Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick | Mike Pence | EP 368

I mean, there is a vacuum of American leadership on the world stage today, and the antidote here is American engagement, American leadership, and American strength. [Music]

Hello everyone watching and listening. Today, I'm speaking with former Vice President and now 2024 presidential candidate Mike Pence. We discussed U.S. government overreach and economic matters when it should be playing referee, the indoctrination of our youngest citizens, how parents are being purposefully alienated from their children via ideological capture, the realistic way forward on the Russia-Ukraine front, the loss of international respect due to our current administration, and how we might finally stabilize a nation wrought with cultural warfare.

It's very good to have you on this podcast, Mr. Vice President. It's quite the honor, as a matter of fact. I guess that's actually my first question. You know, this having presidential candidates sit down and do long-form podcasts like this is new—it's just one year new, really. So, what made you decide to take the risk, let's say, or grab the advantage or the opportunity to do a podcast with me?

Well, Jordan, just thanks for having me on. You know, I’ve been an admirer of yours for a number of years. I was turned onto your work by my kids, a few of whom you met out on the road and on the trail, and so it’s a joy to be with you. Look, the decision to run for the highest office in the land is one that no American would ever take lightly. My family and I have given great thought, great prayer, and deliberation to this question over the last two years. Frankly, ultimately, it comes down to two things.

Number one, it's the privileges that we've had to serve, the experiences that we've developed. I was not only Vice President serving America at home and abroad, but I was also a governor of a successful state in Indiana, where we cut taxes, expanded educational choice. Before that, for 12 years, I was a leader of House conservatives in the Congress of the United States. The sum total of that 20 years of experience gives us the confidence that if we were given the privilege of serving as President of the United States, we’d be prepared to bring this country back.

This leads me to the second reason why we've decided to run, and that was, you know, I think this country's in a lot of trouble. As I've traveled around the country over the last two years, it’s clear to me that Joe Biden and the radical left have weakened America at home and abroad, and we need new leadership. I believe in the Republican Party and in the White House that will set this country back on a path of a strong national defense, limited government, a commitment to freedom and traditional values. It’s in response to that belief on which I was raised.

I don't know if it made it in 12 Rules, but it's an old rule in my life that to whom much is given, much will be required. My family and I have been given much; we've been given incredible privileges and opportunities to lead. When we look at the challenges facing our country today, we just felt we had a duty to step forward. We do so with great enthusiasm, and we've been very humbled at the outpouring of support that we've received at MikePence2024.com and what we've heard out on the road already since we announced a little earlier this week in the great state of Iowa.

So, we've met twice before—we met in Washington. I met you and your wife, and then we talked for about an hour and a half at one point about a year ago, I believe we did, and I walked away from that thinking if Mike Pence was president, we might see a return to something like blessed normality. That's a compliment, you know, because I think the times when politics gets radically interesting, something has gone dreadfully wrong. I’d rather see something approximating a sane and normal administration than a continual exciting, like even hyper-charismatic battle. I think that's a sign of bad times.

Let me delve into that a little bit. You just outlined your qualifications.

Well, I'm very humbled by those words, and you know, it actually makes me think of another time maybe a century ago. I'm not someone that looks backward or wants to turn the clock back; we could stop that conversation with anyone else now. But you know, there was a season after World War I where a Republican ticket stepped forward. Literally, their message was a return to normalcy. I get a sense that the American people would like to get back to the policies that were advanced under a president I deeply admire, which was President Calvin Coolidge.

He was someone that balanced budgets; he cut taxes; he oversaw an incredible time of American prosperity. But at the core of his philosophy was an often quoted Calvin Coolidge statement that "the business of America is business." By that, he meant that the business of America is not the government itself, that the federal government should not or the White House should not be the center of American life. Calvin Coolidge's restraint and his instinctive conservatism really set a tone that allowed for a period of incredible innovation in the country. That's where we heard all the incredible stories about progress in manufacturing and industry.

I hold to the view that it's the free market, it's free enterprise; that's where the energy comes from. I grew up in a small business family. I know who makes this country go every day, and the government should be playing the role of the referee of the private sector and not at Center Court with all the attention focused there.

Let me touch on something else that you mentioned earlier. You talked about the radical left. Now, I spent some time working with Democrats, and I just interviewed Robert F. Kennedy. I asked him the same question that I've asked every Democrat I've met in the last five years. The question I asked was, when does the left go too far? I believe this to be true: none of the Democrats that I've spoken with—we spoke in good faith and we had serious conversations—were able or willing to answer that question.

Now, you made a comment about the radical left. So when do you think the left goes too far, and if they are going too far—those who are on the far left—how do you identify that? What do you think might be the appropriate response to that?

Well, look, I've been at this a while. But I never thought I’d live to see the day that socialism was the animating economic philosophy of one of America's two major political parties. I like to say to people Joe Biden won the nomination of his party in 2020, but Bernie Sanders won the party.

All the policies that you've seen flowing out of the Democratic Party and out of the Biden administration are driven by European-style socialism and welfare state policies, and that's too far. I mean, as I said this, we're a nation that was founded on the constitutional principles of a limited federal government, a free enterprise, free market, private property—all of those things have been a wellspring, along with our faith and family, as the foundation of creating the strongest and freest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world, by far.

To me, that is a go too far. But I will tell you this whole issue of advancing through critical race theory in our schools—literally teaching our kids to judge their peers not by the content of their character but by the color of their skin—the opposite of the vision of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And then beyond that, the radical gender ideology that is afoot in our schools and universities and in the culture today, I think has literally shocked the conscience of many parents who might never identify with the mainstream conservative philosophies that we share and traditional values that we share, Jordan, but they find themselves struck.

My foundation in Washington, D.C., actually weighed in on a federal lawsuit. The Lenmar Community Schools in Iowa require students to bring in a permission slip from their parents to get a Tylenol, but under the school policy, a student could get a gender transition plan from the health department at that high school without ever informing their parents. And as I said when we went to Iowa and spoke about it, that’s not just bad policy; that’s crazy.

I see parents' rights groups are rising up all over the country and pushing back on the radical left's effort to indoctrinate our kids about our history, and also that this whole business of trying to communicate this radical gender ideology. I think it’s a wellspring of support pushing back on that. I think you're going to see that show up in 2024.

Well, two things on that: I would say, the first, it was yesterday, you know, the National Health Service of the UK declared that they would no longer allow the use of puberty blockers, except for children, except in research situations. So I believe it's the UK, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Holland have all—and Holland is where this started, by the way—the Netherlands—they're dropping the gender-affirming model of care.

And so the second thing is, yeah, this is a question I've been trying to put forward to Republicans, particularly at the level of the governor. You know, the faculties of education in the United States and in Canada have a hammerlock on teacher certification, and public education eats up about 50 percent of the state budgets. Now, I know this isn't a federal issue precisely, but I can't understand for the life of me why Republicans haven't noticed that by allowing the Department or the faculties of education—which are among the most corrupt institutions in higher education—by allowing them to maintain their hammerlock on teacher certification, which they've done nothing to deserve, they’re essentially handing over half the state budgets to the worst students at the universities, who are the most ideologically bent and who have direct contact with children.

So, I mean, from a strategic perspective, this seems to me to be a very bad idea. And you know, it’s hard to push back against a system of ideas like the woke congregation of ideas without also stepping into sensorium territory, you know, which is the threat, I suppose, to some degree with regard to what's happening in Florida.

When you think about strategy to forestall the narcissistic progressive agenda, what sort of strategies do you have in mind that could be employed at the federal level?

Well, first, I'm, you know, I'm heartened to hear the progress in other countries protecting kids from chemical or surgical gender transition. I strongly support efforts in my home state of Indiana and around the country to prohibit gender transition, chemical or surgical treatment for children under the age of 18. I’m libertarian enough to say if you're an adult, you live how you live. You know, I may not agree with decisions you make, but we'll love you, and love our neighbor as ourselves, as my faith requires, right?

But live and let live. But for our kids, absolutely not. We've got to take a strong stand. I did a town hall on CNN not long ago, and the host of the show insisted on asking me, I think about five times in a row, about why I took such a strong stand on that. I said, look, I'm standing here not just as a former Vice President and a governor; I'm a dad. I'm a grandfather. This is really about protecting our kids from making decisions early in their lives when they're not equipped to make them.

There's a reason we don't let kids drive cars until they're 16. You can't even get a tattoo under the age of 18 in my home state. This principle of protecting kids from irreversible choices—and you know I've spoken more eloquently than maybe anyone else about the deleterious effects.

Now, going back to your question, because I think it's the fundamental question. That is, how do we push back? I will tell you, I believe that giving parents the ability to choose where their children go to school—public, private, parochial, or homeschool—is the cure for what ails education in America.

I think your point about teacher certification is a profound one, but I'm very struck by the fact that someone who I'm sure you respect a great deal—in fact, a couple—Milton and Rose Friedman, maybe one of the greatest free-market economic minds of the last century—he left his entire state to a foundation to promote one idea, and that was educational choice.

Milton Friedman said our form of government will not survive without an educated citizenry and that the only power strong enough to transform and renew American education is the free market. It's a very simple idea. I'm proud to say the state of Indiana, Jordan, was one of the pioneers in educational choice. We were home to the very first privately funded school voucher program in the country that's been replicated all over the country for decades.

But when I was governor, we had a small educational choice program. I doubled it; I made it the largest in the country. But I don't know if the viewers and listeners of your podcast know this, but we really turned a corner very recently in this debate when the State of Arizona, under Governor Doug Ducey in the last year in office, passed the first ever universal school choice program in the country.

The state of Indiana has essentially followed. About 98% of people of our state now have educational choice. Iowa has followed; other states are following. I submit to you that whether we're talking about the radical left's agenda in our schools—whether it's critical race theory, woke politics, or some of the profound issues in higher education that you're speaking about—you give parents the ability to choose where their kids go to school, to be able to take their business down the street and find a school that gives them a more classical education.

My schoolteacher wife would tell you that teaches phonics to kids. I mean, parents will go shopping. I don’t believe wherever people are on that ladder of success in America, everybody loves their kids. Everybody loves their grandkids. You give them the power to choose where their kids go to school, and they'll turn education around in America faster than you could imagine.

Do you ever read the fine print that appears when you start browsing in incognito mode? It says that your activity might still be visible to your employer, your school, or your internet service provider. How can they even call it incognito? To really stop people from seeing the sites you visit, you need to do what we do and use ExpressVPN.

Think about all the times you've used Wi-Fi at a coffee shop or a hotel. Without ExpressVPN, every site you visit could be logged by the admin of that network, and that's still true even when you're in incognito mode. Your home internet provider can also see and record your browsing data, and in the U.S., they're legally allowed to sell that data to advertisers.

ExpressVPN is an app that encrypts all of your network data and reroutes it through a network of secure servers, so that your private online activity stays just that—private. ExpressVPN works on all of your devices and is super easy to use. The app has one button; you tap it to connect, and your browsing activity is secure from prying eyes.

So stop letting strangers invade your online privacy by visiting expressvpn.com/Jordan— that's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com/Jordan and get three extra months free.

ExpressVPN.com/Jordan.

So, I have a specific question about that. When I was talking to one of my wiser friends about the issue of school choice, the objection he raised—and I wasn't really sure what to make of it—was that if you provide parents with choice, what you end up with is a public school system that has the worst teachers and the students who are most disaffected and alienated from their parents.

So he felt that there was an element of that that would be disastrous for the kids who were in the worst shape with regards to parents and future opportunity. What's the experience of Indiana and the other states that have moved in the direction of school choice? What has that taught you or revealed in that regard?

Well, I used to say, you know, long before I held office for 20 years, I had a talk radio show. We used to talk a lot about this. I grew up in a family that ran gas stations. I actually worked for five years, helped pave my way through college pumping gas, so I would kind of break it down this way.

I'd say to people, look, if there's only one gas station in town, and you had to buy your gas there, how clean do you think the men's room would be? Right? I mean, so it's competition; competition for customers makes everybody better.

I will tell you, our experience in Indiana has been that our public schools have gotten better. They have stepped into that competition and improved. Once parents become empowered, we’ve seen parents in Indiana over the decades choose another public school over the public school that’s failing them.

And I will tell you, it's always been impressive to me that from very early on the African-American community in this country has been a generation ahead of the rest of the country in support for educational choice, Jordan. Literally, back in the 1990s in Indiana, when the overall population even in a state that was promoting school choice, we’d maybe get 50-55% of Hoosiers that would support allowing parents to choose where the kids go to school. The number in the African-American community in our state was closer to 70-75%.

And you and I know why. It’s because of the minority communities in many of our major cities. Their kids are relegated to some of the most failing and dangerous schools in the country. Those parents know; they said, give me the choice. They've taken that choice, and a lot of times they go to the Catholic school just down around the corner.

It engages parents. I've heard the argument your friend made, and I look, I don't mean to demean it, but it's just not been our experience. I mean, literally, I think of John F. Kennedy back when he talked about cutting taxes across the board, including the capital gains tax. He said, you know, a rising tide lifts all boats. You create competition in education in America, as we have in Indiana and states around the country are doing; all the schools get better.

As someone who's married to a woman that taught for 15 years in a public school and 15 years in a Christian school, I could tell you firsthand there's an overwhelming majority that are teaching in our public schools are dedicated public servants—men and women that care deeply. It's just the management not being responsive, pushing down some sort of a liberal agenda, watering down some of the fundamentals and criteria for a good education.

I think that washes away in the force of the free market. I really do.

So I feel obligated to warn you that according to the dictates of YouTube, apparently, we've both now engaged in hate speech and the incitement of violence. I had a YouTube video taken off my channel yesterday—an interview with Helen Joyce, who wrote a book on the trans-minor surgery phenomenon. So I'm sure we've broken the YouTube rules already in this discussion.

So, all right, so you think that the experience in Indiana has shown that because of the introduction of competition, everybody benefits, and you said, in particular, perhaps black students and their parents. Okay, so that’s a good for you in that direction.

Let me ask you a couple of questions in a different direction, if you don’t mind. I think often at the moment that we’re all fiddling while Rome burns, possibly because of the situation in Russia and Ukraine. One of the things that I found heartening, let’s say, about the Trump presidency, where you served as Vice President, was that there were four years without a major war.

Your administration, or that administration, also advanced the Abraham Accords, which was a major move in the direction of peace in the Middle East. Now we have this war percolating away madly between Russia and Ukraine, and it’s really a proxy war in many ways for the West and Russia, and you know it doesn’t look very good to me.

If you became president, first of all, what do you think the way forward is on that front? I know the hawks are saying, the hawks on the Republican side in particular—and I think this is also true in the Democrat side—are taking this as an opportunity to demolish Russia's conventional forces and to take them permanently out as a conventional enemy, let’s say.

Now, the problem I see in that is that when you push someone as powerful as Russia into a corner, when they’re nuclear armed and their conventional forces are weak, that loosens the finger on the nuclear trigger. It also doesn’t seem to me that, given how dependent we are on Russia and Ukraine for food and energy, weakening both of those countries on something approximating a permanent basis strikes me as reasonable long-term policy.

So, what do you think the danger is on the Russia-Ukraine front, and what steps would your administration take in that direction?

Well, I’m someone that believes that America is the leader of the free world. We’re the arsenal of democracy. In 1985, Ronald Reagan, in a State of the Union address, articulated what came to be known as the Reagan Doctrine, which essentially said, it’ll be the policy of the United States that if you’re willing to fight the communists in your country, we’ll give you the means to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here.

It was part and parcel of what ultimately brought down the Soviet Union, and I believe that wisdom is still true today. Ukraine is not our war, but freedom is our fight. Now, I know there are people in the presidential contest in my party who have spoken admiringly of Vladimir Putin’s genius. Others have said that it’s simply a territorial dispute.

Well, I can tell you, I know the difference between a genius and a war criminal. I know the difference between a territorial dispute and a Russian invasion. What’s happening in Ukraine today is an unprovoked invasion that is claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. I believe it’s incumbent on the United States to continue to lead the West and provide the Ukrainian military with what they need to repel the Russian invasion and reclaim their sovereignty.

Now, I believe that’s the right thing to do. My wife and I, Jordan, about a year ago were visiting a Christian relief group in Poland that was assisting refugees. When we arrived, we were told that we were cleared to go into Ukraine. This was a month after hostilities had begun, and we went 10 miles across the border to a refugee center. Jordan, I say this with a broken heart: I saw things I thought I’d never see other than in black and white films from 75 years ago. I mean, crowds of all women of every age, children of every age, carrying everything that they could carry on their backs, literally fleeing this unconscionable Russian invasion.

So, I think we have an obligation to be there. But I also want to say to you, I think it’s in our national interests. There are others who have said that it’s not. I’ve met Vladimir Putin. I believe it was no coincidence that ours was the only administration in the 21st century where Putin did not attempt to redraw international lines by force. I mean, he rolled the tanks into the country of Georgia under the Bush administration, of course took Crimea under the Obama administration, and now he’s rolled across the border into Ukraine.

I think the reason he didn’t do that during our years was because we had the largest increase in military spending in more than a generation. We unleashed our military against ISIS and they took them down without firing a shot. We actually took down a hundred Russian mercenaries in a conflict in Syria without one American casualty. We shut down the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. For all of the rhetorical efforts by my old running mate to reopen dialogue with Russia, we were very tough on Russia and we were willing to use American military force to defend our interests and defend our allies around the world.

I think that kept Russia in check. So, I think this is a moment that needs to be met with American strength, and I’m going to continue to advocate for that. I also think, at the end of the day, if Russia was able to overrun Ukraine, in my judgment it would not be long before the Russian military was crossing a border where we would have to send troops.

Like my son, the Marine, my son-in-law, the Navy pilot—he crosses into a NATO ally—then we’re involved. We should never send American troops into Ukraine; we should hasten the delivery of military equipment and give them the ability to defend themselves.

But I think stopping Russia there is also in the interest of the United States, and it sends a deafening message to China. Lastly, Jordan, it sends a deafening message to China. If we repel and give Ukraine the ability to repel the Russian invasion, then I have no doubt in my mind that President Xi, who I’ve also met and spoken to privately, will get more instruction from that regarding his potential military ambitions in the Asia-Pacific than anything else that we could do.

I was just informed that your team wants 30 seconds to speak with you.

My team doesn’t need me. Oh, hi! Oh, it’s just my wife said hi.

Oh, come on! Well, that’s a good step over. That’s a good emergency.

Yeah, stick your head in; you can see if you look at the screen. Karen Pence, Jordan Peterson.

Hello! Nice to see you again!

Yeah, nice to see you.

Hi! Good! Thank you for lending us your husband for an hour. Anyway, hello. I told him the kids are big fans.

That’s how we go.

So, let me ask you then more specifically, if the war in Russia plays out the way that would be most beneficial to the West, what’s your vision for victory and the cessation of conflict? What is it, do you suppose, that Russia has to leave on the table or bring to the table in order to bring this war to a halt?

Yeah, I just think we have to support the Ukrainian military until they repel this Russian invasion. Now, I’ll defer to President Zelensky and the government in Ukraine if they have a different view, but I think giving them the means to push Russia out from where it commenced this invasion is absolutely essential to sending a message to the wider world that America is the leader of the free world and we’ll support those that are standing for their freedom and sovereignty.

Do you think that would mean that the Russians would have to abandon the territory they took on in the East? And also, what about the situation in Crimea? What do you see the post-war boundaries of Ukraine?

Yeah, well, I think if things worked out as well as they could—well, again, I would leave that question—which predated our administration—to the Ukrainian government. But with regard to this invasion, this incursion in the Donbas region, I just don't think we can tolerate it.

And let me also say, President Biden said in the State of the Union address that we’re there as long as it takes. Jordan, it shouldn’t take that long. We’re the arsenal of democracy; we’ve been dragging our feet on giving them equipment. We promised from 33 Abrams tanks all the way back in January, and they still don’t have them. We’ve been dragging our feet on giving them aircraft.

You know, it was our administration that started back providing military resources to Ukraine. The Obama-Biden administration had refused to provide any military resources; they were sending blankets and MREs. We came in; we provided them Javelin missiles, we provided them resources that they were able to use in this fight over the four years of our administration.

The Biden administration immediately ended that when they came in, but at the initiation of hostilities, started to catch up. But I want to be clear to all of your viewers and listeners: Joe Biden has been slow on the uptake. I think that frankly, the disaster of Afghanistan created the conditions that emboldened the enemies of freedom.

Now, Vladimir Putin is the one that’s responsible for this unconscionable invasion, but I have no doubt in my mind that that disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan emboldened him to move. And I honestly believe that it’s been the failed policies of the Biden administration that are contributing to not only war in Eastern Europe, Chinese provocations, but for heaven's sakes, Jordan, after we achieved the first peace accord in nearly 30 years in the Middle East, the Biden administration did nothing to build on the Abraham Accords, sent ambiguous signals to Israel about our support, and then stood idly by while China negotiated a treaty between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I mean, there’s a vacuum of American leadership on the world stage today, and the antidote here is American engagement, American leadership, and American strength.

It’s also worth noting that the Biden administration has been busy cutting military spending since day one. The only thing positive about that gigantic supplemental bill that passed at the end of the last Congress was that it caught up on military budget cuts that the Biden administration had been advancing.

But with this new debt ceiling deal, people deserve to know that after you net out inflation, it’s got a one percent cut in military spending. China’s floating a new battleship every month and has doubled its military budget in the last 15 years, and here we have an administration that is cutting military spending.

All the while, they’re carrying that political correctness and critical race theory and radical gender ideology into the Pentagon’s hallways itself. So we need new leadership, we need to be building a military that’s fitted to the times. That’s also the best way to ensure peace in the world—it always has been, always will.

I like knowing exactly where my meat comes from, and with Moink, I know it’s coming from small family farms all across the country. Moink delivers grass-fed and grass-finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and sustainable wild-caught Alaskan salmon straight to your door.

Moink lets you choose the meat delivered in every box. You can select an existing box or create your own, set your delivery cadence, and enjoy delicious meat. You can cancel anytime, but you won't want to. If you’re not sure where to start, check out their standard box. It comes with a little bit of everything—chicken, ribeye, burgers, and steak.

Moink is all about supporting the family farm. Think about it this way: 2 percent of Americans are farmers, but 100 percent of Americans eat. We need to show our support for the families that keep us well-fed.

After receiving my first Moink box, I was floored. The salmon and chicken are both fantastic, and the steak might be the best I've ever had. Keep in mind—I cooked it myself.

With a freezer full of Moink products, I can without a doubt say it is a fantastic deal on a ton of delicious and well-produced products. You won't be disappointed, and you can rest assured all of Moink's meat comes from wholesome American farmers.

So, keep American farming going strong by signing up at moinkbox.com/jbp right now. Dr. Peterson's listeners can get free bacon in your first box, and let me say, it’s the best bacon you’ll ever taste. I re-upped my subscription because I ran out too fast.

Moinkbox.com/jbp. That’s Moinkbox.com/jbp.

So, your sense is that the best strategy for dealing with Russia—and also, tell me if I’ve got this right—and simultaneously China is to bolster the American military, to ensure that Russia—sufficient aid is provided to Ukraine to stop Russia in its tracks. That sends the proper message to China, that would require further support for the American military, and that that’s the best way to stop Russian adventurism.

What do you think of arguments that Russia had felt threatened as a consequence of NATO’s incursion into Ukraine and that a fair part of this conflict emerged because the Russians felt that they were being encroached upon by the expansion of the NATO alliance and the potential inclusion of Ukraine into that domain?

While those are all—and then the third problem, I suppose, is that I’m still concerned, understanding your argument, that pushing the Russians into a corner where they become dangerously weak heightens the probability of, let’s say, a limited exchange of nuclear weapons on the battlefield.

So, you said we frighten China; we keep Russia at bay. I’m concerned about the fact that the Russians perhaps share some of the more conservative Western views with regard to the woke nightmare. And also that if we push them into a corner, they’re more likely to have an itchy nuclear trigger finger.

Well, I just honestly believe the NATO argument, the threat from NATO, that that’s all just posturing by Putin. If you carefully examine his public statements for years, Jordan, he’s been very clear that his ambition is to re-establish what was the old Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

I mean, look, NATO has been a peaceful alliance of the West, forged as it was in the aftermath of World War II. I think there’s one reason, and there’s one person to blame for the unconscionable invasion and war that’s raging in Ukraine today, and that’s Vladimir Putin.

We just simply need to hold him to account. With regard to the fact that we never want to forget that Russia is the second largest nuclear power in the world, I believe we need to make it clear that our military support for Ukraine is for repelling the Russian invasion in Ukraine and restoring their sovereignty.

I think it’s absolutely essential that the commander-in-chief of the United States make it clear to the Ukrainian military and our alliance how far our support goes and I think that making it clear that this is about re-establishing what’s been claimed and not intruding upon or attempting to move into the sovereign territory of Russia is important.

But this is statecraft, this is real. I just have to hold the view that weakness arouses evil, but peace comes through strength. I think that by electing a new president who understands that basic principle, who’s able to marshal the support in Congress to build a military fitted to the times, and by hastening the support—if the war isn’t already over—hastening the support of the Ukrainian military to repel the Russian invasion, I think the world quiets down very quickly.

Again, I reject the argument that says the real issue in the world today is China. Oh, okay. I’ve met President Xi. I’ve been to China. I’m a student of China’s ambitions. I’ve met with all of our allies in the region. I understand what China’s up to and how broad their ambitions are. But I also believe that as you can see the alliance is being forged between Xi and Putin, that Xi is looking carefully at how the West responds to Russia’s attempt to redraw international lines by force.

While it continues its provocations even over the last two weeks, with navy ships at sea in the Taiwan Straits and in the air sending a message to them that the free world will not tolerate redrawing international lines by military force will contribute greatly to tamping down China’s ambitions in the Asia-Pacific.

Do you think that Putin respects Biden as a negotiating partner?

Do you think that Putin would respect you as a negotiating partner, and maybe why to both of those questions?

Well, I—it would be hard for me to believe that Putin or any leader around the world—I think they respect the United States of America, but I don’t know that they respect the President of the United States today at the level that they should, and it just comes from a series of steps by this administration.

I mean, to unilaterally reopen Nord Stream 2 to Russia—it was a policy of appeasement. To reverse one of the policies we had put into effect made no sense at all. To attempt to get back into the Iran nuclear deal, literally hat in hand begging the mullahs in Iran to come back to the table and renegotiate until it finally fell apart was just absurd.

And of course the fact that we had negotiated an agreement in Afghanistan with the Taliban that made it clear that they were required to work with the Afghan national government, never harm any military personnel, and never harbor terrorists—those were the three preconditions, or we made it clear to them that we would hit them harder than they’d ever been hit before.

Eighteen months went by in our administration in the early days of this one where there was not a single American casualty in Afghanistan. The Taliban knew we meant business, but in this administration, when we began an orderly withdrawal—which for some incomprehensible reason got delayed into well after the fighting season—and if you recall, President Biden, it was leaked that they were talking about making the departure on September 11, which was incomprehensible to me that we would mark that date, a date of a dark day in American history, with the source of which was launched from Afghanistan for the withdrawal.

In any event, he moved the date of withdrawal, he delayed it, he gave the Taliban the opportunity to reconstitute. But the initial failing was when the Taliban began to move their military in the north into Mazar-i-Sharif, and we did nothing.

I think that set into motion not only the disaster that claimed the lives of 13 American servicemen and women—courageous servicemen and women who were standing at the airport in Kabul trying to save lives—but I actually think it it set the conditions for the Afghan National Army to throw their guns down and make no opposition at all.

And since then, we’ve also confirmed and in at least one instant taken successful action against them harboring terrorists once again in Afghanistan. But all of those conditions, I believe, may well have contributed to Putin assuming that if he rolled into Ukraine, that the same thing would happen.

You remember, Joe Biden actually was asked, would we get involved if there was a Russian invasion? He actually made reference if it was a small invasion. It would depend. And then when the invasion began, if you remember, the administration leaked to the media that they’d reached out to President Zelensky, who I know and became familiar with. They reached out and said, we’ll send a plane, like Ghani who got on a plane and got out of Afghanistan as soon as things began to collapse.

In words that I think will go into history, President Zelensky said, we don’t need a plane, we need ammunition. And he squared his shoulders and fought back against the Russian invasion. So, all of this, when you say to me, look, I’m an American, I’m a patriotic American, I love our country. The world respects the United States of America, but do they respect our current Commander-in-Chief at the level that they should? I would argue they do not.

Okay, so the second part of that question is: do you think Putin would respect you—and I want to modify that question slightly too, because there must be a temptation at this level of intense negotiation, I suppose a psychological temptation also, to not be strong but to look strong.

You can imagine that a weak man in a position of power will fall prey to the temptation to look strong and to therefore put forward more force than is absolutely necessary in an attempt to buttress his image. So I would like to know how it's best for leaders to protect themselves against that temptation.

So, if you became president, you would step into the hot seat, huh? In a way, that's being heated up simultaneously. How do you protect yourself psychologically against the temptation to beat your chest and be a strong man instead of trying to settle the situation internationally in the manner that’s best for everyone going forward?

This pertains to the question of why Putin might regard you as a respectable negotiating partner.

Let me let you elaborate on that. I mentioned Calvin Coolidge at the outset of our conversation. In my announcement speech last week, I quoted Calvin Coolidge, who said, "It's altogether a benefit to the country and to the office holder where the president does not consider himself to be a great man."

I can assure you, I’m never confused about that. I’m an everyday American. I’m a small-town guy from Southern Indiana, raised by a combat veteran family, living the American dream.

But I look, you ask a very profound question, and I go back again to history; that’s what all my—my background was in college; I was a student of American history. Teddy Roosevelt, I think, said it well: that on the global stage, America should walk softly and carry a big stick.

You know, I’ve had—I’d leave it to others to judge how my leadership would be assessed, but I think I’ve got a reputation for standing my ground. I think people know that my yes is yes and my no is no.

The way that I would maintain that, I would tell you, is for me, as a Christian believer, is a daily time and devotions and prayer. I’m someone that really believes in investing time in my faith to study and understand what the Bible teaches about wisdom, and I’ve always sought to apply that in my life.

With regard to Vladimir Putin, I can tell you I’ve had a conversation with him one-on-one. It was at an international conference, and we had a brief exchange. He wanted a private moment together. This was in the year leading up to the midterm elections in 2018, Jordan.

We had a fair number of people around, and this has been written about, and I wrote about it in my book. As he began to engage me, he had an international conference coming up with President Trump. He asked if I would convey a desire for nuclear non-proliferation, that we’ve got to begin to talk about those things.

I nodded and listened, and then I looked at him and said, standing just a couple of feet away from him. I said, "Well, Mr. President, I have something I’d like to say to you.” He said, through Russian, through an interpreter. He said, “Go ahead.”

I said, “We know what happened in 2016, and it can’t happen again.” With that, he shrugged; he speaks perfect English. With that, he feigned that he didn’t understand my statement. He turned to his foreign minister, Lavrov, who was standing by, and Lavrov said in English, “Elections.”

I mean, look, in the 2016 election, the Russians did not interfere on behalf of any particular candidate. They interfered across the board; it’s what they do in Western countries. They sow dissension and misinformation, and we know for a fact it happened.

I’d said so publicly, but so he turned back to me after Lavrov said “elections,” and said through Russian, he said, “No, that wasn’t us. We had nothing to do with that. That wasn’t us.” I nodded and said, “Mr. President, I’m very aware of what your public position is on this, but I’m telling you we know what happened in 2016, and it can’t happen again.”

At that point, he shrugged, did a half nod, and the conversation moved on. I mean, that’s really where it begins, I think, between heads of state. I’ve been able to represent the United States on the world stage.

That wasn’t a very private conversation; there were a lot of staff on both sides. There are pictures of it; you can find them on the internet pretty easily, and there were reporters within earshot that wrote about that moment.

But I think the most important thing between heads of state is that you have the ability to look people in the eye and tell them what your expectation is and make it clear where the consequences will be, even without saying it.

I would tell you that if I had the great privilege of being President of the United States, I’d look for friends all over the world for the United States. I’d look for opportunities for peace. But, you know, I’d always have one hand extended in friendship and the other hand resting comfortably on the holster of the arsenal of democracy so that those who are enemies of freedom around the world, who would threaten our people or threaten our allies, would know that America means business.

President Trump recently issued a warning from his Mar-a-Lago home: "Our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard, which will be our greatest defeat, frankly in 200 years. There are three reasons why the central banks are dumping the U.S. dollar: inflation, deficit spending, and our insurmountable national debt."

The fact is, there is one asset that has withstood famine, wars, and political and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times—gold—and you can own any tax-sheltered retirement account with the help of Birch Gold. That's right. Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401(k), maybe from a previous employer, into an IRA in gold.

When currencies fail, gold is a safe haven. How much more time does the dollar have? Protect your savings with gold. Birch Gold has an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers.

Text Jordan to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold. Again, text Jordan to 989898.

I know you have a hard out in an hour. We have time for one more question, and so I'm going to ask you a follow-up to something you just described.

When I met you and your wife and when we talked, I did get the impression, you know, that I walked away from that conversation thinking that for what it’s worth, you struck me as a man who could be trusted. I already made reference to the fact that I think you could bring a certain degree of admirable normalcy to the insanity that reigns at the moment.

But I would say, in reference to the great man issue, you served for a long while as the right-hand man of a man who I think styles himself, rightly or wrongly, a great man. And of course, the shadow of Trump or the legacy of Trump hangs over you, rightly or wrongly.

Why is it that you served with Trump for so long? Why did you think that was in your best interest, his, and the country's? And why do you now think that you would make a better leader than your former President?

Well, first, let me say I’m humbled by your kind words. My respect for you is boundless, and I’m grateful for those words. I’ll share them with my wife when we break.

Well, first, look, when I got the phone call to join the national ticket, or a group of people being considered for it, I didn’t expect it. I’d actually endorsed another candidate in the primary in Indiana. But Donald Trump had won the nomination, and for me, the prospect of Hillary Clinton serving as president for eight years following the liberal and failed governance of Barack Obama for eight years was an incredible threat to the America that I had grown up in.

I thought if we put 16 years of essentially a socialist agenda into effect driving America toward a secular European-style welfare state, my children and grandchildren would not grow up in the America that I had grown up in. So for me, when the phone call came, I had one of two questions that I said I would need to have answered.

Number one, we need to know them better. We didn’t know either the President or his family at all, and everything that the Pence's do, we do as a family. Secondly, I said I’d want to know what the job description was, because only one person gets to write that job description every four years for the Vice President.

So, I mean, my attitude was, if we felt there was a rapport that we could establish with them as a family—which we did almost immediately with them—but if I felt like a job description would give me the ability to help the country, first by defeating Hillary Clinton and secondly by advancing a conservative agenda, I was anxious to do that.

Once he explained to me that the role of the Vice President in his mind would be an active role—active in the legislative process, active in even interviewing appointments to the Supreme Court, active around the country promoting our policies, active around the world representing America—then the phone call came, Jordan. I said yes in a heartbeat.

I will tell you I’m incredibly proud of the record of the Trump-Pence administration. I mean, my old running mate promised to govern as a conservative, and we did. We cut taxes, rolled back regulation, appointed three justices to the Supreme Court that just gave America a new beginning for life. We rebuilt our military, created the first new branch of our armed forces, and secured the southern border of the United States.

As you've said many times in this conversation, the world was much more peaceful, and ISIS was destroyed, and the most dangerous terrorists in the world were taken out. It's all a record I’m incredibly proud of.

In fact, as I’ll share again here in North Carolina today, some people might wonder why I’m running against my former running mate in the wake of how proud I am of that record. Some in this field are already criticizing our record. It's their right to do that, but I’ll battle them on that too.

For me, it came down to the promise that I made when I took my oath of office and the overall direction of the party. As I said in my announcement speech, when I raised my right hand, I swore to the American people and to Almighty God that I would support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

On that fateful day, January 6, President Trump asked me to choose him over the Constitution, but I thought my duty was clear and still believe it was that I was there under the Constitution to preside over a joint session of Congress to open and count the votes that have been certified by the states, reviewed by the courts, and would be debated in objections in the Congress.

But our job was to open and count—no more, no less. We did our duty that day, but I’ll always believe, by God’s grace, to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. The fact that the President continues to say that I had the right to overturn the election animates me. I think no one should ever serve as President of the United States who puts themselves over the Constitution of the United States.

It’s the oath we swear, and I’m going to take that case to the American people. Secondly, it has to do with my candidacy, which is animated by my belief in the conservative agenda, something that you’ve articulated in new and renewed and fresh ways for individuals and for the country.

I’ll always be grateful for that, but it’s an agenda about American leadership in the world. My old running mate and others are backing away from America’s leadership. I want to lean in. I want to rebuild our military. I want to make sure that we continue to be the leader of the free world when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Joe Biden’s policy is insolvency. I mean, we have a national debt the size of our nation’s economy, and Joe Biden won’t even talk about the entitlements that represent 70% of the federal budget and growing. We are headed to a debt crisis the likes of which the world has never seen, and Joe Biden refuses to talk about it.

By my old running mate, he refuses to talk about it. Joe Biden and Donald Trump have the exact same policy on entitlement reform, and many Republicans as well in this field also shy away from talking about it. I’m going to talk about how we deal with the national debt, how we improve and reform these programs.

Lastly, my commitment to the sanctity of life—I’ll always be grateful to have been part of an administration that appointed three of the justices that sent Roe v. Wade to the ash heap of history where it belongs.

But now, in this new season, this new era for life—just at this moment when we can work to expand protections for the unborn, protections for women in crisis pregnancies, support for newborns—some in our party, including my old running mate, are shying away from standing firm out of a concern for its impact on politics.

I don’t believe that. I believe if we stand firm with compassion and principle, the American people will rally to our cause. But even if they did not, I think the cause of life is the calling of our time. The sanctity of life being restored to the center of American law I think must remain an objective of the Republican Party.

For all of those issues, it’s what brings me to this fight. But that was why I joined the ticket to begin with—no regrets, no regrets. I’m grateful for what we were able to do for the country.

I was sorry it came to the end that it came to, but I’m absolutely convinced if we’ll keep our party and our country on the course of the same policies that minted our movement starting back in the days of Ronald Reagan and going forward, that will restore this country, we’ll secure our nation, and America will be stronger and more prosperous than ever before, so help us God.

All right, sir, I swore to your staff that I would ensure that this podcast lasted no longer than its time, and that was a really good place to end, I would say. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk with everyone who’s watching and listening today and with me.

It’s a privilege to be involved in the election campaign in the manner that I am, and I certainly appreciate your time and attention, as I do appreciate the time and attention of everyone who’s watching and listening.

Perhaps, sir, sometime in the future, you’ve got a whole year on the campaign trail; we can sit down and have a further discussion. There were lots of other Pandora’s boxes that we could have opened, but we covered a fair bit of territory usefully today.

Once again, I’d like to express my appreciation for your willingness to sit and talk with me. I'll look forward to it again, Jordan Peterson, and God bless you for your matchless voice.

Ciao, everyone.

Yep, bye-bye, sir.