Artwork

Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right

410 subscribers

Checked 4d ago
Agregado hace cinco años
Contenido proporcionado por The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie. Todo el contenido del podcast, incluidos episodios, gráficos y descripciones de podcast, lo carga y proporciona directamente The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie o su socio de plataforma de podcast. Si cree que alguien está utilizando su trabajo protegido por derechos de autor sin su permiso, puede seguir el proceso descrito aquí https://es.player.fm/legal.
Player FM : aplicación de podcast
¡Desconecta con la aplicación Player FM !
icon Daily Deals

Justin Amash: 'I'd Impeach Every President'

36:32
 
Compartir
 

Manage episode 402206972 series 2563781
Contenido proporcionado por The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie. Todo el contenido del podcast, incluidos episodios, gráficos y descripciones de podcast, lo carga y proporciona directamente The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie o su socio de plataforma de podcast. Si cree que alguien está utilizando su trabajo protegido por derechos de autor sin su permiso, puede seguir el proceso descrito aquí https://es.player.fm/legal.

Just 15 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. But why is it broken and how do we fix it? Those are just two of the questions that Reason's Nick Gillespie asked Justin Amash, the former five-term congressman from Michigan who is currently exploring a Senate run.

Elected as part of the Tea Party wave in 2010, Amash helped create the House Freedom Caucus but became an increasingly lonely, principled voice for limiting the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. After voting to impeach Donald Trump, he resigned from the GOP, became an independent, and then joined the Libertarian Party in 2020, making him the only Libertarian to serve in Congress.

They talked about the 2024 presidential election and the country's political and cultural polarization that seems to be growing with every passing day. And about how his parents' experiences as a Christian refugee from Palestine and an immigrant from Syria inform his views on foreign policy, entrepreneurship, and American exceptionalism.

This Q&A took place on the final day of LibertyCon, the annual event for Students for Liberty that took place recently in Washington, D.C.

Today's sponsor:

  • DonorsTrust is the oldest and largest donor-advised fund made for people who live out with their charitable giving the idea of free minds and free markets. If you don't know about donor-advised funds, you should. The fund gives you a simple, tax-advantaged way to easily donate to charities that align with your values. Whether it's promoting education freedom, protecting free speech, or just helping people live better lives, the choice is yours. There are lots of providers of donor-advised funds, but DonorsTrust is the one that understands you the best. DonorsTrust is a great friend of Reason and to all other groups like it.

Watch the full video here and find a condensed transcript below.

Nick Gillespie: Why is Congress broken and how do we fix that?

Justin Amash: We can take up the whole 30 minutes talking about that if we wanted to. We don't know exactly how Congress got to where it is, but today it is highly centralized, where a few people at the top control everything. And that has a lot of negative consequences for our country. Among them is that the president has an unbelievable amount of power because the president now only has to negotiate with really a few people. You have to negotiate with the speaker of the House. You have to negotiate with the Senate majority leader and maybe some of the minority leaders. But it's really a small subset of people that you have to negotiate with. And when that happens, it gives the president so much leverage.

So when we talk about things like going to war without authorization, as long as the speaker of the House isn't going to hold the president accountable and the Senate majority leader is not going to, the president is just going to do what he wants to do. And when it comes to spending, as long as the president only has to negotiate with a couple of people, the president's going to do whatever the president wants to do. So it's super easy in the system for the president to essentially bully Congress and dictate the outcomes.

But there's a deeper problem with all of this, which is that representative government is supposed to be a discovery process. You elect people to represent you. You send them to Washington, and then the outcomes are supposed to be discovered by these representatives through discussions and debates, and the introduction of legislation, and amendments. You're supposed to have lots of votes, where the votes freely reflect your will representing the people back home. But instead, in Congress today, a few leaders are deciding what the final product is and then they're not bringing it to the floor until they know they have the votes. So there's no actual discovery process. Nancy Pelosi used to brag about this; she wouldn't bring a bill to the floor unless she knew it was going to pass. Which is the opposite of how Congress should work.

Gillespie: What are some of the ways to decentralize power within Congress? When you were in Congress, you founded the Freedom Caucus, which was supposed to be kind of a redoubt of people who believed in limited government and libertarian and conservative principles and actually even some liberal principles, but decentralizing authority. You got kicked out of the Freedom Caucus, right?

Amash: Well, I resigned from it.

Gillespie: Well, you were asked to leave. The police sirens were coming, and it's like, "Hey, you know what? I'm going to go," right? But even places like that, that were explicitly designed to act as a countervailing force to this unified Congress, how can that happen? What can you do or what can somebody do to make that happen?

Amash: Well, it does take people with strong will. I think that when we go to vote for our elected officials, when you go to vote for a representative, when you go to vote for a senator, you have to know that that person is willing to stand up to the leadership team. And if that person's not willing to break from the leadership team on a consistent basisand this doesn't mean they have to be mean or anything like that; it just means that they have to be independent enough where you know they're willing to break from their leadership team. If they're not willing to do that, it doesn't matter how much they agree with you on the issues, don't vote for them because that person is going to sell out. There's no chance they're going to stand up for you when it counts. I think you need to have people who have a strong will, who are going to go there and actually represent you and are willing to stand up to the leaders.

Gillespie: If you are interested in Congressman Amash's commentary on contemporary issues, go to his substack Justin Amash. The tagline is: "A former congressman spills on Congress and makes the practical case for the principles of liberty." It's a great read, particularly on issues you mentioned.

Can you tell us how you discovered libertarian ideas? You got elected in 2010, which was a wave election. It was part of the Tea Party reaction to eight years of Bush, and more problems during the financial crisis and the reaction of the government to that. Where did you first encounter the ideas of liberty, and how did that motivate you to get into Congress?

Amash: The ideas of liberty are something that have been with me since I was a child. It's hard to pinpoint exactly where they came from. I think they came from my parents' immigrant experience, coming to the United States. My dad came here as a refugee from Palestine. He was born in Palestine in 1940. And when the state of Israel was created in '48, he became a refugee. My mom is a Syrian immigrant.

When my parents came here, they weren't wealthy. My dad was a very poor refugee. He was so poor that the Palestinians made fun of him. So that's really poor. When he came here, he didn't have much, but he felt he had an opportunity. He felt he had a chance to start a new life, a chance to make it, even though he came from a different background from a lot of people, even though his English wasn't great compared to a lot of people. So he came here and he worked hard, and he built a business. When we were young, he used to tell us that America is the greatest place on earth, where someone can come here as a refugee like he did and start a new life and have the chance to be successful. It doesn't matter what your background is. It doesn't matter what obstacles you face. You have a chance here and you don't have that chance in so many places around the world.

I think that's where that spirit of liberty came from. It was from my dad's experience especially, my mom as well, coming here as a young immigrant. So I was always a little bit anti-authoritarian as a child. I rebelled against teachers at times. I didn't like arbitrary authority, let's put it that way. When someone would just make up a rule, like this is the rule, "I just say so." Well, tell me why.

Gillespie: Have you rethought that as a parent?

Amash: No, I mean, I let my kids think very freely.

Gillespie: As long as they follow the rules.

Amash: I don't mind when they are a little bit rebellious. I think it doesn't hurt for kids to have some independence. I encourage them to challenge their teachers, even when they think the teacher is wrong about something. I think that it's a good thing for people to go out there and not just accept everything as it is.

Gillespie: You famously, as a congressman, explained all of your votes on Facebook, which is a rare concession by authority to say, okay, this is why I did what I did.

Amash: Yeah. Actually, a lot of the people in leadership and in Congress didn't like that I was doing that because I was giving people at home the power to challenge them. Instead of just being told this is the way it is, now I was revealing what was going on.

Gillespie: You grew up in Michigan. You went to the University of Michigan as an undergrad and for law school. Was it there that you started coming across names like Hayek, and Mises, and Friedman, Rand, and Rothbard?

Amash: Not really, no. My background is in economics, my degree is in economics. I did well in economics at Michigan, but we sure didn't study Austrian economics. We didn't study Hayek. I think he might have been mentioned in one class. Very briefly he was mentioned, like there was one day where he was mentioned. But I'd say that what happened is, as I went through my economics degree, and then I got a law degree at Michigan as well, I started to realize that I had a lot of differences from other people who were otherwise aligned with me. I was a Republican. I aligned with them on a lot of things, but there were a number of issues where we didn't align— some of the foreign policy issues, but certainly a lot of civil liberties issues.

I started to wonder, what am I? What's going on here? I just thought of myself as a Republican, and I would read the platform and hear what they're saying. They believe in limited government, economic freedom, and individual liberty.

But when push came to shove on a lot of issues, they didn't believe those things. They'd say they believe those things, but they didn't. I've told this story before, I just typed some of my views into a Google search, and up popped Hayek's Wikipedia page. Literally, it was like the top thing on Google. So I clicked on that, started reading about them, and I was already in my mid-20s at this time. And I was like, yes, this is what I believe.

Gillespie: It is interesting because you would have been coming of age during a time when the Republicans were ascendant. But they were the war party. And we were told after 9/11 that you should not speak freely. That was kind of a problem, right?

Amash: Yeah, sure. Throughout my life, I believed in freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. These are critical values. Maybe they're the essence of everything that makes this country work. The idea that we come from a lot of places—there's an incredible amount of diversity in the United States. I think diversity is always treated or often treated like a bad word these days. But it's a blessing to our country that we have people who come from so many backgrounds. Actually, the principle of liberty is about utilizing that diversity.

It's in centrally planned systems where diversity is not utilized, where someone at the top dictates to everyone else and doesn't take advantage of any of the diversity. They say no, a few of us at the top, we know everything. It doesn't matter. All of your backgrounds, all of your skills, all of your talents, that doesn't matter. What matters is we've got a few people in a room somewhere, and they're going to decide everything. And they know best because they're experts.

Gillespie: You came into office in 2011, and it seemed like there was a real libertarian insurgency within the Republican Party. But more nationally in discourse, people were tired of continued centralization, and government secrecy—famously, a lot of Bush's activities and particularly war spending early on was done in supplemental and emergency preparations, not really open to full discussions.

All of the stuff coming out of the Patriot Act, somebody like Dick Cheney kind of saying we're in control. But then Obama also promised the most transparent administration ever and plainly did not deliver on that.

That energy pushing back on centralization and government power and government secrecy that helped bring you and other people like you to Congress seems to have dissipated. Do you agree with that? And if so, what took that away?

Amash: Yeah, I agree with that. When I was running for office, both for State House in 2009 and when I got to Congress in 2011, there was a lot of energy behind a limited government, libertarian-ish republicanism. I felt like libertarianism was really rising. There was a chance for libertarian ideals to get a lot of traction. A lot of people who used to be more like Bush conservatives were coming around to the libertarian way.

I felt really good about where things were heading. And for the first, I'd say three or four years that I was in Congress, I felt like we continued to move in the right direction. The creation of the Freedom Caucus was kind of a dream of bringing people together to challenge the leadership. They weren't all libertarians or anything like that. There are a few who are libertarian-leaning, but the idea that a group of Republican members—it wasn't determined that it was going to be only Republicans, but it ended up being Republicansgot together and said, "Hey, we're going to challenge the status quo. We're going to challenge the establishment." That was kind of a dream that had come together.

Then when Donald Trump came on the scene, I think a lot of that just fell apart because he's such a strong personality and character, and had so much hold over a lot of the public, especially on the Republican side, that it was very hard for my colleagues to be able to challenge him.

Gillespie: What's the essential appeal of Trump? Is it his personality? Is that that he said he could win and he ended up doing that at least once? Is it a cult of personality? What's the core of his appeal to you?

Amash: I think he is definitely a unique character. He has a certain charisma that is probably unmatched in politics. I don't think I've ever seen someone who campaigns as effectively as he does. It doesn't mean you have to agree with all of the ethics of what he does or any of that, or the substance.

Gillespie: To keep it in Michigan, he's a rock star. He's Iggy Pop. You may not like what he's doing on the stage, but you can't take your eyes off it.

Amash: That's right. He holds court. When he's out there, people pay attention. He really understands the essence of campaigning, and how to win a campaign. He understands how to effectively go after opponents. Now, again, I'm not saying that all of these things are necessarily ethical or that other people should do the same things, but he really understands how to lead a populist movement.

Gillespie: How important do you think in his appeal is a politics of resentment, that somehow he is going to get back what was taken from you?

Amash: The whole Make America Great Again, there's a whole idea there of "someone is destroying your life, and I'm going to get it back for you." That's a very powerful thing to a lot of people. For a lot of people out there, it is more important to get back at others than necessarily to have some kind of vision of how this is all going to work going forward. It's not appealing to me because I understand, we live in one country. We have people of all sorts of backgrounds. And if you're going to persuade people, you have to be able to live with them and work with them, regardless of your differences. It doesn't mean that you can't be upset, be angry about what some other people are doing or saying. But there has to be an effort to live together here as one country. We have too much in common in this country.

Gillespie: Michigan was a massive swing state when he won the election. You voted to impeach Donald Trump. What went into that calculation? What was the reaction like to that? That's a profile in courage.

Amash: Well, I don't think that's my most courageous vote, not even by a long shot.

Gillespie: What was? Naming the post office after your father?

Amash: I didn't name any post offices after my father, to be clear. I think that the courageous votes are the ones where everyone is against you. And I don't mean just one party. It's one thing to vote for impeachment and half the country loves what you did and half the country doesn't like what you did. That's, in my mind, not that challenging or difficult. It's when you take a vote and you know that 99 percent of the public is going to misconstrue this, misunderstand it, be against it. The vote is going to be something like 433 to 1 in the House or something like that. Those are the tough votes. And there are plenty of those votes out there, where you're taking a principled stand and you're doing it to protect people's rights. But it's not the typical narrative.

Gillespie: Is there an example that, in your legislative record, you would put forth for that?

Amash: One of the ones I've talked about before is, they tried to pass some anti-lynching legislation at the federal level and everyone's against lynching, obviously, but the legislation itself was bad and would actually harm a lot of people, including harming a lot of black Americans. There was this idea that this legislation was good and parroted by a lot of people in the media. They didn't read the legislation. In fact, I complained about it and it mysteriously did not pass both houses of Congress after I pointed out all the problems with it. It did pass the House of Representatives. Did not pass both Houses and get signed by the president. Mysteriously, the next Congress, they reintroduced it and rewrote it in a way that took into consideration all of my complaints, and they tried to pass it off like they were just reintroducing the same legislation. I pointed out: They actually saw that there was a problem here and then tried to pretend like, "Oh, we're just passing it again." Those kinds of votes are tough because when you take the vote, everyone thinks you're wrong. Everyone. And you have to go home and you have to explain it. Those are the ones that are tricky.

Back to the impeachment point. Look, I'd impeach every president. Let's be clear. I'm not the kind of person who's going to introduce impeachment legislation over every little thing that a president does wrong. When you introduce legislation to impeach a president, you have to have some backing for it. It can't just be one person saying, let's impeach.

For example, I would definitely impeach President Biden over these unconstitutional wars 100 percent. But the idea of introducing impeachment legislation suggests there's other people who will join you. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in futility. You introduce it. It doesn't go anywhere. It just sits there. If we're going to impeach people, there has to be some public backing, which is why I try to make the case all the time for these impeachable offenses, why some legislation should be brought forth. But you've got to get the public behind you on that kind of stuff. I think that every president should be impeached, every recent president at least.

Gillespie: If Trump's populism, national conservatism, and politics of resentment are sucking up a lot of energy on the right, how do we deal with the rise of identity politics and a kind of woke progressivism on the left? Where is that coming from? And what is the best way to combat that?

Amash: I think a lot of it is just repackaged socialist ideas, collectivist ideas. The idea of equity, for example, is really like a perversion of the idea of equality. In most respects, when people say equity, they mean the opposite of equality. It means you're going to have the government or some central authority decide what the outcomes should be, how much each person should have, rather than some system of equality before the law, where the government is not some kind of arbiter of who deserves what. When you think about it, there is no way for the government to do this. There's no way for the government to properly assess all of our lives. This is in many ways the point of diversity: we're all so different. There's no way that a central authority can decide how to manage all that.

For many of the people on the woke left who say they care about diversity, they don't care about diversity if they're talking about equity. These things are in conflict with each other. The idea that you're going to decide that someone is more deserving than another based on some superficial characteristics. As an exampleI've talked about this and I've talked about this earlier in this conversation—my dad came here with nothing as a poor refugee. Yet, in a lot of cases, he might be classified as just a white American. Even though he came here as an extremely poor Palestinian refugee. The New York Times, for example, classifies me as white. They might classify someone else who's Middle Eastern as a person of color.

I think a lot of this is just, someone is making decisions at the top saying, "Well, we think this person is more like this or that, and we're going to decide they're more deserving." But they don't know our backgrounds. They don't know anything about us. They don't know who deserves this or who deserves that. No central authority could figure that out. The best thing we can do is have a system of equality before the law, where the law treats everyone the same. It doesn't give an advantage to any person over another person. It may not be fair in some sense to some people. Some people might say, "well, that's not fair."

Some people, instead of having a dad who's a Palestinian refugee, their dad was some Silicon Valley billionaire. Some person might have a dad who was a professor. Another person might have a dad who worked at a fast-food restaurant. You don't know what the differences are. The government can't figure all of this out and say who is more deserving than someone else. So I really think that the woke left, when they pushed this idea of equity, they're really pushing against diversity. They're saying, a few people at the top are gonna decide who's valuable and who's not valuable, and they're not going to actually take into consideration any of our differences, because no central authority could take it into consideration.

Gillespie: You are a libertarian, not an anarchist. You believe there is a role for government, but it should be obviously much more limited. You are also an Orthodox Christian. Could you talk a little bit about how in a world of limited government, a libertarian world, the government wouldn't be doing everything for everybody, but placing organizations and institutions like the church or other types of intervening, countervailing, mediating institutions would help to fill the gaps that are left by the government?

Amash: The place for these organizations is to help society, not to have government deciding it. When you have some central authority deciding it, you are really limiting the opportunities for the public. You're limiting the opportunities for assisting people. You're deciding that a few people are going to make all the decisions, rather than having a lot of organizations and a lot of individuals making decisions.

When you centralize it all, there are a lot of people who are going to be missed, a lot of people who are going to be ignored. When you let the marketplace work this out, when you let private organizations work this out, there is a lot more opportunity for people who need help to get help. I think that's really important.

Gillespie: There was a libertarian wave—I like to call it a libertarian moment—which I think we're still living in, but we don't understand, rhetoric aside. What are the best ways to get libertarian ideas and sensibilities in front of young people, to really energize Gen Z? The world is getting young again. How do we make sure that these people are hearing and understanding and maybe being persuaded by libertarian ideas?

Amash: For one thing, we have to meet them where they are. I spend a lot of time, for example, asking my kids, which social media kids use these days? They're in a lot of places that the adults aren't. We might be on FacebookI mean, my generation, your generation. Other people are on X or Twitter. And there are other people on TikTok.

You have to meet them where they are and if they're not on X andit's still weird to call it Xif they're not on X and you are, well, they're not hearing your message. That's an issue. That's something we all have to work on. I'm probably reaching primarily Gen X and millennial people on X, and I'm probably not reaching Gen Z people as well. I think we need to work on getting them in those places.

Also, I think people who have libertarian instincts, people who want to present libertarianism and have an opportunity, go speak to students at schools. I used to do this as a member of Congress. I used that opportunity as much as I could. When schools would invite me, I'd say, "Yes, I'd be happy to come to the school to speak to the students" and take all their questions and be open about being a libertarian. Tell them frankly that your philosophy is libertarianism and talk to them about it. I think it's great. A lot of teachers end up surprised. I've had many teachers walk up to me and whisper to me, "I think I'm a libertarian, too," after having the conversation because they have stereotypes about what it might mean to be a libertarian and you have the opportunity to change their mind.

Gillespie: I have seen a lot of chatter. I have actually helped publish a lot of chatter that you may be running for the U.S. Senate from the mediocre state of Michigan. Do you have an announcement that you would like to make?

Amash: As a part of the national championship-winning state of Michigan this year, I am exploring a run for Senate. The [Federal Election Commission] FEC requires me to state that I am not a candidate for Senate, but I am exploring a run for Senate.

If you're interested in checking it out, go to https://exploratory.justinamash.com/. I'm giving it serious thought. I think that there is an opportunity for libertarians this year, and there's an opportunity to win a Republican Senate seat this year. So I'm looking at the Republican primary. I think this is probably the best shot libertarians have had in a long time in the state of Michigan.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.

Photo Credits: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; BONNIE CASH/UPI/Newscom

The post Justin Amash: 'I'd Impeach Every President' appeared first on Reason.com.

  continue reading

360 episodios

Artwork
iconCompartir
 
Manage episode 402206972 series 2563781
Contenido proporcionado por The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie. Todo el contenido del podcast, incluidos episodios, gráficos y descripciones de podcast, lo carga y proporciona directamente The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie o su socio de plataforma de podcast. Si cree que alguien está utilizando su trabajo protegido por derechos de autor sin su permiso, puede seguir el proceso descrito aquí https://es.player.fm/legal.

Just 15 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. But why is it broken and how do we fix it? Those are just two of the questions that Reason's Nick Gillespie asked Justin Amash, the former five-term congressman from Michigan who is currently exploring a Senate run.

Elected as part of the Tea Party wave in 2010, Amash helped create the House Freedom Caucus but became an increasingly lonely, principled voice for limiting the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. After voting to impeach Donald Trump, he resigned from the GOP, became an independent, and then joined the Libertarian Party in 2020, making him the only Libertarian to serve in Congress.

They talked about the 2024 presidential election and the country's political and cultural polarization that seems to be growing with every passing day. And about how his parents' experiences as a Christian refugee from Palestine and an immigrant from Syria inform his views on foreign policy, entrepreneurship, and American exceptionalism.

This Q&A took place on the final day of LibertyCon, the annual event for Students for Liberty that took place recently in Washington, D.C.

Today's sponsor:

  • DonorsTrust is the oldest and largest donor-advised fund made for people who live out with their charitable giving the idea of free minds and free markets. If you don't know about donor-advised funds, you should. The fund gives you a simple, tax-advantaged way to easily donate to charities that align with your values. Whether it's promoting education freedom, protecting free speech, or just helping people live better lives, the choice is yours. There are lots of providers of donor-advised funds, but DonorsTrust is the one that understands you the best. DonorsTrust is a great friend of Reason and to all other groups like it.

Watch the full video here and find a condensed transcript below.

Nick Gillespie: Why is Congress broken and how do we fix that?

Justin Amash: We can take up the whole 30 minutes talking about that if we wanted to. We don't know exactly how Congress got to where it is, but today it is highly centralized, where a few people at the top control everything. And that has a lot of negative consequences for our country. Among them is that the president has an unbelievable amount of power because the president now only has to negotiate with really a few people. You have to negotiate with the speaker of the House. You have to negotiate with the Senate majority leader and maybe some of the minority leaders. But it's really a small subset of people that you have to negotiate with. And when that happens, it gives the president so much leverage.

So when we talk about things like going to war without authorization, as long as the speaker of the House isn't going to hold the president accountable and the Senate majority leader is not going to, the president is just going to do what he wants to do. And when it comes to spending, as long as the president only has to negotiate with a couple of people, the president's going to do whatever the president wants to do. So it's super easy in the system for the president to essentially bully Congress and dictate the outcomes.

But there's a deeper problem with all of this, which is that representative government is supposed to be a discovery process. You elect people to represent you. You send them to Washington, and then the outcomes are supposed to be discovered by these representatives through discussions and debates, and the introduction of legislation, and amendments. You're supposed to have lots of votes, where the votes freely reflect your will representing the people back home. But instead, in Congress today, a few leaders are deciding what the final product is and then they're not bringing it to the floor until they know they have the votes. So there's no actual discovery process. Nancy Pelosi used to brag about this; she wouldn't bring a bill to the floor unless she knew it was going to pass. Which is the opposite of how Congress should work.

Gillespie: What are some of the ways to decentralize power within Congress? When you were in Congress, you founded the Freedom Caucus, which was supposed to be kind of a redoubt of people who believed in limited government and libertarian and conservative principles and actually even some liberal principles, but decentralizing authority. You got kicked out of the Freedom Caucus, right?

Amash: Well, I resigned from it.

Gillespie: Well, you were asked to leave. The police sirens were coming, and it's like, "Hey, you know what? I'm going to go," right? But even places like that, that were explicitly designed to act as a countervailing force to this unified Congress, how can that happen? What can you do or what can somebody do to make that happen?

Amash: Well, it does take people with strong will. I think that when we go to vote for our elected officials, when you go to vote for a representative, when you go to vote for a senator, you have to know that that person is willing to stand up to the leadership team. And if that person's not willing to break from the leadership team on a consistent basisand this doesn't mean they have to be mean or anything like that; it just means that they have to be independent enough where you know they're willing to break from their leadership team. If they're not willing to do that, it doesn't matter how much they agree with you on the issues, don't vote for them because that person is going to sell out. There's no chance they're going to stand up for you when it counts. I think you need to have people who have a strong will, who are going to go there and actually represent you and are willing to stand up to the leaders.

Gillespie: If you are interested in Congressman Amash's commentary on contemporary issues, go to his substack Justin Amash. The tagline is: "A former congressman spills on Congress and makes the practical case for the principles of liberty." It's a great read, particularly on issues you mentioned.

Can you tell us how you discovered libertarian ideas? You got elected in 2010, which was a wave election. It was part of the Tea Party reaction to eight years of Bush, and more problems during the financial crisis and the reaction of the government to that. Where did you first encounter the ideas of liberty, and how did that motivate you to get into Congress?

Amash: The ideas of liberty are something that have been with me since I was a child. It's hard to pinpoint exactly where they came from. I think they came from my parents' immigrant experience, coming to the United States. My dad came here as a refugee from Palestine. He was born in Palestine in 1940. And when the state of Israel was created in '48, he became a refugee. My mom is a Syrian immigrant.

When my parents came here, they weren't wealthy. My dad was a very poor refugee. He was so poor that the Palestinians made fun of him. So that's really poor. When he came here, he didn't have much, but he felt he had an opportunity. He felt he had a chance to start a new life, a chance to make it, even though he came from a different background from a lot of people, even though his English wasn't great compared to a lot of people. So he came here and he worked hard, and he built a business. When we were young, he used to tell us that America is the greatest place on earth, where someone can come here as a refugee like he did and start a new life and have the chance to be successful. It doesn't matter what your background is. It doesn't matter what obstacles you face. You have a chance here and you don't have that chance in so many places around the world.

I think that's where that spirit of liberty came from. It was from my dad's experience especially, my mom as well, coming here as a young immigrant. So I was always a little bit anti-authoritarian as a child. I rebelled against teachers at times. I didn't like arbitrary authority, let's put it that way. When someone would just make up a rule, like this is the rule, "I just say so." Well, tell me why.

Gillespie: Have you rethought that as a parent?

Amash: No, I mean, I let my kids think very freely.

Gillespie: As long as they follow the rules.

Amash: I don't mind when they are a little bit rebellious. I think it doesn't hurt for kids to have some independence. I encourage them to challenge their teachers, even when they think the teacher is wrong about something. I think that it's a good thing for people to go out there and not just accept everything as it is.

Gillespie: You famously, as a congressman, explained all of your votes on Facebook, which is a rare concession by authority to say, okay, this is why I did what I did.

Amash: Yeah. Actually, a lot of the people in leadership and in Congress didn't like that I was doing that because I was giving people at home the power to challenge them. Instead of just being told this is the way it is, now I was revealing what was going on.

Gillespie: You grew up in Michigan. You went to the University of Michigan as an undergrad and for law school. Was it there that you started coming across names like Hayek, and Mises, and Friedman, Rand, and Rothbard?

Amash: Not really, no. My background is in economics, my degree is in economics. I did well in economics at Michigan, but we sure didn't study Austrian economics. We didn't study Hayek. I think he might have been mentioned in one class. Very briefly he was mentioned, like there was one day where he was mentioned. But I'd say that what happened is, as I went through my economics degree, and then I got a law degree at Michigan as well, I started to realize that I had a lot of differences from other people who were otherwise aligned with me. I was a Republican. I aligned with them on a lot of things, but there were a number of issues where we didn't align— some of the foreign policy issues, but certainly a lot of civil liberties issues.

I started to wonder, what am I? What's going on here? I just thought of myself as a Republican, and I would read the platform and hear what they're saying. They believe in limited government, economic freedom, and individual liberty.

But when push came to shove on a lot of issues, they didn't believe those things. They'd say they believe those things, but they didn't. I've told this story before, I just typed some of my views into a Google search, and up popped Hayek's Wikipedia page. Literally, it was like the top thing on Google. So I clicked on that, started reading about them, and I was already in my mid-20s at this time. And I was like, yes, this is what I believe.

Gillespie: It is interesting because you would have been coming of age during a time when the Republicans were ascendant. But they were the war party. And we were told after 9/11 that you should not speak freely. That was kind of a problem, right?

Amash: Yeah, sure. Throughout my life, I believed in freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. These are critical values. Maybe they're the essence of everything that makes this country work. The idea that we come from a lot of places—there's an incredible amount of diversity in the United States. I think diversity is always treated or often treated like a bad word these days. But it's a blessing to our country that we have people who come from so many backgrounds. Actually, the principle of liberty is about utilizing that diversity.

It's in centrally planned systems where diversity is not utilized, where someone at the top dictates to everyone else and doesn't take advantage of any of the diversity. They say no, a few of us at the top, we know everything. It doesn't matter. All of your backgrounds, all of your skills, all of your talents, that doesn't matter. What matters is we've got a few people in a room somewhere, and they're going to decide everything. And they know best because they're experts.

Gillespie: You came into office in 2011, and it seemed like there was a real libertarian insurgency within the Republican Party. But more nationally in discourse, people were tired of continued centralization, and government secrecy—famously, a lot of Bush's activities and particularly war spending early on was done in supplemental and emergency preparations, not really open to full discussions.

All of the stuff coming out of the Patriot Act, somebody like Dick Cheney kind of saying we're in control. But then Obama also promised the most transparent administration ever and plainly did not deliver on that.

That energy pushing back on centralization and government power and government secrecy that helped bring you and other people like you to Congress seems to have dissipated. Do you agree with that? And if so, what took that away?

Amash: Yeah, I agree with that. When I was running for office, both for State House in 2009 and when I got to Congress in 2011, there was a lot of energy behind a limited government, libertarian-ish republicanism. I felt like libertarianism was really rising. There was a chance for libertarian ideals to get a lot of traction. A lot of people who used to be more like Bush conservatives were coming around to the libertarian way.

I felt really good about where things were heading. And for the first, I'd say three or four years that I was in Congress, I felt like we continued to move in the right direction. The creation of the Freedom Caucus was kind of a dream of bringing people together to challenge the leadership. They weren't all libertarians or anything like that. There are a few who are libertarian-leaning, but the idea that a group of Republican members—it wasn't determined that it was going to be only Republicans, but it ended up being Republicansgot together and said, "Hey, we're going to challenge the status quo. We're going to challenge the establishment." That was kind of a dream that had come together.

Then when Donald Trump came on the scene, I think a lot of that just fell apart because he's such a strong personality and character, and had so much hold over a lot of the public, especially on the Republican side, that it was very hard for my colleagues to be able to challenge him.

Gillespie: What's the essential appeal of Trump? Is it his personality? Is that that he said he could win and he ended up doing that at least once? Is it a cult of personality? What's the core of his appeal to you?

Amash: I think he is definitely a unique character. He has a certain charisma that is probably unmatched in politics. I don't think I've ever seen someone who campaigns as effectively as he does. It doesn't mean you have to agree with all of the ethics of what he does or any of that, or the substance.

Gillespie: To keep it in Michigan, he's a rock star. He's Iggy Pop. You may not like what he's doing on the stage, but you can't take your eyes off it.

Amash: That's right. He holds court. When he's out there, people pay attention. He really understands the essence of campaigning, and how to win a campaign. He understands how to effectively go after opponents. Now, again, I'm not saying that all of these things are necessarily ethical or that other people should do the same things, but he really understands how to lead a populist movement.

Gillespie: How important do you think in his appeal is a politics of resentment, that somehow he is going to get back what was taken from you?

Amash: The whole Make America Great Again, there's a whole idea there of "someone is destroying your life, and I'm going to get it back for you." That's a very powerful thing to a lot of people. For a lot of people out there, it is more important to get back at others than necessarily to have some kind of vision of how this is all going to work going forward. It's not appealing to me because I understand, we live in one country. We have people of all sorts of backgrounds. And if you're going to persuade people, you have to be able to live with them and work with them, regardless of your differences. It doesn't mean that you can't be upset, be angry about what some other people are doing or saying. But there has to be an effort to live together here as one country. We have too much in common in this country.

Gillespie: Michigan was a massive swing state when he won the election. You voted to impeach Donald Trump. What went into that calculation? What was the reaction like to that? That's a profile in courage.

Amash: Well, I don't think that's my most courageous vote, not even by a long shot.

Gillespie: What was? Naming the post office after your father?

Amash: I didn't name any post offices after my father, to be clear. I think that the courageous votes are the ones where everyone is against you. And I don't mean just one party. It's one thing to vote for impeachment and half the country loves what you did and half the country doesn't like what you did. That's, in my mind, not that challenging or difficult. It's when you take a vote and you know that 99 percent of the public is going to misconstrue this, misunderstand it, be against it. The vote is going to be something like 433 to 1 in the House or something like that. Those are the tough votes. And there are plenty of those votes out there, where you're taking a principled stand and you're doing it to protect people's rights. But it's not the typical narrative.

Gillespie: Is there an example that, in your legislative record, you would put forth for that?

Amash: One of the ones I've talked about before is, they tried to pass some anti-lynching legislation at the federal level and everyone's against lynching, obviously, but the legislation itself was bad and would actually harm a lot of people, including harming a lot of black Americans. There was this idea that this legislation was good and parroted by a lot of people in the media. They didn't read the legislation. In fact, I complained about it and it mysteriously did not pass both houses of Congress after I pointed out all the problems with it. It did pass the House of Representatives. Did not pass both Houses and get signed by the president. Mysteriously, the next Congress, they reintroduced it and rewrote it in a way that took into consideration all of my complaints, and they tried to pass it off like they were just reintroducing the same legislation. I pointed out: They actually saw that there was a problem here and then tried to pretend like, "Oh, we're just passing it again." Those kinds of votes are tough because when you take the vote, everyone thinks you're wrong. Everyone. And you have to go home and you have to explain it. Those are the ones that are tricky.

Back to the impeachment point. Look, I'd impeach every president. Let's be clear. I'm not the kind of person who's going to introduce impeachment legislation over every little thing that a president does wrong. When you introduce legislation to impeach a president, you have to have some backing for it. It can't just be one person saying, let's impeach.

For example, I would definitely impeach President Biden over these unconstitutional wars 100 percent. But the idea of introducing impeachment legislation suggests there's other people who will join you. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in futility. You introduce it. It doesn't go anywhere. It just sits there. If we're going to impeach people, there has to be some public backing, which is why I try to make the case all the time for these impeachable offenses, why some legislation should be brought forth. But you've got to get the public behind you on that kind of stuff. I think that every president should be impeached, every recent president at least.

Gillespie: If Trump's populism, national conservatism, and politics of resentment are sucking up a lot of energy on the right, how do we deal with the rise of identity politics and a kind of woke progressivism on the left? Where is that coming from? And what is the best way to combat that?

Amash: I think a lot of it is just repackaged socialist ideas, collectivist ideas. The idea of equity, for example, is really like a perversion of the idea of equality. In most respects, when people say equity, they mean the opposite of equality. It means you're going to have the government or some central authority decide what the outcomes should be, how much each person should have, rather than some system of equality before the law, where the government is not some kind of arbiter of who deserves what. When you think about it, there is no way for the government to do this. There's no way for the government to properly assess all of our lives. This is in many ways the point of diversity: we're all so different. There's no way that a central authority can decide how to manage all that.

For many of the people on the woke left who say they care about diversity, they don't care about diversity if they're talking about equity. These things are in conflict with each other. The idea that you're going to decide that someone is more deserving than another based on some superficial characteristics. As an exampleI've talked about this and I've talked about this earlier in this conversation—my dad came here with nothing as a poor refugee. Yet, in a lot of cases, he might be classified as just a white American. Even though he came here as an extremely poor Palestinian refugee. The New York Times, for example, classifies me as white. They might classify someone else who's Middle Eastern as a person of color.

I think a lot of this is just, someone is making decisions at the top saying, "Well, we think this person is more like this or that, and we're going to decide they're more deserving." But they don't know our backgrounds. They don't know anything about us. They don't know who deserves this or who deserves that. No central authority could figure that out. The best thing we can do is have a system of equality before the law, where the law treats everyone the same. It doesn't give an advantage to any person over another person. It may not be fair in some sense to some people. Some people might say, "well, that's not fair."

Some people, instead of having a dad who's a Palestinian refugee, their dad was some Silicon Valley billionaire. Some person might have a dad who was a professor. Another person might have a dad who worked at a fast-food restaurant. You don't know what the differences are. The government can't figure all of this out and say who is more deserving than someone else. So I really think that the woke left, when they pushed this idea of equity, they're really pushing against diversity. They're saying, a few people at the top are gonna decide who's valuable and who's not valuable, and they're not going to actually take into consideration any of our differences, because no central authority could take it into consideration.

Gillespie: You are a libertarian, not an anarchist. You believe there is a role for government, but it should be obviously much more limited. You are also an Orthodox Christian. Could you talk a little bit about how in a world of limited government, a libertarian world, the government wouldn't be doing everything for everybody, but placing organizations and institutions like the church or other types of intervening, countervailing, mediating institutions would help to fill the gaps that are left by the government?

Amash: The place for these organizations is to help society, not to have government deciding it. When you have some central authority deciding it, you are really limiting the opportunities for the public. You're limiting the opportunities for assisting people. You're deciding that a few people are going to make all the decisions, rather than having a lot of organizations and a lot of individuals making decisions.

When you centralize it all, there are a lot of people who are going to be missed, a lot of people who are going to be ignored. When you let the marketplace work this out, when you let private organizations work this out, there is a lot more opportunity for people who need help to get help. I think that's really important.

Gillespie: There was a libertarian wave—I like to call it a libertarian moment—which I think we're still living in, but we don't understand, rhetoric aside. What are the best ways to get libertarian ideas and sensibilities in front of young people, to really energize Gen Z? The world is getting young again. How do we make sure that these people are hearing and understanding and maybe being persuaded by libertarian ideas?

Amash: For one thing, we have to meet them where they are. I spend a lot of time, for example, asking my kids, which social media kids use these days? They're in a lot of places that the adults aren't. We might be on FacebookI mean, my generation, your generation. Other people are on X or Twitter. And there are other people on TikTok.

You have to meet them where they are and if they're not on X andit's still weird to call it Xif they're not on X and you are, well, they're not hearing your message. That's an issue. That's something we all have to work on. I'm probably reaching primarily Gen X and millennial people on X, and I'm probably not reaching Gen Z people as well. I think we need to work on getting them in those places.

Also, I think people who have libertarian instincts, people who want to present libertarianism and have an opportunity, go speak to students at schools. I used to do this as a member of Congress. I used that opportunity as much as I could. When schools would invite me, I'd say, "Yes, I'd be happy to come to the school to speak to the students" and take all their questions and be open about being a libertarian. Tell them frankly that your philosophy is libertarianism and talk to them about it. I think it's great. A lot of teachers end up surprised. I've had many teachers walk up to me and whisper to me, "I think I'm a libertarian, too," after having the conversation because they have stereotypes about what it might mean to be a libertarian and you have the opportunity to change their mind.

Gillespie: I have seen a lot of chatter. I have actually helped publish a lot of chatter that you may be running for the U.S. Senate from the mediocre state of Michigan. Do you have an announcement that you would like to make?

Amash: As a part of the national championship-winning state of Michigan this year, I am exploring a run for Senate. The [Federal Election Commission] FEC requires me to state that I am not a candidate for Senate, but I am exploring a run for Senate.

If you're interested in checking it out, go to https://exploratory.justinamash.com/. I'm giving it serious thought. I think that there is an opportunity for libertarians this year, and there's an opportunity to win a Republican Senate seat this year. So I'm looking at the Republican primary. I think this is probably the best shot libertarians have had in a long time in the state of Michigan.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.

Photo Credits: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; BONNIE CASH/UPI/Newscom

The post Justin Amash: 'I'd Impeach Every President' appeared first on Reason.com.

  continue reading

360 episodios

כל הפרקים

×
 
Our guest today is Alton Brown , who for years hosted Good Eats on the Food Network and brought his interest in science to the making of dinner. He's currently touring the country , and he has also just published Food for Thought , a great collection of essays about food, culture, and his life on and off the screen. In this episode, Reason 's Nick Gillespie talks with Brown about how food transcends politics, why fusion cooking isn't cultural appropriation, and why there's always room for Jell-O salad on his menu. 0:43— Brown's Last Bite tour 1:55— Brown's new book: Food for Thought 6:40— Curiosity and surprise are essential to life 12:03— The pizza that made Alton Brown 16:21— When Indian immigrants made kadhi that blew Brown's mind 18:57— The positive case for 'cultural appropriation' 26:53— Food media's impact on cooking skills 30:40— How Martha Stewart's perfectionism ruined dinner parties 32:07— Julia Child, Mr. Wizard, and Monty Python 39:56— Good Eats motivated food exploration 48:19— Ozempic & the moral value of restraint 51:01— USDA & FDA were created to support industry, not consumers 55:28— Southern cuisine and Jello salads 57:00— On being from the South and embracing its full history Today's sponsor: The Reason Speakeasy . The Reason Speakeasy is a monthly unscripted conversation in New York City with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy in an age of intellectual conformity and groupthink. It doubles as a live taping of The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie . Go here to buy tickets and go here to sign up for Reason 's NYC Events newsletter. Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Alton Brown: A Culinary Legend Offers Food for Thought appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
Today's guest is Columbia University linguist and New York Times columnist John McWhorter . In 2021, he published Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America , which argued that politically correct "antiracism" was not only a new religion but a dangerous form of illiberalism that quashed free expression, individual liberty, and social progress. McWhorter talks with Reason 's Nick Gillespie about how far we've come since 2021—and whether we are entering a new era of open debate and cultural possibilities. They also discuss the apparent end of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, McWhorter's own experience with affirmative action over his decades in academia, and his forthcoming book Pronoun Trouble: The Story of Us in Seven Little Words , which comes out in April. 0:00—Introduction 1:10—The "woke racism" recession 7:01—The arts and academia are still "woke" 11:30—Donald Trump's attacks on DEI 16:40—Individuals vs. groups 18:24—The emotional cost of affirmative action 20:05—The immaturity of the "woke right" 21:46—McWhorter's political identity 27:20—Attitude shifts about race and class 32:27—TV got better, movies got worse 36:10—McWhorter's new book, Pronoun Trouble 41:51— They is a pretty good gender-neutral pronoun 44:57—Mixing high and low culture Previous appearances: "John McWhorter: How To Defeat 'Woke Racism,' " November 17, 2021 " John McWhorter: 'The Idea That America Is All About Despising Black People? That's Fantasy,' " May 5, 2021 " John McWhorter: America Has Never Been Less Racist ," April 11, 2019 Today's sponsor: The Reason Speakeasy . The Reason Speakeasy is a monthly, unscripted conversation in New York City with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy in an age of intellectual conformity and groupthink. It doubles as a live taping of The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie podcast. Go here to buy tickets and go here to sign up for Reason 's NYC Events newsletter. Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post John McWhorter: Is 'Wokeness' Finally Dead? appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
Jim O'Shaughnessy is a superstar investor and venture capitalist who leads O'Shaughnessy Ventures and hosts the popular Infinite Loops podcast. He's also the coauthor of the new collection Two Thoughts , which compiles provocative quotes from figures ranging from Sam Adams and Ludwig von Mises to Frank Zappa. O'Shaughnessy chats with Reason 's Nick Gillespie about the power of free minds and free markets to improve the world, why societies thrive or perish, and how to build a better "bullshit detector" in an age of information overload. They discuss what went wrong during Joe Biden's presidency, particularly in relation to COVID-19 and AI policy, and what might go right under President Donald Trump's second term, especially if special interests are kept at bay. 1:17— Two Thoughts: A Timeless Collection of Infinite Wisdom 6:30—We're living through "The Great Reshuffle" 8:53—Thinkers vs. provers: Don't reach conclusions too quickly 13:43—Big plans fail better 25:58—Live your life, not just perform it 32:22—Using AI to stress test arguments 40:00—Bernays' rebranding of propaganda as identity 41:25—Free markets deliver through persuasion 44:59—Regulatory capture and crony capitalism 54:36—O'Shaughnessy's podcast Infinite Loops 1:12:12—Biden's economic legacy 1:17:35—Trump could possibly be better for innovation 1:20:24—How to curb rent-seeking from billionaires Today's sponsor: The Reason Speakeasy . The Reason Speakeasy is a monthly, unscripted conversation in New York City with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy in an age of intellectual conformity and groupthink. It doubles as a live taping of The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie podcast. The next one takes place on Thursday, February 27, and features Brian Doherty talking about his new book, Modern Libertarianism: A Brief History of Classical Liberalism in the United States . Go here to buy tickets and go here to sign up for Reason 's NYC Events newsletter. Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Jim O'Shaughnessy: Don't Squander This Age of Innovation appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
The Soviet Union collapsed at the end of 1991, taking down with it the threat of international communism, right? Today's guest says no, writing that, "Far from dead, Communism as a governing template seems only to be getting started." Sean McMeekin is a historian at Bard College and the author of the mesmerizing book To Overthrow the World: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Communism . Reason 's Nick Gillespie talks with him about the history of communism, how its focus on forced equality is inherently violent, and how Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and others each brought particular flourishes and horrors to its practice. Gillespie and McMeekin talk about why communism has enduring and resurgent appeal in the West despite its history of violence and economic disaster. "We dodged a certain bullet" with the election of Trump, McMeekin says, but he argues that "whatever party is in power in Washington, I think we always have to jealously guard our civil liberties and we have to just constantly remind ourselves of what our values are and are supposed to be." 1:41 — The enduring appeal of communism 3:55 — The "whitewashing" of Karl Marx's appetite for violence 7:02 — How Vladimir Lenin changed communism 16:38 — American attitudes toward communism 23:44 — Leon Trotsky's idea of "permanent revolution" and Lenin's legacy 28:35 — Violence didn't deter communism's appeal to many 33:33 — The left's flip-flopping on interventionism in World War II 36:54 — Mao, Khmer Rouge, and communism in Asia 45:22 — Western radicals and Maoism 50:27 — Black intellectuals' engagement with communism 57:51 — Is communism making a comeback? 1:06:20 — Does communism still appeal to the young? 1:11:19 — How does Donald Trump map onto all this? 1:16:43 — The politicization of the means of communication Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Sean McMeekin: Don't Whitewash the History of Communism appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
Today's guest is Nico Perrino , executive vice president at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), director of the 2020 documentary Mighty Ira , which profiles the longtime head of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the author of a forthcoming book on the triumph of civil libertarians. He's also the host of the popular podcast So to Speak , which takes an "uncensored look at the world of free expression through the law, philosophy, and stories that define your right to free speech." Reason 's Nick Gillespie talks with him about the Biden administration's rotten record on speech issues, his hopes and fears for President Donald Trump's second term, and why he worries that, when it comes to speech, Elon Musk is " suffering from the curse of power, which is censorship ." 0:00- Introduction 1:29- Biden administration's record on free speech 8:22- Internal and external pressures on tech platforms to censor 11:00- Double standards on free speech 12:19- Will speech be freer under Trump than Biden? 18:49- The TikTok 'ban' & DeepSeek AI 28:23- Elon Musk: friend or foe to free speech? 31:10- Free speech culture 36:00- What was 'cancel culture'? 39:22- Institutional neutrality and campus speech post-Oct 7 46:43- Generational attitude shifts on free speech Today's sponsor: The Reason Speakeasy . The Reason Speakeasy is a monthly, unscripted conversation in New York City with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy in an age of intellectual conformity and groupthink. It doubles as a live taping of The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie podcast. The next one takes place on Thursday, February 27, and features Brian Doherty talking about his new book, Modern Libertarianism: A Brief History of Classical Liberalism in the United States . Go here to buy tickets and go here to sign up for Reason' s NYC events newsletter. Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Nico Perrino: What the Trump-Musk Alliance Means for Free Speech appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
One of the very first things that Donald Trump did after being sworn in as president was to make good on promises to reduce both legal and illegal immigration . He even issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed by the Constitution's 14th Amendment. That order has already been blocked by a federal judge, and its fate may well end up being decided by the Supreme Court. But calls for less immigration are super popular, with 55 percent of Americans saying current levels should be decreased, the highest since 2001. Reason 's Nick Gillespie disagrees with that—he believes that immigration is a good thing and that we should have more of it, done in an orderly, peaceful, efficient fashion. So on January 21, the day after Trump's inauguration, Gillespie asked George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan and Cato Institute analyst Alex Nowrasteh to make the libertarian case for more immigration at a live event in New York City. They've written extensively on the topic and answer every question and concern you might have about immigration. The goal here is to steel-man critics of immigration and explain why more newcomers are good for our culture, economy, and country. To get information about Reason 's events in New York City, including The Soho Forum Debates , sign up for our NYC Events newsletter . 1:55—Trump's "Day 1" promises and actions 6:13—Was there a migrant "invasion"? 7:35—What does "open borders" mean? 11:03—What's the real story of chaos on the border? 22:06—The case for more immigration 24:30—Immigrant welfare use 31:11—H-1B visa debate 38:11—The Laken Riley Act and immigrant crime 42:00—Cultural arguments for more immigration 45:47—Assimilation in America 52:29—How many immigrants could the U.S. take in? 53:53—The most worrisome anti-immigration policies proposed Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Alex Nowrasteh and Bryan Caplan: The Case for More Immigration appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
"Even paranoids have real enemies," said the poet Delmore Schwartz, who was both clinically paranoid and definitely on to something, according to today's guest: Michael Shermer , the founder of Skeptic magazine , Substack superstar , and author of many best-selling books about rationalism, the evolution of morality, and pseudoscience. He quotes Schwartz in his latest book, Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational , to drive home the point that big, world-changing secret plots happen all the time, but there are reliable ways for us to decide whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, 9/11 was an inside job, or vaccines cause autism. For the record, Shermer says yes, no, and no on those counts. Reason 's Nick Gillespie talks with Shermer about whether conspiracy thinking is on the rise, whether it's coded left or right, how wokeness poisons science, and whether the reelection of Donald Trump means free thought is ascendant. This interview was recorded at a live event in New York City in January. Sign up for invites to and news about Reason 's New York events here . Previous appearances: " Michael Shermer: How Scientific American Got Woke ," by Nick Gillespie " The Future of Science: Podcast ," by Matt Welch " Michael Shermer on Why Even Scientists, Transhumanists, and Atheists Want To Believe in Heaven ," by Nick Gillespie " Reason and Science Make Us Moral: Michael Shermer on The Moral Arc ," by Zach Weissmueller " Michael Shermer: Evolutionary Economics and the Google Theory of Peace ," by Dan Hayes Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Michael Shermer: Conspiracy Thinking, Wokeness, and the Future of Free Thought appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
This week's guest is Christina Dent, whose organization, End It For Good, seeks to change the approach to addiction from a criminal justice issue to a health-centered one. But Dent is not your typical anti–drug war activist. She's an evangelical Christian who believes legalizing drugs is the conservative thing to do—a position she adopted after an encounter she had as a foster mom. Reason' s Billy Binion and Dent talked about her conservative religious upbringing, the surprising history of the war on drugs, how the current approach to substance abuse fuels crime, misconceptions about people struggling with addiction, and why prohibition is actually a progressive response. She has also offered to send a copy of her recent memoir, Curious , free of charge to anyone interested in learning more, which you can request at curious@enditforgood.com. 0:00—Introduction 4:45—The foster experience that changed Dent 11:43—What causes addiction? 16:55—Addiction and recovery are not one-size-fits-all. 25:57—Drug criminalization is anti-Christian conservative values 33:14—Helping families struggling with addiction 41:34—Decriminalization efforts in the U.S. 46:52—The costs and tradeoffs of legalization 59:43—Is Dent conservative or Republican? 1:02:15—Dent's law enforcement outreach 1:17:26—Effective treatment is not cold turkey or zero-sum. Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Christina Dent: The Evangelical Christian Fighting To End the Drug War appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
" Tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary," says Donald Trump, who made many promises throughout the 2024 presidential race to raise the cost of imports from China, Mexico, and Canada—America's three biggest trading partners. But are Trump's tariffs a good idea or a terrible one? And is the era of free trade coming to a close? That's the topic of today's Reason Interview . Reason 's Nick Gillespie talks with Dartmouth economist Douglas Irwin , author of Trade Policy Disaster: Lessons from the 1930s and Free Trade under Fire , now in its fifth edition. They talk about the negative impacts of the tariffs that Trump levied in his first term ; why Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden also trafficked in protectionism; and why free trade is always under attack despite its overall benefits. 0:00—Introduction 1:13—The fight for free trade 3:06—Donald Trump: "Tariff Man" 5:44—How tariffs affect consumers 9:03—Trump's political motivations behind tariffs 12:33—U.S. steel industry 15:15—The effect of protectionism on jobs 18:39—Automation, industry, and agriculture 25:40—China's protectionist policies 26:58—Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act 33:59—Free trade debates of the Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton eras 38:41—China's impact on markets 40:24—Populist arguments against free trade 44:49—The narrative about the baby formula shortage is wrong. 51:29—"Made in China" vs. "assembled in China" 52:41—The "Buy American" fallacy Today's sponsor: The Reason Speakeasy . The Reason Speakeasy is a monthly, unscripted conversation in New York City with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy that doubles as a taping of The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie . The next one takes place on January 21 with two of the nation's most notable proponents of immigration liberalization, David Bier and Bryan Caplan, who will join Nick for a timely discussion about the state of U.S. immigration policy in 2025. They will discuss the implications of the incoming Trump administration's immigration proposals and make the libertarian case for why more immigration will make America great again. Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Douglas Irwin: Why Trump's Tariff Plans Are Dangerous appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
Today's guest is Sister Helen Prejean, a Catholic nun famous for her activism against the death penalty. In the early 1980s, Prejean met a prisoner on death row—Elmo Patrick Sonnier—after an activist asked her to write him a letter. She served as Sonnier's spiritual adviser and accompanied him to his death, which inspired her work against capital punishment. Her 1993 book, Dead Man Walking , was made into a movie starring Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon, who won an Academy Award for her portrayal of Prejean. Jake Heggie and Terrence McNally also created a highly regarded opera of the same name. Reason 's Billy Binion spoke with Prejean about growing up in the segregated South, her opposition to the death penalty, how she connects with crime victims, and her response to Christians who believe the death penalty is just. 0:00—Introduction 1:15— Dead Man Walking and being a spiritual adviser 4:40—Sister Prejean's death row counseling 11:52—Robert Lee Willie and Faith Hathaway 18:45—Advocating for "unpopular" people 29:20—Marcellus Williams 33:09—Would Prejean support the death penalty even if absolute certainty was possible? 34:48—Faith-based activism and "loving your enemy" 40:07—Being truly "pro-life" 42:29—Navigating tribalism 44:29—Calling on the church to embrace feminism and LGBTQ inclusivity 47:07—Prejean's personal history and Vatican II reforms 51:40—Falling in love with a priest despite a vow of celibacy 56:42—The biggest threat in the world now Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Helen Prejean: Why This Nun Is Fighting To End the Death Penalty appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
Few figures have literally and figuratively electrified American culture the way Bob Dylan has. He released his first album in 1962, won a Nobel Prize in Literature in 2016, and continues to perform about 100 concerts a year at the ripe age of 83. His life is chronicled in the new movie A Complete Unknown , starring Timothée Chalamet. But what's the meaning—or meanings—of Bob Dylan, who sang at Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington, became a born-again Christian in the 1970s, and wrote a book called The Philosophy of Modern Song ? Reason 's Nick Gillespie talks with Jeffrey Edward Green , a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of the new book Bob Dylan: Prophet Without God . Green argues that Dylan's work embodies a uniquely American tension between commitments to individual self-expression, the pursuit of political and social justice, and being right with one's version of God. In this, he is akin to Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and other figures who refused to subjugate their lives completely to a particular cause. Dylan's willingness to openly struggle with these conflicting demands—and his abiding interest in adapting past musical forms—helps explain why he remains so important to understanding where we've been as a country and where we might be headin' . Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Jeffrey Edward Green: Why Bob Dylan's Prophecies Continue To Fascinate appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
Today's guest is Penny Lane , the acclaimed documentary filmmaker whose previous works include Listening to Kenny G and Hail Satan? , both of which formed the basis of previous Reason interviews linked in the show notes. Her exceptional new film is Confessions of a Good Samaritan . It's currently streaming on Netflix and follows her experience as an "altruistic" kidney donor, or one who gives an organ away to an anonymous stranger. Reason 's Nick Gillespie talks with Lane about how she came to make her decision; its effects on her body, mind, and finances; and the ethics of current policy, which prevents donors from being paid for giving away life-saving organs. "My instinct as more or less a libertarian is, yeah, pay people," Lane tells Reason . "It seems like a really obvious thing." But it's not a simple one, she explains, both because of current laws and medical history. They also talk about the state of documentary film making, if we're in a golden age for the genre, and whether audiences are becoming smarter consumers of media. Previous appearances: " Penny Lane: Can 75 Million Kenny G Fans Be Wrong? " December 1, 2021 " Hail Satan? A New Documentary Depicts Devil Worshipers as Unlikely Defenders of the First Amendment ," April 26, 2019 00:00- Introduction 2:19- Penny Lane's altruistic kidney donation 4:21- Effective altruism's influence on Lane 6:12- Lane's obstacles before surgery 7:13- Recovering from surgery physically & psychologically 11:25- Parable of the Good Samaritan 15:43- Kidney donation policy 19:34- How financial incentives would change the equation 21:03- History of kidney transplants 24:17- Could man-made organ transplants be common soon? 28:49- 'Disgust' around selling organs 32:23- Starring in your own documentary 38:12- Are audiences more media literate now? 40:33- Lane's history with documentary filmmaking 41:46- Lane's documentarian heroes 48:06- Lane's current projects Video Editor: César Báez Audio Production: Ian Keyser The post Penny Lane: Why I Gave a Kidney to a Total Stranger appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
In late 2017, in the name of "zero tolerance," President Donald Trump introduced a policy of separating parents and children who crossed the Southern border and requested asylum in the United States. In all, an estimated 5,500 children were taken from their parents and many were held in detention facilities, some of which had been constructed by the Obama administration . Over 1,000 children are still unaccounted for by the federal government. The policy ended in 2018 after massive public outcry . The zero tolerance policy is the subject of Separated , a new documentary by Academy Award–winning filmmaker Errol Morris. It has aired on MSNBC and will be available for streaming on December 17. Reason 's Nick Gillespie talks with Morris and journalist Jacob Soboroff, whose book on the controversy inspired the film. They discuss how family separation became policy and whether it acted as a deterrent, America's long and ambivalent relationship with legal and illegal immigration, and what Trump's second term will mean for immigration policy. 0:00- Introduction 2:15- Trump's 'zero-tolerance' immigration policy 5:33- Jacob Soboroff's book 9:33- Who was really behind the child separation policy? 13:09- State-created orphans and the asylum process 15:04- Immigration policies through U.S. history 18:31- American attitudes towards immigration v implemented policies 21:21- Ad: ZBiotics 23:07- Anti-immigration rhetoric escalated during the 2024 election 29:15- 'Border Czar' Tom Homan 32:15- Stephen Miller, Elaine Duke & Kirsten Nielsen 37:35- Nielsen's replacement, Kristi Noem 39:42- The Dunning-Kruger administration? 40:57- Expertise vs. disruption 44:43- How to change attitudes toward immigration Previous appearances: " Errol Morris on Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, Theranos, and Cancel Culture ," November 8, 2019 " Errol Morris on Donald Rumsfeld, The Unknown Known, and Evidence-Based Journalism ," April 12, 2014 Today's sponsor: ZBiotics . ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by Ph.D. scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Make ZBiotics your first drink of the night , drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Get 15 percent off by going to ZBiotics/TRI and using the code TRI at checkout. Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Errol Morris and Jacob Soboroff: Trump's Immigration Policies Are Indefensible appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
Reason 's annual Webathon is underway. Please considering donating here . Today's guest is Brendan O'Neill , chief political writer for Spiked and the author of the bracing new book, After the Pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the Crisis of Civilisation . O'Neill and Reason 's Nick Gillespie talk about the response in the United Kingdom and the United States to Hamas' attacks last year, Israel's ongoing military actions, and what's likely to come next in a postwoke world. "On October 7," says O'Neill, "the progressive left went from 'believe women' to 'believe fascists.' They took Hamas at its word over the testimonies of raped women." They also discuss whether O'Neill's politics have changed over the years. At the start of his career a quarter-century ago, he was an unapologetic man of the left—a self-declared Trotskyist, in fact. But these days he seems to make more common cause with conservatives and libertarians. "My rallying cry remains the same," O'Neill insists. "Increase the power of man over nature and decrease the power of man over man." 0:00- Introduction 1:16- O'Neill's new book: "After The Pogrom" 5:48- Hamas is religious extremist movement 11:10- Islamism as extreme rejection of modernity 16:57- Is being anti-Zionist punk? 18:40- The 'cultural appropriation' of the Keffiyeh 21:17- Is Israel a white settler-colonialist state? 24:28- When did the left turn against Israel? 28:53- Is antisemitism connected to anti-capitalism? 32:30- The demonization of Israel 33:40- Palestine as the Omni-cause 35:34- The madness of Queers for Palestine 39:29- The catastrophe of post-Oct. 7 progressivism 43:34- Did Oct. 7 accelerate the collapse of wokeness? 46:40- How much should the west be supporting Israel's war effort? 51:28- O'Neill's political evolution 53:21- How gay liberation differed from the trans movement 58:22- Today's young activists seek institutional approval 1:00:50- How Marxism & Trotsky influenced O'Neill 1:04:14- Critics of Zionism in 1930s-40s Europe Previous appearances: " A Heretic's Manifesto: Spiked 's leading polemicist defends J.K. Rowling, Brexit, and Enlightenment values of free speech and pluralism ," June 21, 2023 " 'The Real Threat to Free Speech Now Is Conformism and Cowardice': Spiked 's Brendan O'Neill on free expression, environmentalism as 'an apology for poverty,' and why he is 'a Marxist libertarian,' " December 23, 2015 Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Brendan O'Neill: The West Went Insane After October 7 appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
Today's guest is Martin Gurri , a former CIA analyst who is a visiting fellow at the Mercatus Center and a columnist for The Free Press . A decade ago, in the wake of the Arab Spring and various "color" revolutions around the world, Gurri published The Revolt of the Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium , which analyzed how social media empowered ordinary people to resist control from above and anticipated the rise of Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Brexit. Reason 's Nick Gillespie spoke with Gurri shortly after the 2024 election at The Reason Speakeasy , a monthly, unscripted conversation in New York City with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy in an age of intellectual conformity and groupthink. ( Go here for information on Reason events.) They talked about why Gurri voted for Trump and why he's cautiously optimistic about the next four years. 0:00- Introduction 1:13- Why Gurri voted for Trump 4:46- Trump vs. Harris: Chaos vs. Control 8:40- Trump's first term 11:04- Trump's new coalition 14:33- Is authoritarianism coming to America? 19:00- Attention, Populism & Wild Hair 20:42- Colossal transformation awaits us 34:05- Creating communities of meaning in the digital age 36:22- The transformations enabled by the printing press 38:41- More chaos is coming 43:11- Lessons from Cuba 48:40- Arab Spring and the spark that overthrows a regime 50:37- Short term pessimistic, long term optimistic Today's Sponsor: Reason Versus: " You Don't Have To Pick a Side in Politics ": On Wednesday, December 18, you are invited to join Reason and our friends at The Bulwark for this new thought-provoking debate series in Washington D.C. at the Howard Theatre. Whether you've made up your mind about the necessity of choosing sides or are questioning the whole premise, this debate will challenge your assumptions and broaden your perspective. Video Editor: Ian Keyser The post Martin Gurri: Political Chaos Brings Colossal Transformation appeared first on Reason.com .…
 
Loading …

Bienvenido a Player FM!

Player FM está escaneando la web en busca de podcasts de alta calidad para que los disfrutes en este momento. Es la mejor aplicación de podcast y funciona en Android, iPhone y la web. Regístrate para sincronizar suscripciones a través de dispositivos.

 

icon Daily Deals
icon Daily Deals
icon Daily Deals

Guia de referencia rapida

Escucha este programa mientras exploras
Reproducir