this is all about.
And that goes back to what you just said, which is the Fed and the government's ability to print money.
You know, Daniel, the issue in foreign policy right now, a big issue, of course, is Ukraine.
But the other one has been a big issue for many, many decades.
And that's the way we institutionalize and pursue our policies in the Middle East.
And that is a big problem, too.
So Dave DeCamp in anti-war has looked at the foreign policy in the document that they've just drawn up in the platform.
And he has some very good points.
And I think if anybody wants to read a good article, it's clear, he writes clearly, but he makes a few points that makes us stop and think because it is disturbing to me.
There's one part, you know, he wants to support Israel.
Well, libertarians and Christians and decent people want to support Israel like you support another friend, but not to suggest that supporting Israel is something special and that we have to give them our last dollar and expose us to the last danger.
So we can't do that.
But the one part, Daniel, that I saw in that that Dave mentioned was that he called the platform, this is astounding, to deport pro-Palestinians demonstrators on college campuses.
That to me is a can of worms.
And yet that's, you know, you just wonder who gets those things in.
And I know one person that might have the most responsibility might not have the time and energy to do that.
So it may be that there's people, you know, already in both parties that will protect certain interests, such as the Fed or our foreign policy, our empire, and deficits, for instance.
And they don't really talk about that.
But to put something in there that we're going to, I think the protesters are going to be sent to Gaza.
What kind of stuff is that?
That should annoy a few people.
Yeah, I mean, I think, Dr. Paul, this is really the kind of soft underbelly of the America First Conservatives, of the National Greatness Conservatives, which is that they claim to put America first, but they really don't.
And you're absolutely right.
This is the only foreign country that by name is named in the Republican platform.
It says, we will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East.
It's interesting to single out one country as a country that you will support above your own, perhaps even.
And I mean, I think that is, again, that's a goal that we might have.
We might support Israel.
We might stand with Israel.
But we may have a different perspective.
Maybe the best way to stand with and support Israel is to stop handing them these weapons and these billions of dollars because they're only digging a deeper hole for themselves in the Middle East by slaughtering everyone in sight.
They're irritating people and they're causing a lot of people to want to destroy them.
So just like, you know, I often make the analogy of being in a pub, Dr. Paul, but just like the guy who's had one too many and it's your buddy, sometimes the best thing to do is say, okay, you've had enough.
It's time to go home.
So yeah, okay, we'll take it.
We stand with Israel.
That's fine.
But standing with Israel, if you really are for America first, it means taking care of the U.S. and to cut Israel off from all foreign aid and cut them off from all weapons.
And that's not a very radical position.
You know, another issue that Dave de Camp touched on was the relationship with China.
And he takes a very hard line against China.
And this one is real because it's sort of that populist approach.
America First vs. China 00:03:50
You know, you pick and choose and you control trade.
You put on tariffs on people you don't like.
And that's pretty much removed from a libertarian principle.
And even the founders principle, because they express themselves and believe that the more you trade and talk with people and work things out, the less likely there will be wars.
So this whole idea that we have to appear strong because China did this and that, you know, I would urge caution on that because trade wars so often leads to a hot war.
So say the new group comes in, they have a record and their rhetoric is more anti-war than a Democrat.
But once you're in there, if you're having policies that don't lead to a friendlier relationship, such as whatever a hard line on China means, it's something that I hope they can tone that down a little bit.
I can remember 30, 40 years ago when I first started looking at this, all economists, and they were conservative and liberals separated quite like they are now, but basically they believed in free trade.
But that is not the case now.
You know, it's how much you can put away, how much you can get away with.
Who should you punish today?
Let's punish A and not B. Let's help them.
And if you do what we tell you, we'll send you some more money and whatever.
And also, if it gets difficult, we'll use our military power to make sure that it suits our empire.
So I didn't really want to come across a negative, Daniel, on a day when people are trying to be as optimistic as possible.
But I'll tell you what, I can't be optimistic at all unless people don't have the right to speak out and speak out in a diplomatic fashion, in a reasonable fashion, to decide what should be done rather than scaring people into it or using force to try to solve these problems.
Yeah, I think one of the concerning things about someone like Senator Vance is that, you know, and this is not a knock against him, but he doesn't really know very much about foreign policy.
That's not his expertise.
He's a venture capitalist.
He's an author.
He doesn't know much about foreign policy.
And I can guarantee you right now, what's happening in Washington, D.C. is all of these loser neocons are glomming onto him.
You can just bet.
I saw a picture of Lindsey Graham sitting in the back seat of a car with him.
They're going to be his best buddies.
And they're going to grab his ear and they're going to pull it and they're going to whisper all sorts of things into his ear to try to influence his foreign policy.
Now, I would love to see JD Vance reach out to some other types of people.
I'd love to see him, you know, let's give a call to our good friend, Senator Rand Paul, and ask him a little bit about foreign policy.
There are experts in D.C. and there are experts around the country who understand foreign policy, who understand what our national security is, people that we know very well, like Doug McGregor.
Call these people up.
Do not sit in the back seat of a car with Lindsey Graham under any circumstances.
That's my advice to him.
But the thing about China, Dr. Paul, is this.
It's very simple.
China makes things.
We don't anymore.
And if we were to get into war, if JD Vance and the people behind him, the China hawks, get us into a war with China, our country will be destroyed.
So anyone who wants to do something that will destroy our country in no way can ever be America first.
America first is to find a way to accommodate with China, find a way, as you say, Dr. Paul, to trade with China, to do, to have a relationship to both of our advantage.
That's what the Chinese want.
They want to sell us stuff.
Find A Way To Accommodate 00:03:08
They make a lot of stuff.
And there is no reason to be pushing this China hawk.
It's definitely not America first.
You know, it took decades for the historians and other pundits to try to figure out exactly the motivation behind the assassination of Kennedy.
And many people have come to the agreement that ahead, foreign policy was a big deal and Vietnam War was and the military-industrial complex.
And I believe that was a major thing, if not the complete thing.
It was the policy.
But right now, That could be a concern for by the deep state because Trump does say things that sound more sensible and less confrontational.
And the deep state might get nervous rather quickly.
And that just raises questions about the transactions of all the activities in recent days.
But there's no way that we'll know that if ever, maybe someday we'll find out what all the motivations were behind this attempt to assassinate the president.
And maybe they especially find out, you know, most of the big assassinations are in collusion with special powerful interests and even politicians.
That turned out to be the case with the Kennedy assassination.
So there are people involved.
And right now, I hope the investigation is a lot better than my cynicism tells me what it's like to have these commissions and studies and find out what did what I'll always argue is either to hide the truth, to hide the truth or the mistakes that they've made, but it's never to stick out the truth.
And that's the job of journalism.
So when the journalism do a good job and they're on track for really exposing it, guess what?
They try to get rid of them.
Just look at what they did to Assange.
And there's many more cases.
Assange has been, you know, the picture of what happens and what they'll do to you if you happen to report things they don't want the deep state don't want people to know.
And that is, you know, a dangerous situation.
And that is why I think that hopefully we learn more about the motives behind this attempted assassination against Trump.
But in the meantime, we'll do exactly what Daniel was making, some very good points.
You go from where we are and what we know and what we can do.
And there has been steps in the right direction.
And even though I complain that the parties are saying, well, the real culprit is the Federal Reserve.
Guess what?
The Federal Reserve is getting hit more now than it did 35 years ago.
And even Wall Street is getting sick and tired of what's happening.
So I think that's a good step in the right direction.
Close the Violence 00:06:37
All right.
Well, I'm going to close it out, Dr. Paul, I think, if you're ready.
And I'll just close by thanking our viewers and thanking them for having patience under less than ideal circumstances, trying to keep the show going and keep commenting and analyzing current events.
I would ask a couple of things of our viewers today, if you don't mind.
Number one, please hit that thumbs up button or the like button on whatever platform you're viewing the show.
That helps us grow our audience.
And the other is to go to RoronPaulInstitute.org, go to our website on the right-hand corner toward the top.
You'll see a new link up there to apply for the Ron Paul Scholars Seminar.
If you're an upper division graduate, upper division undergrad or grad student, we've got a special seminar for you.
It's the day before the Ron Paul DC conference.
You will be attending the conference if you're a Ron Paul Scholar as well.
So two great days of meeting like-minded people, of hearing some great lectures, including by Judge Andrew Napolitano as your keynote lunch and speech at the Ron Paul seminar.
There are scholarships available.
You shouldn't have to have any out-of-pocket money if you're accepted.
So click that link if you're not in that category, but you would like to see it, or if you'd like to sponsor a student, click that link also and it can tell you how you can sponsor a student and in turn sit in on the seminar yourself.
So thanks very much and we look forward to seeing you next month.
Dr. Paul, over to you.
Oh, very good, Daniel.
Excellent.
I want to close by an observation I made in the last couple days because in the last couple days, although what I'm going to be talking about has been around a long time and it's persistent, but in the last couple of days, I've heard the word, we can't participate in the violence.
This is terrible.
You know, Daniel, if you listen to the news, whether they're right, left, middle, independents, or whatever, and everybody that sees it, no more violence.
And, you know, even the ones who most people know are violent people, but they use this, no more violence.
And I keep thinking, well, you know, they sound like they're libertarians.
But Daniel, I don't think we should get too optimistic about their, you know, soaking in some things about libertarianism and don't commit any violence because their definition of violence is to manipulate government power in a certain direction.
And you do that by having pure democracy.
Let's have a vote.
Oh, the people say that we should have an empire.
We have to have a strong military power.
We have to do this.
And they use the principle of democracy.
Oh, just get to 51%.
And this country has not been built on pure democracy where 51% can enslave the minority.
And that's been the hair.
That's been with us since the beginning of our country.
But the violence, oh, no violence.
Well, that's great.
You know, it just happens, Daniel, that we have a program which is libertarian.
And that's the principle of the libertarianism.
You can't initiate violence against other people.
Well, what's going on?
Why do they keep talking about violence?
They distinctly do not distinguish the well, they distinguish the difference between you and I maybe knocking on somebody's door and robbing them.
They'll say, oh, yeah, that's violence.
We shouldn't that one shouldn't do that.
But they don't do it if the government does it.
And I would say if you divide it up, there's a lot of evil people out there, a lot of murderers and criminals and thieves and all that.
But I tell you what, if you looked at all of history and you were looking at all the wars caused by the politicians and all the violence and all the wars that the government threw this idea, well, the people want it.
The majority is there.
They want that.
That's where the violence comes from.
Every single day, if a person were honest about this issue, they would look at it from morning to night.
Everything that they do is, what will the government say?
Because the government owns us.
Now they're talking about involuntary servitude, making it real easy to be drafted to fight these wars that they're stimulating.
So they will do this as long as the majority supports it.
This is why education is so important and people need a better understanding of what nonviolence means.
Yes, you should start with take the violence away from the government.
That doesn't mean that you can't have a defense force, but that's not what's happening now when you have, when the ownership of your income is 100% owned by the IRS and the government, and they allow you and give you permission on how much you can keep, that's not freedom and it's violence.
If you don't do it, you could go to jail if you don't listen to the tax authority.
So this to me is something that people need to do that.
If the government does it, you know, it's not considered violence.
But I think morally, it's very close because the bad guys commit violence and we all agree we shouldn't have it.
But what happens if the bad guys get to get into government?
And that's what could happen.
It could ruin our Department of Justice.
We could really manipulate our Department of Justice and our whole efforts to bring about justice and protect against the bad guns.
But anyway, I'm tired of hearing this word that we all, we can't, we have to stop all the violence.
And I agree because that's a basic principle of liberty is no violence.
But that doesn't mean that the government should be able to do it.
Anything that you and I can't do, the government shouldn't be able to do.
And also to reduce this violence of government, we have to recognize, as it has been mentioned many times, is that vices aren't crimes.
People say things or do things, but they don't hurt other people.
You can't have a government coming in and using violence and say, you can't smoke this, you can't do this, you said that, and regulate everything there is.
So we need better definitions of what right and wrong is and what the violence is.
I want a lot less violence, but when you're reducing the violence, you can't depend on the government because they are the creator of the massive violence that has happened throughout history.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection