Sept. 17, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
50:43
3416 Why The Regressive Left Is Losing | Bill Whittle and Stefan Molyneux
After years of being political destroyed by the regressive left, the right within the United States of America has changed tactics and found newfound success. Bill Whittle joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the divide between establishment Republicans, mainline conservatives and the rising Alt-Right movement. What new tactics have those on the right adopted which have spawned this newfound success?Please support Bill Whittle at: https://www.billwhittle.comSubscribe to Bill on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/BillWhittleChannelFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donateMore from Stefan and Bill Whittle!1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY-ueR0OLlQ2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jhU3RZDg703: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNLnehTFanM4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLYVG4OP_wg5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasuUt1d_fE6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeDOTqufCe8Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio, back with a good friend, Bill Whittle.
Now, Bill, of course, is the host of Firewall, which you can find, of course, at BillWhittle.com.
He has his own channel, which has some excellent videos, at YouTube.com slash Bill Whittle channel.
That's Whittle, like old guy with suspenders up to his nipples on the back porch with a piece of wood.
Yes, I remember those days.
Get off my lawn and you cannot have your ball back.
Bill Whittle remembers.
Yes, I'm sorry, go ahead.
How are you doing today, Bill?
I'm doing well, buddy.
Slow news week, huh?
You know, you'd think that the election cycle would give you something to work with.
I mean, it's just a somnambulance-inducing zombie fest of repetition.
Nothing new is happening.
Nothing's going on.
I feel like we're just making up stories at this point.
I agree.
Terrible.
So what do you want to make up today?
Well, so...
There is an interesting phenomenon that's going on in the Republican Party, which seems to be split.
And sort of old-school Republicans referred to, of course, as cockservatives and rhinos Republicans in name only.
The criticism of the old-school Republicans is that they were very addicted to losing with dignity and integrity.
We shall never gain the White House again, but we shall never lose our principles.
And there are other people who seem to have surveyed I think we're good to go.
Some of the tactics of the left when it comes to swaying, putting the jackboot in the face of public opinion.
And it seems to me that there's this battle that's going on in the right at the moment.
And of course, Trump is, I think, to some degree, the reflection of that frustration that playing by the rules seems to make you lose on a regular basis.
You know, I think what's really interesting here is that this battle, at least in my mind, the battle's not over...
It's funny because you go from being a Tea Party conservative who's criticized John Boehner and Mitch McConnell as the source of basically the only reason Obama's gotten the things done that he has is because those guys just basically let him do it.
So you go from being kind of this conservative who criticizes rhinos, which I've always done, and now all of a sudden I'm a cuck, you know?
And a lot of other people wonder about this, too.
So, for me, it's not a question of the messaging tactics, Stephan.
It's a question of what is the actual message.
I've been calling for messaging changes since...
I did a video just after Obama's...
Actually, before he was elected, I think, called The Power of Iconography.
And I looked at how just incredibly good his graphics were and the set design on the DNC versus McCain's on the RNC and so on.
So we are, in fact, terrible at using the techniques of messaging compared to the left.
But my problem with this alt-right movement is what is, in fact, the actual message?
I mean, the conservatism that I understand is a set of principles, and many people who call themselves alt-right do not share those principles.
What are the principles that you think the alt-right is not picking up on or perhaps bypassing?
I may be reacting a little bit to the criticism of the alt-right.
There's so much of that.
It's a great topic today because when we talk about leftist messaging, we swim in a sea of leftist messaging.
And it's not just a fish in the ocean, it's the ocean.
But I think that when you hear things like the alt-right is called anti-immigrant, I'm not anti-immigrant.
I'm staunchly anti-illegal immigrant.
I'm in favor of free trade.
I'm in favor of free trade.
I think it helps us.
I am, however, not so naive to suspect that if we have a free trade agreement with some country and they're slapping tariffs on us in return, well, that's not free trade.
But mostly, I'm in favor of a very small government and the smallest government possible.
You need some government.
I'd just like a government that fit in the box it originally came in.
And some of these things on the alt-right are, they're a little more hostile than, and not just hostile, they're a little more reactionary maybe than I certainly consider conservatism to be.
I just look at it as the philosophy of individuals and being left alone for just about everything, but not everything.
There is a role for government.
So to the degree that the See, the alt-right is a little tougher to pin down.
But Donald Trump, on the other hand, has had some policies.
Now, he originally said that he wanted single-payer health care.
He's walked that back and modified his position on that.
That would be anathema to somebody like me.
Right.
I think that was before he was running for office and maybe he hadn't studied the issues as much and, you know, we're all allowed to sort of evolve over time.
Without question.
But it was at the beginning of the campaign.
He was a candidate and it was at the beginning of the primary campaign.
And just so we don't have any misconceptions about this, there's one thing I'd like to say about Donald Trump that occurred to me recently and I think really needs to be said.
We've done a couple of segments lately.
In fact, one this morning called The Trump That Listens.
And Donald Trump's...
This persona, campaign strategy, and behavior has changed remarkably in the last month.
I think the trip to Mexico is one of the most brilliant pieces of political theater, and political theater is not a denigrating term.
It's a wonderful, brilliant move.
Going to the black church was a brilliant move.
When Hillary Clinton goes down, instead of him saying what I would have expected him to say three months ago, she wants to be president, but she can't even step off the curve, he says, Well, you know, I hope she recovers.
I look forward to seeing her in the debates.
And that sounds presidential.
But the point I'm trying to make is this, Stephen.
Donald Trump is a bright guy.
And Donald Trump, up until the general election, outlandishness, outrageousness, and abrasiveness have, in fact, been his trademark.
And that's what got him his success.
There are tens of thousands of real estate developers out there in the country, multimillionaire real estate developers.
We don't know any of their names.
We know one name.
And when you're on a reality show, having worked in television, I can tell you there's not a whole lot of reality in a reality show.
So Donald Trump may in fact be doing an interview with somebody and he may have said, you know what, I don't think this is working out.
And the producers will say, Donald, we need something more big.
You're fired!
So what I'm saying is that up until the general election, he has been smart to play As outrageous as possible.
It's a successful strategy for him.
And the fact that it doesn't seem to...
Let's just say that it wasn't getting any further than that once he got into the general.
Now he's modifying his behavior and is an enormously better candidate than he was, I think, a month ago.
So I just wanted to say that nobody seems to talk about the fact that so much of the garishness and outlandishness of what people criticize Trump for were, in fact, extremely successful strategies for him to employ up until that point.
Well, of course.
I mean, when you're trying to stand out in a group of 17-odd people, the more outrageous you are, the more you draw attention to yourself, the more you're going to get your message across.
And this sort of character arc is very famous.
I mean, when I was in theatre school, we used to refer to Henry V, one of the great Shakespearean plays, as Hank's Hank, because we were young and very, very pretentious.
But this arc of rogue to statesman is very famous, and you can see it played out a million different ways in sort of popular media.
And so the fact that he's gone from, so to speak, outlandish rogue to statesman is really a perfect arc, and it keeps people interested, and I think he knows he's been in the media longer than most of the media people have even been alive.
I mean, the guy's in his fifth decade of intense media attention and working with the media, and I think we saw this today when he said he was going to respond to this birtherism comments that Hillary Clinton was putting out, that he was still denying that Obama was...
He was born in America and so on.
And of course, he said, I'll have a big announcement.
And then he's got a half hour of generals saying how great Donald Trump is.
And then he comes out and says, he puts out the message that, yeah, of course he was born in the United States.
Hillary Clinton first raised this as a question.
And then I think it was in 2011, he went out and got the birth certificate released or pressured into all of that.
And so all of that is exactly what You'd expect from somebody who's really good.
And the media keeps kicking themselves, you know, because they're like, I can't believe we felt they're like Lucy with Charlie Brown and the football, right?
And so this approach, you know, and Scott Adams has talked about the sort of arc of the sort of rogue to statesmen.
This is perfect in terms of getting the media attention.
And of course, when you're talking to the American public, as you are in Western countries as a whole, you're talking to a public that has been miseducated by government schools.
And so, if, you know, you had a really great school system, which we'll talk about in a little bit, but if you had a great school system, then you would be able to bring more reason and evidence, but, you know, you need a little bit of jazz hands, you need a little bit of funny hair, you need a little bit of razzmatazz, as they say, to get people's attention, and you need to give the impression rather than the facts a lot of times.
And I think he's put out a lot of good facts and good arguments and good positions, very solid positions, but you are dealing with a population that is still rather swayed by emotion.
Well, I think, and I definitely do want to talk about what you're talking about using leftist techniques and messaging on the right.
I think that's really critical.
Just to wrap up on the Trump thing, we are at a very, as you well know, a very unusual election where the most unpopular candidate in history is running against the second most unpopular candidate in history in terms of their approval ratings, right?
So no one is going to be, Donald Trump isn't going to lose any more support if he says something outrageous and And, you know, and abrasive.
And Hillary Clinton's not going to lose any more support the next time we find out that she might have told just a tiny little fib.
So we're kind of at negative saturation on both of these characters.
Now, the health thing is different.
That's a whole different story.
But we know Hillary's a liar.
We know that Donald Trump is prone to somewhat, you know, bombastic statements sometimes.
What's interesting here is Trump is now offering people an alternative to his negatives.
He's now showing people, and at a very, very important point in the election, know that he can, in fact, look presidential.
He can go down to Mexico, and it's not a fiasco.
Shake hands with the incoming president, have a substantive talk, look presidential.
This is exactly the time he needs to be turning the corner and buffing up that image so that these people who haven't decided which one of these people they hate the most can now look at Donald Trump and say, well, he's starting to look really pretty reasonable.
He seems like he can pull it off.
Well, and of course, refusing, as you pointed out, to step into the vacuum created by Hillary Clinton's 9-11 collapse and saying, you know, wish her well and all that, look forward to the debate.
Smart.
That, of course, is very good because, you know, if somebody's punching themselves in the head, you don't need to lace up any clumps.
Get out of their way.
Exactly right.
And I think there is room for swaying.
I think there is.
I mean, as you pointed out, I mean, Hillary Clinton's health issues, I think that she's had like a I don't know, five or six point swing in some areas with regards to voting because if she can't make it through a standing in New York in 79 degree weather, it's a little hard to figure out how the rigors of the actual presidency would handle or how she would be able to handle that.
So I think there is room for still quite a bit of a swing.
And of course, one of the arguments that Trump has put forward, and I think this is mirrored by a lot of people who've looked into this issue on the left and the right, Is that all of the immigration, illegal immigration, and to some degree legal immigration, and all of the H-1B visas and all of this, just bringing people in who are willing to work for less, that is having a push-down effect on American wages, particularly for less educated, less affluent people.
And that does hit minorities, particularly blacks and Hispanics, very hard.
And so his argument is, look, we have to take care of our own people first.
And the people are not the rich people.
We should be responding to the people who are being really hurt by these wages.
You know, like lower income wages are being hammered and have been stagnant or declining for decades.
Some of that has to do with bad trade deals.
Some of that has to do with hyperregulation and taxation.
America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
And some of it does have to do with immigration choices.
And I think that's where he's positioning himself in a space that has not been occupied by a Republican before to bring specific economic potential benefits to minorities.
And his natural showmanship, which is his greatest strength, There's nothing negative about that.
The president's job is to motivate and lead the American people, and you have to be able to convey a message.
Donald Trump is very good at that.
So yes, if the problem is low-income jobs, to say it from Trump Tower or on the road is one thing, but to go to a black church and to talk about it there, I said three weeks after Romney was defeated, if he had done that exact thing one time,
gone to a black church and said, look, here's the case for our We're good to go.
Inside the frame.
So Hillary can say, I didn't have any classified emails on my server, and Comey can come out and say that she did, but it's not the same as her saying, I'm fine, and then watching her go down like that.
That's just an outright, who are you going to believe you or your lying eyes?
And I think the thing that's interesting about the Hillary thing is, she has now, basically...
Put herself in a very bad spot because she's put down a marker and put a pin in there and said, I had pneumonia.
I'm being treated for it.
How do you feel now, Secretary Clinton?
I feel great.
So if she goes down again, if she goes into vapor lock again, if the guy has to come up and put his hand behind her on the back while she's having a debate or on the campaign trail again, then I think she's finished because we had evidence that she's in real serious mental health trouble.
Okay, it was just pneumonia.
Sorry, sorry, you just said mental health trouble?
You mean sort of physical health trouble?
Yes, well, I was also referring to the neurological symptoms, you know, the cough, I think, is neurological, and then the weird facial tics, whatever.
Okay, so this is pneumonia?
Yes, okay, that's it.
You feel better?
I feel fine.
Okay, then I assume that we're not going to see you go down anymore between now and the election, that you're not going to Well, and even watching the narrative unrolling in real time, you know, first of all, she just left because she just decided to leave.
And then when that turned out to be some sort of medical thing, they said she's dehydrated.
And I mean, A six-year-old knows to drink when they're thirsty.
Like, how do you get dehydrated?
I mean, doesn't your body say, hey, I could use some water because I'm turning to dust right before your eyes?
And she's fallen three times before, at least three times, three times on camera.
And Bill said that's what happens when she gets dehydrated.
You might think that if you're running for president of the United States and you fall into the ground four times because you're not drinking enough water, you think somebody might get you enough water, right?
It's obviously not dehydration.
We know what's going on here.
And then there was the overheating argument that she just got overheated.
I just did a firewall about this.
I'm going to put it up tomorrow.
I call it the Clinton lie ratchet.
And here's how it works.
We're seeing it with her health issues.
But I decided to go back to the email thing to see exactly what this standard operating procedure for the Clintons is.
They do something appalling.
They have private emails on a server or she's very, very ill and she goes on campaigning.
There's actual evidence that can't be blamed on the deplorable right-wing conspiracy.
And so she tells the least damaging lie.
Yes, I did have a private server, but there was no classified information on it, and I turned in all of my required emails.
Then we find out that she didn't turn in all the required emails, so then she goes to the next least damaging lie, which is, okay, I didn't turn in all of my emails, but the ones that we kept aren't classified, so we don't have to worry.
And then she finds out they are classified.
Then the next lie is, well, they were classified, but they weren't classified at the time.
And then that turns out not to be true.
So she goes to the next lie, which is, well, they were classified at the time, but I didn't know they were classified because I thought the C was a paragraph heading.
Really?
Okay, we know that that's not true.
And now Hillary Clinton is resorting to, I hit my head so hard in 2012 that I forgot my briefing on how to handle classified information.
We're going to see the exact same thing happen with the health.
It's an allergy, it's dehydration, it's heat stroke, it's pneumonia, and they're going to keep walking it back, walking it back, and they're just going to be continually putting the next lie out there until finally people realize that, no, this is all they know how to do.
Well, and what is amazing is the invention of a new kind of pneumonia that apparently you can't communicate.
Like, it's non-communicable pneumonia.
What is it?
They call it bacteriological?
They came up with something.
It's like, Because, you know, she's hugging a kid, she's playing with her grandchildren, and, you know, I mean, I think grandkids are pretty young, and, you know, for kids under five, pneumonia is a very, very dangerous situation.
So, look, the little girl is fascinating, and I'll tell you why.
They've got this candidate that goes down on camera.
They know they're in real trouble.
She's so much full of the flu that she can't even stand up, so they drive her over to Chelsea's house.
Right?
And then they tell a lie, oh, it's pneumonia.
She's got pneumonia.
But they're lying on the spot, Stephan.
And in order to enhance the lie and make the lie sound more believable, they throw in a couple of little details that they don't think is going to hurt them.
They say, yeah, she's got pneumonia.
Turns out a lot of guys on the staff had pneumonia.
Three or four of our people on the staff had pneumonia.
It's not just Hillary.
See how true it is?
Well, if three or four people on the staff had pneumonia, then it's communicable pneumonia.
It's infectious pneumonia.
If it's infectious pneumonia, don't go up to a little girl, breathe in her face, and put your hands on her.
And by the way, how did this little girl just happen to get through the security cord?
You know, there's no...
I've never seen Hillary...
The Secret Service's job is to be close enough to get in front of a bullet or whatever.
And now, all of a sudden, she's all alone on the street.
How do you feel, Secretary?
I feel great.
Oh, look, a little girl has decided to walk down the street at the same time I have.
How are you, Mrs.
Clinton?
I'm feeling fine.
How are you?
What do you take us for?
You know, what do you take us for?
Well, we know what they take us for.
Yeah, and of course, they didn't want to take her to emerge, apparently, for the optics.
They drove past an emergency and ER hospital to take her to Chelsea's apartment, which apparently used to be a healthcare facility.
And might still be, right?
I mean, this might be where you go when you're about to collapse in New York.
But anyway, happy times.
So, one of the things I think that is really interesting is one of the things that Trump is talking about, and it's been talked about by Republicans for a long time, and I think it is one of the biggest areas.
It won't give a huge amount of short-term gain, but over the long term of the republic, I think it's one of the biggest things that could be done to turn things around, and that is, of course, school choice, a choice for parents.
You know, you give them a voucher, and they can take it to whatever school they want.
They're not boxed into these, like, Pravda-style enclosures of you've got to take your kids here.
And I looked up, and we'll put the source to this below.
This just came out a day or two ago, that in Boston, I've got a lot of experiments in Massachusetts with the charter schools.
I'm just going to read this paragraph, and then another paragraph, and then maybe we can talk about it.
Because this is to me, like, if you really want to help the underprivileged, this is the kind of stuff you want to be talking about.
Not, we're going to give you more grants, we're going to give you more preferential hiring, which is a problem.
So the report says, charter schools in the urban areas of Massachusetts have large positive effects on educational outcomes, far better than those of the traditional public schools that charter students would otherwise attend.
The effects are particularly large and positive for disadvantaged students, English learners, special education students, and children who enter charters with low test scores.
Now, that's, of course, supposed to be the Democrats, you know, where they go.
It's the underprivileged and the people who are disadvantaged.
That's sort of supposed to be their constituency.
And one of the things that I've talked about on this show before is that between blacks and whites, there's a gap in test scores nationwide.
And in Boston, it's about three quarters of a standard deviation to blacks score below whites.
It's a great tragedy and one of the reasons why I think it's tough to close the gap as a whole.
And it's even worse between blacks and East Asians.
So here, this is a quote from the study.
Another gauge of magnitude.
The gap in test scores between blacks and whites nationwide and in Boston is roughly three-quarters of a standard deviation.
One year in a Boston charter therefore erases roughly a third of the racial achievement gap.
Can you imagine closing that by a third?
Now, there are arguments that say, well, if there's genetics involved in intelligence, it's the smarter parents who are putting their kids in charter schools.
But I think that's interesting enough that anybody who's for charter schools or for school choice, for giving control over education back to parents, is doing the very best possible thing for the underprivileged, for the people who are having trouble learning, for the people who are having trouble succeeding.
And on the Democrat side, they pretty staunchly oppose these kinds of things.
And I assume that's because they're sort of in bed with the teachers' unions.
And once you give parents choice, you bring the discipline to some degree, to a small degree, you bring the discipline of the free market to underperforming schools, which means that bad teachers may get, I don't know, put in the rubber room or whatever they call it these days where you can't fire anyone, but at least you can keep them away from kids.
And so the Democrats don't really have a good answer.
And I'm sure that Trump and Republicans as a whole are going to be talking about this more and more.
Because like, you know, the questions around illegal immigration, depressing wages and giving control back to parents of schools, isn't that something that would do more than every conceivable amount of government redistribution of wealth to actually help close the gap between underperforming areas in society?
Well, let's take the example of charter schools as an example of the difference between the messaging that we were doing versus the messaging that we should be doing.
Everything that the left does in terms of their political messaging It's about their moral superiority.
It's unearned moral superiority.
We care about poor people.
We care about black people.
We care about homosexuals.
We care about women.
We care about immigrants.
And the Republicans don't.
And we can prove to you that we care because look at all this money we throw into the public school system.
Now before, we would give the kind of argument that you just gave.
You'd give a completely rational, data-backed, essentially irrefutable argument which would completely fail.
Now when we talk about messaging our message the way that the left messages, the first thing we have to do is we have to understand that we have to go right to this unearned moral superiority and kick it right in the knee.
Or higher.
And hard.
And so basically, instead of making all of the points that you make, the point you lead with is, why do Democrats hate the poor so much?
Why?
All of these studies show that these schools are better.
But the Democrats would rather get the money from the teachers' unions than see these kids succeed.
There's like a 7% of the Detroit children are reading at a...
7% of ninth graders are reading at a ninth grade level, and we spend more money, three times more money per student than any other country in the world.
What does the Democratic Party have That makes them hate minorities and the poor so much that they lock them, not only do they lock them into these horrible schools, but when we come along and try to offer them a way out with better schools, they are determined to block it in every...
Why do they hate poor people so much, Stephan?
Why do they hate the blacks and Hispanics so much?
What's the matter with these Democrats?
What's wrong with them?
Here's this perfect solution that is proven to work, and they're not only not going to try it, they're blocking it everywhere we go.
I don't understand why these people hate the minorities and the poor so much, these Democrats.
And that's how you win.
They should have to go in front of black and Hispanic parents who are desperate for these schools, who are desperate.
When they have these lotteries, there are people trying to climb up.
It's like watching a Somebody trying to climb Mount Everest trying to get into these schools.
They're just desperately trying to get their kids into the school and we've got to put a picture of the Democrats saying, no, you cannot have this because we need the money and we need the support.
Right.
So now this is when we start talking about messaging on a moral level and a philosophical level, which is where we always get creamed.
So first of all, we say, well, why do the Democrats and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hate poor people and black people so much that they will not allow better schools in there?
Right.
That's the first thing.
And secondly, by the way, why do they hate choice so much?
What is it about the Democrats that means that they just cannot handle the idea of any kind of choice at all?
Why is the idea that we could give you a choice on how to run your life anathema to Democrats?
Why are they so afraid of having a choice in In people's choice of schools.
Is it because they're afraid that if they do choose, they're going to choose a better school?
And if they choose a better school, they're going to realize just exactly what kind of a prison they've been put in by Democrats for the last 60, 70, 80 years in some of these cases?
So we always go to the moral argument.
You'll hear Hillary Clinton talking about the corporations and the rich and the wealthy have to do this, the wealthy have to do that.
So if you want to reach young people, The way the left reaches young people, why don't we talk about corporations this way?
Why don't we as conservatives and libertarians say, alright, you want to talk about corporations and wealth?
Let's talk about corporations and wealth.
Uber was valued at $43 billion.
It might have gone as high as $60 billion for Uber.
$60,000 million is what Uber is worth.
Now, did those $60,000 million come from Uber drivers going through neighborhoods, especially poor neighborhoods, roughing people up, taking their pennies, taking their food stamps so that they could steal from poor people and put it into the hands of the rich people that formed Uber or Uber?
Is Uber nothing more than a little square this big?
It's an app.
It's an idea.
It's an idea that didn't exist before.
I need a ride.
You've got a car.
And in fact, it's not just replacing taxis.
It is now replacing, many people are just giving up their cars for Uber.
Kids use Uber to go everywhere they go.
So you can say, so if corporations are so bad, then how come Uber is so good?
Why?
I mean, who did Uber steal its money from?
Nobody.
Uber, you give your money to Uber out of your own free will.
Money doesn't care where it goes.
And then you can get to these people, get to a lot of people we're not getting to otherwise by showing it in their daily lives.
Final thing I would say about Uber, if I was going to be running some messaging campaigns for conservatives, I would say to people, okay, Uber is a perfect example.
In fact, it is the model of what we believe as conservatives.
You've got a service.
I need the service.
I've got some money.
I'll give you some money.
You've got a car.
I need a ride.
Let's change some money, and that's it.
Perfect.
Wonderful.
What if you say to young people that your $6 Uber ride It's now going to cost $20 because we're going to add $14, which is going to go to the Department of Uber Safety and the Uber Secretary of Uber in Washington and the 7,000 people that make up the Department of Uber Safety have to be paid somehow.
So what do you say to young people?
If you say your $5 ride just went up to $15, $10 of which goes to the government.
It doesn't go to the driver.
You have to pay it.
They'd start asking questions like, well, what did the government do here?
Why do they need this driver?
I know why the driver needs the money, I know why I need the ride, and I know why Uber sets this thing up.
What the hell does Washington get out of this?
Nothing.
Now you're catching on, kids.
Well, they print a license and that's apparently made of gold and unicorn blood and it's extraordinarily expensive and the cost must be passed along to the consumer.
And of course, environmentalists should love Uber for the fact that it diminishes car ownership and so on, but because it's a free market manifestation and what is it the old saying about the environmental movement?
It's kind of a watermelon green on the outside, red as hell on the inside.
These are the terms that the left use and this is how we use leftist strategies against them.
We demonize them.
Stephan, we make them into the villains.
It's like, what do you guys have against Uber?
Because they are against Uber.
Bernie is strong against Uber.
Hillary is strong against Uber because they're in the pockets of the unions.
And now you have to say to these Democrats or these swing voters, The Democrats hate the idea of you getting a better school for your kids and the Democrats hate the idea that you should just be able to go out on the curb and get in a car and take a ride.
They hate it so much that they're doing everything they can to deprive you of the choice.
What's wrong with these people?
They hate Uber because they don't get a piece of Uber.
And they hate charter schools because they don't get a piece of charter schools.
And as it turns out, these big progressives are just people who are too stupid and or too lazy to make their own money, so they're gonna steal it from you.
See how it works?
Once you understand that, everything gets very simple.
And that to me is the really fascinating thing, Bill, that's occurring at the moment, which is I think the left has grown kind of lazy.
You know, the left used to be, you know, sort of post-Second World War period.
It was kind of edgy, kind of Marxist-y, and it had a certain, you know, and it had some good causes, you know.
I mean, obviously, you know, getting rid of Jim Crow and egalitarianism between the races and good, good causes.
But they've basically attached themselves to unions, right?
They've attached themselves to particular minorities.
They've attached themselves to the strategy of importing voters, right?
The importing groups that would vote much more likely to vote for Democrats than for Republicans.
And they've had the media.
They've had the entertainment industry.
They've had the movies.
They've, you know, now, of course, like it was a recent unsuccessful attempt for social justice warriors to take over the video game industry.
So I think they've had this kind of lazy jab at the heart.
I'll just scream racist, sexist, homophobe, misogynist, and then I'll win magically because the media will be on my side.
And I don't need to make a good case because I got my finger on the scale with immigration.
And I don't need to go and raise money that much because I've got all this money coming in from forced union dues.
I think that kind of laziness intellectually makes them ripe for the kind of takeover that we see happening at the moment.
Categorically, if the entire stream of society is, as you said, If it's the politics in Washington, if it's the news media in New York, and if it's the pop culture in Hollywood, this Iron Triangle is all pushing people to the left, and the stream is going to the left.
In fact, it's a river that moves to the left all the time.
Now, a dead piece of wood can float downstream, right?
If you're going to go upstream, you've got to be fit.
You've got to be a salmon.
You have to be fit.
You have to be prepared to deal with these arguments we see every day.
That's why we're so much better at arguing than they are.
But again, we think that winning the argument means that we win the argument.
That we would win with a rational person.
But that's not what's happening.
They don't deal with rational people.
I do love this idea, this topic about the messaging.
So, how did we get Obamacare, as an example, Stephen?
How did it arrive?
Did it arrive because the Democrats made a series of pamphlets or websites showing that it was going to drive costs down?
Did it arrive because, no.
We got Obamacare because Barack Obama, standing on the floor of the House of Representatives during a State of the Union speech, Surrounded by flags in the accumulated glory of 250 years of American majesty, stands there with every single camera in the world looking at him and he says, I'd like you to meet somebody.
I'd like you to meet Miss Harriet Johnson.
Miss Johnson, would you stand up for a moment, please?
And up in the balcony is an 80-year-old black woman and she gets up and she waves and says hi.
And then President Obama says, as it turns out, Harriet had a terminal condition, a very serious health condition.
And her husband, who was a war veteran, who's no longer with us, unfortunately, she lost her insurance and she's not able to pay for it, but thanks to our legislation that we're proposing, Mrs.
Johnson there is not going to have to go die in a ditch like a dog, essentially is what he's saying.
And then Stalin's brilliant dictum comes to life.
One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.
We're arguing the statistics of how the healthcare system is going to collapse if we do this.
Barack Obama is putting a face to He's putting a face on the idea and he's basically saying to the entire country, you don't want this little old lady to die, do you?
And I watch this happening, Stephan, and we're gladiators.
I'm watching this happening and I'm feeling myself going, no, I don't want anything bad to happen.
Maybe this Obama thing is not such a bad idea.
And it's only when the magic and this thing is over That you realize, even if it were true, even if it were true that his policies would save that woman's life, how many millions of people would lose their lives as a result of this miserable care that's going to come along?
People don't think that way.
They deal with emotions and they deal with personalizing things.
It's got to be personalized.
A face is great.
A personal story is great.
And these are the kind of things that we don't do and we need to be doing a lot more of.
Yeah, I mean, so, I mean, in Chicago, well, it's had a Democrat mayor And these are grim caskets that we should really visit in our mind's eye to just recognize how brutal this situation is.
Yes, and let's take the shootings, for example, as another means of the way we could Not just improve our messaging, actually do effective messaging, right?
So Republicans are against Black Lives Matter and Democrats, generally speaking, are supporting Black Lives Matter.
And so when you ask the general public, what does that mean?
It means that Republicans are in favor of black people being gunned down by policemen and the Democrats are opposed.
That's how it comes out, right?
So here's how you make this argument.
You say, listen, in 2000, these numbers are, I think, correct from memory.
Yes, they're exactly correct from memory.
You say in 2014, 6,095 blacks were killed in this country, mostly black young males.
6,095 of them were killed, and 257 of those were killed by policemen.
It's 4%.
It's 4% of the total Black murders in this country are caused by police.
So I want to tell you that I think Black Lives Matter too.
So since we both agree that Black Lives Matter, why are we focusing on the 4% and utterly ignoring the 96%?
What is it that is making you ignore the 96% of dead Black Americans and concentrating on the 4%?
Because if you really cared about Black Lives Matter, as I do, you'd start wondering about what we can do In these little murder holes like Chicago and Newark and St.
Louis and Baltimore, that's where the murders happen.
And every one of them has been run by Democrats for 60, 70, 80, 90 years, right?
So yes, black lives absolutely do matter.
And I'd like to go after the 96%, reduce that number, before I start worrying about trying to reduce the 4%, most of which, by the way, you don't have to add this, but we know most of which is, in many cases, justified in virtually all of them.
Well, yeah, of course.
Of course, the black has to be unarmed, and the black has to be doing nothing to strenuously resist arrest, and there can't be any mistakes or confusions about whether he has a weapon, because it's very easy to say unarmed after the fact, but you don't necessarily know that.
And yeah, there's lots of, we've got a bunch of presentations on this.
Right, so we do the statistics, right?
We do the statistics, but we don't make the moral conclusion, because we don't have the courage or the sense to make it.
We have the statistics.
But we don't say, why do Democrats, why are they so comfortable, in fact happy, with 6,000 people being murdered every year?
If there are 6,000 murders every year among black Americans and less than 300 of them, 250 of them roughly, I would argue that you could even take the perspective further than that,
Bill, and you could say that by focusing on police shootings of blacks...
It causes the police to become very cautious.
It causes the police to pull back, to sit in their cars rather than engage with the local population.
And we can see, as it's called the Ferguson effect, that murders in black communities and Hispanic communities and other crime-ridden communities of every ethnicity, that murders are going up, that robberies are going up, that rapes are going up.
Black Lives Matter is killing black people.
It's not even that they're comfortable, but they're actually willing to increase the number of deaths of vulnerable populations in order to stoke the frames of racial tension, to race bait, in order to stay in power.
To keep Democrats elected, and this is the reason.
It's power and money.
The Democrats are lying to black America about a phenomenon that is a 96 to 4 ratio, and they're concentrating on the 4 because that will allow them to stay in power.
Rudy Giuliani understood this.
He understood the emotional and the moral argument.
When Black Lives Matter had a big flare up a couple of months ago or something like that, Giuliani said, listen, I've saved more black lives as mayor of New York than any of these people can imagine because I put in a police force that was willing to go in there and prevent crime and the murder rate went down from 2000 a year to 500 a year or whatever it is.
I saved thousands of black lives a year because I was in favor of police protection.
And this is where we fail.
There was the rumors of the great softening, that he was going to soften on his immigration stance, which of course is a way of luring left-wing people to tune in and see the great flip-flop and see him back down and all that kind of stuff.
And destroy his existing power.
Yeah, destroy that, which according to Ann Coulter is the main reason why he's supported in general, at least on the right side.
So he brings that in.
He does not do any softening.
He doubles down on his immigration, and then he parades out the angel moms, the people whose children have been lost as a result of illegal crimes by illegal immigrants.
That is, of course, very powerful optics.
Those are real people who've suffered incredibly tragic losses.
They're up there.
They're visible.
And that, I think, is a kind of optic that I'm not sure I'd see a lot of other Republicans having the nerve or perhaps the balls to just pull off.
Donald Trump is the nominee because he's the only person that understands the moral argument.
He's the only person talking about this stuff.
He's the only person that gets it.
He's the only person that has the sense to say, okay, wall between Mexico, and this is why Trump is improving so quickly.
Trump says, wall for Mexico, and then Trump makes the case.
And the case is, it's not only good for America, it's good for Mexico.
And all of a sudden, all of the hatred that he's assumed to be filled with, and all of the racism, and all of the homophobia, and all of the xenophobia goes.
Because he says, look, it's not just good for us, it's good for them.
All of their manpower is fleeing here.
They're escaping the corruption of a bad economy.
A wall protects Mexico by keeping money in Mexico and by making Mexicans deal with the system's Iniquities that that they have in Mexico and and he's on top of that he's he's gonna win the I care more about people argument which by the way As loathsome as it may be if you look at the exit polls for Mitt Romney in 2012 this in speculation is the exit polls people have already cast their vote very very reliable numbers and if you look at 2012 you found out that Mitt Romney won on the economy Mitt Romney won on job creation Mitt
Romney won on defense Mitt Romney won on everything he won on everything except Who cares more about you?
And Barack Obama won that thing by 93 to 7, I think.
Forget policy.
Forget what actually happens.
Who do you think cares more about you?
That's why he won the election, Stephan.
And what the left does to us is they turn us into villains.
And nobody roots for Darth Vader.
And what we do when we try to criticize Barack Obama is...
We don't come out and say Barack Obama is an evil man who's causing black deaths to continue and black poverty to continue.
What we basically do is what Romney did, which says, well, I'm not going to attack him personally.
I'll just attack his...
I'll attack his policies, which is kind of like Obi-Wan Kenobi sitting down with Luke and saying, well, Darth Vader's not a bad man, Luke.
We just don't like the way he's administering the Empire.
Darth Vader's in favor of a 7% tax and we Jedi are in favor of a 4% tax.
No one's going to get into an X-wing starfighter and go up and risk your life because the guy's policies.
Darth Vader is evil and he needs to be fought to the death and people have to die to stop this evil.
That's how they paint us, and we have the facts on our side.
They're the ones that are keeping people in poverty.
They're the ones that are continuing this slave plantation of votes.
They're the ones that have the murder pits, and we don't go to the moral argument.
I'll never understand it.
Well, this is the amazing thing about seeing someone, you know, I've always said, and I think you'd agree that, you know, free market voluntarism, win-win negotiations and freedom of association, voluntary association, that's always going to trump coerced, I'm not using the word, always going to trump coerced interactions, right?
You know, there's that old meme on floating around on Twitter, you know, it's a picture of someone with a gun to their head and it's like, government ideas, so great, they have to be mandatory.
That's right.
And so here we're seeing a bunch of politicians, most of whom have either been in sort of cartels, like being lawyers or whatever, or they've been politicians for most of their adult life.
We're seeing a bunch of politicians who are basically, you know, government win, lose people up against a free market guy.
Now, it's not a perfect free market.
He's had to, of course, play the political game to get things done.
Well, that's all right.
I mean, you can say I'm against government roads.
Does that mean you can't ever have a car?
I mean, you've got to live in the environment.
And what he's doing is he's trying to bring the concept of win-win, which you alluded to before, the concept of win-win, because the way the Democrats work, which is the way the state works, is it's win-lose.
If I get the tariff that benefits my business, that harms the consumer, that harms my competitors.
If I can rile up racial tensions, then I'm going to get to stay in power, but things are generally going to get worse.
And if I have a $20 million corporate jet, it's because it came from people's welfare payments and it came from their aid to minorities college funds and so on.
Yes, exactly.
So for Trump to say, look, we can enforce immigration law, we can get rid of or deport or they'll self-deport or find some way to ease people out of the country who are here illegally, he's saying, yeah, that's going to be good for Mexico.
And this is something I've talked about, the brain drain of Western immigration is dooming other countries to perpetual third world status because all the most intelligent, most talented, most ambitious people are kind of fleeing the country, leaving, you could say, the dregs or whatever you want to call it.
But I think this is one of the reasons why in places like Venezuela and Brazil and Mexico, you get this increasing gap between the rich and poor because the rich are fine in the country because they've got their gated communities.
They've got their four maids and their cook and they're relatively fine.
The poor usually can't get out, but it's the middle class.
It's the people who would otherwise be the backbone of more stability and reasonability in the country.
They're all fleeing to the West, which means that the West, of course, has certain problems as a result of that, but the countries themselves that those people are leaving from, where are they going to go?
How are they going to get better?
How are they going to improve?
Where is that middle class ballast stability that has always been the backbone of a more stable society?
So yeah, he's pointing out it's going to be good for minorities, it's going to even be good for corporations in the long run, and it's going to be good for Americans as a whole, and it's also going to be good for Mexico.
Because right now, I mean, Mexico loves having immigrants, illegal immigrants or legal immigrants into America because they'll get a whole bunch of money and they'll wire it back to Mexico.
And what that means is that the Mexican government is getting a whole bunch of money coming in from America.
Some of it's coming from honest work.
Some of it's coming from welfare and other things.
A bunch of money coming in from Mexico for a population they don't have to provide any services for because that population is in America.
So they don't need to provide any services.
So it's a huge win for the Mexican government.
But it means that the Mexican government does not have to be responsive to its population nearly as much because Mexico is getting more money from transfer payments from America than they even are getting from their oil.
businesses, which means they don't have to be responsive, and that's bad for Mexico in Exactly.
Trump has a statement.
He says, make Mexico great again also.
That's genius.
Make Mexico great again is genius.
Again, again, again, again, again, we have to understand that the left only succeeds by demonizing us, by turning us into Darth Vader and you cannot undemonize yourself.
What you can do, though, is you can demonize them.
Now you've got two Darth Vaders, and which one's policies do you like better?
So, you know, as far as the moral argument on immigration goes, what Donald Trump should be doing, the Angel Moms...
Yes.
Was it Angel Act?
Angel Moms, yeah.
Yes, okay.
That's powerful, but what Donald Trump really should be doing, in my opinion, is he should surround himself with a large number of legal immigrants, and he should be saying...
That these good people have spent the last four years and thousands of dollars of money to go through the correct procedure to get into this country as legal, law-abiding, hard-working citizens, and us allowing 40,000 people to just walk over a line is spitting in their face.
We're making them into chumps.
What did they spend their money for?
Why did they obey the law?
Why did they do the right thing if we were rewarding the wrong thing?
And now you've got faces on our side.
And now it's not that we're anti-immigrant.
We're anti-illegal.
Matter of fact, we love immigrants far more than the Democrats because we think about those people who are waiting for years and years and years to do this the right way.
And all of a sudden we're not the bad guys anymore.
Now we're the good guys.
It's all about black hats and white hats.
And people don't vote about what they know, Stephan.
They vote about what they feel.
And you may not like that, but that's the truth.
And we've been, the Republicans on the right have been kicking against the absurdity of that.
And continuing to kick in the grave.
My feeling is, look, if we don't compromise our values, if we don't compromise our principles, then for God's sakes, of course, let's make the emotional argument.
Let's make the emotional argument.
We're going to win that argument because we've got the evidence, not just the statistical evidence, we've got the evidence of your own lying eyes.
If we say the murder rate in Chicago is brutal, You don't have to be, you know, you have to be a fellow at the Hoover Institute to understand that that's true.
Black people in those neighborhoods know that the murder rate is brutal.
And this is why Trump has an ability, I think, to do some real, real, real good for this country.
Because Donald Trump speaks flamboyantly enough and he, look, what is the one thing that matters in entertainment and politics is becoming more and more entertaining?
Is it a position?
Is it a sense of humor?
No.
There's only one thing that matters in entertainment, Stephan, and that is, is it interesting or not?
Does it hold your interest, yes or no?
And Donald Trump speaks in a way that holds people's interest.
They may love him, they may hate him, but he's interesting.
And he's written that to the Republican candidacy, and I think, if not neck and neck with Hillary Clinton, is actually starting to pass her.
And by the way, as Trump's pan continues to go up, Hillary's is going to continue to go down.
Her health is going to get worse.
Her policies are going to show.
And when Trump gets a hold of her one-on-one during the debates, Hillary Clinton's going to be revealed for the thin-skinned, power-hungry narcissist that she really is.
Yeah, I always think of that debate, what's coming up in about 10 days, the first one.
You see those National Geographic specials of the seal on top of the water and then the shark coming up and Toss it, get it into the air.
That's my particular view of how it's going to go, but I'll be glued to my media to see how that goes down.
Well, thanks for a great chat as always, Bill.
Really wanted to remind people, check out Firewall.
It's a great, great series.
You can go to BillWhittle.com.
You can sign up for subscriptions there.
And remember, the YouTube channel is YouTube.com slash Bill Whittle channel.
