Vivek: "I'm Going to Vote For Donald Trump"

Could I have done it differently? I don't know. I certainly was unable to, because the truth is I am a fighter. But I'm not just a fighter. That's what came across when people were finally paying attention to the candidacy. The reality is, understandably so for many voters, if you want a fighter in the White House, take the one who's proven, who has taken more arrows, far more than I have, and overcome them. That was Donald Trump.

Many of the people who loved me the most—I mean, like really love me as supporters—like the people who were guys who were maybe coming to 15, 20 events that I held in Iowa, people who are enthusiastic supporters, speaking still caucus for Donald Trump. Right? And I don't blame them for it. Because if what you see is the value proposition, it's here's a young fighter who's going to fight for me and fight for this country just as hard as he fights to defend himself against the treacherous media and political industrial complex. I love that and I'm going to vote for Donald Trump because he is proven at a scale that nobody has. That's a guy who's going to be able to do it.

So that's what ended up happening there. But on a go-forward basis, I guess the difference is—I don't know what's next for me. The truth is I'm keeping a very open mind. The only criteria is to have an impact on the country that's positive and not small. As I said, it takes as much effort to do something small as it does to do something big. Large-scale positive impact in saving this country and reviving who we are—whatever I do next, it's going to fit that description.

But let's say, let's say that there was a, you know, a replay of it, but you're starting from where we left off, right? This last time, I'm not starting from the place I did last time. Right? And so you're not—it's one thing to fight for relevance and then fight to be perceived in the right way if you're starting to already from the place of relevance. But then the question is just making sure people understand who you really are. You know, in some ways, you can't—it's like an algebra problem, right? You can only solve for one variable with one equation at a time. And so in some ways, I was with one equation, one linear race, trying to solve for both two variables: one of relevance and the other one of actually being seen the correct way. You had to kind of pick one.

Well, look, you did put yourself on the map; that was a success, and you're not very old. There's no reason, from a bird's eye view, to assume that this is your kick at the can. I don't feel, having watched what you did, that you're exhausted as a political candidate, especially given how young. Right?

Okay, okay, so, so, so you know maybe you laid the groundwork for something that could emerge in the future. Now, there's a variety of ways that could go. Everyone can see that you've had a fair bit of interaction with Trump after your run for presidency, you know, came to its end. Everyone, of course, is wondering what that might hold in the future. What's your sense of what you could bring and might bring to the table, assuming that a Trump presidency is realized in November?

Well, the first thing I would say is I think it would be a mistake to just rest on one's laurels as a candidate and assume that is the outcome. So the first thing I'm focused on is making sure that we do have a Trump presidency in November—doing everything I can, traveling to different parts of this country, campaigning for Trump. Not just through the primary, which is now effectively—and has been for a while—over, but in the general election against Biden.

Reaching young voters, reaching non-traditional voters. I mean, even you think about Asian-Americans or Indian-Americans. I think 70% went the direction of Biden last time around, despite the fact that their values are almost undoubtedly more aligned with the pro-Excellence agenda that Trump stands for. Now young people in this country, who are starving for purpose and meaning—we've talked about this in our last episode that we did together. Well, the left isn't providing that, or they're satisfying it with the equivalent of fast food—with race and gender and sexuality and climate—a positive nationalistic vision that says that, you know what? This is a country that is the greatest country known to mankind, and you have an opportunity not only to live here but to contribute to this country and pass that on to the next generation. That civic sense of duty fills what many young people are starving for, and I think that that's far more aligned with the message Trump is delivering than the nonsense they're hearing from Biden or the other side.

And so my focus in the near term is don't take some outcome for granted. Make sure that Trump is elected as the next president. Do everything I can in my power to make that happen. In the meantime, you know, if there are opportunities to continue to drive positive change through the private sector, as I was doing before I ran for president, let me have at it. It's the perfect opportunity to do it and strive as a company I co-founded, as you know, to push back against the ESG movement. I'm incredibly proud, which is going very well. I'm very proud of Strive's accomplishments.

I and mentoring some of the other businesses that I've co-founded to have a positive impact— for-profit, nonprofit—through the private sector—a lot of ways to drive change and then make sure that that electoral outcome is what it is in November. I think that's actually the top objective. One of the things I found in my life at least is when you make these elaborate personal plans, right? You know, if this happens then I'm going to do that thing, and if the other thing happens then I'm going to do the other thing, and if that doesn't happen then here's my plan B. At least in my life, I've learned that your plans are stupid. Okay? At least maybe not yours, but mine—my plans are stupid.

And so I'm guided by my purpose. That's great; the plan will reveal itself. But the purpose is the same one that I entered the race with, which was to revive who we are, revive our missing national identity and self-confidence, and pass that on to my kids and their generation. I volunteered to do it as the next president. The people of this country made clear, certainly in the Republican Party and I think far beyond that, that they want Donald Trump to do that job. Thankfully, his ideology is very similar to mine in terms of what it means to advance an America First agenda.

And so I've put all my energy into making sure that Donald Trump is elected the next president. The reason I support Trump is because I support America First values. Because I support this country—it's not the other way around. But that's, I think, the reason most people who support Trump feel that way, and I view it the same way. We're going to do whatever we can to revive our country. The number one most impactful thing we can do is have a U.S. president that shuts down and eviscerates much of that managerial bureaucracy in the federal government that revives our sense of national pride, does some basic things that Americans across the political spectrum agree on—from shutting the border to growing the economy. I clearly believe that Donald Trump is the man to get that job done, and I'm going to make sure that he succeeds at it.

Okay, so your next part, part of your next plan is to continue the campaign. And now you made reference back to the way we started our conversation, and so let's pursue that a little bit. I'd like to know more about what you now know or believe you know about the political industrial complex, right? I mean, you said that you got into the race to begin with because you were concerned about the proliferation of something like a midlevel tyranny, right? Which I think is something that we're seeing all around the world—it's a collusion between midlevel state actors.

They're usually not elected; they don't have to face the electorate; they're not on the hook for their own economic survival because they're paid bureaucrats. They've extended their domains radically at every level of political organization. And I think part of the reason that the MAGA types who are firmly behind Trump are behind Trump is because they feel in their bones that Trump is enough of a bull in the china shop to actually pose a challenge to that system.

So I would like, and the, you know, the example of the current Argentinian president keeps popping into the back of my mind because he's doing the kind of radical cuts in Argentina that Musk did, for example, at Twitter. And so I would like to know, first of all, do you actually think now that you've seen this system per se operate at close hand—do you think that it's actually possible for a candidate, even Trump, who's only got a four-year mandate, which is not very long, to have the power—no, have the ability to make a difference in this relationship to this unbelievably entrenched and widespread system?

So I'd like to know how you feel about the political industrial complex that you've now come up against and are also now a part of, right? Peculiarly enough, isn't that interesting how that works? I would say it's not possible to reform it; it is possible to decimate it. Okay? I think—and that's what it's going to require—this rise of this managerial class. You see it in the deep state in the federal government or the fourth branch of government—the unelected bureaucrats who are universities.

But you—exactly, it's not just in the deep state; it's in the manager class—the associate dean of God knows what, the ambassador under secretary to something or other—the people who are sitting professionally on a board of directors, the people who are the political consultants populating the industrialization of our politics. It's a horizontal managerial class who are neither ordinary citizens in their own right nor are they actual purposeful creators who are able to create something of inherent value but are the intermediating managers.

Right? That's what's sucking the lifeblood out of our culture and our country, and I would go so far as to say the modern West as we know it. And so is it possible to reform that beast? No, I think you have to slay that beast. I think it is possible for a chief executive—you could take it of a university; you could take it of the country, of the executive branch of the United States of America, of a company—you could go one by one.

But for a strong chief executive, who is at least on paper vested with the authority to run an organization, to take what's on that piece of paper and actualize it, to actually run that organization? The system isn't set up for it. It isn't set up for a political candidate to really run their campaign. It's done by the industrialized machine around them.

It isn't set up for the chief executive of the executive branch, the president of the United States, to run that executive branch or that bureaucracy. It's not naturally set up that way, and it's not set up for the president of a university to run the, you know, endless committees of associate deans. It's the committee class that permeates each of these institutions. Even for large Fortune 500 companies, you might have HR heads who are exercising greater hiring policy decisions than the CEO. So that's not the default, but it takes the kind of executive who will overcome that activation energy to say, I'm going to break that system anyway.

I'm not going to fall for the siren song of saying that I can reform it. Reform isn't possible, but will I take the risk? And it is a risk, and there will be costs to it—of saying I'm not bringing some sort of chisel; I'm bringing a chainsaw, a jackhammer to the whole thing, raising it to the ground, burning it, and then burning the ashes, and then starting with a blank slate and build anew if I have to. And so the answer to your question is yes, but that's what it'll take.