Meaning Through Responsibility | The Heritage Foundation & Dr. Kevin Roberts | EP 397

And I think the key thing to home in on is that disagreement doesn't have to be disagreeable. It may, and if it does, it may get into the zone of hurting people's feelings. But, as I've mentioned to more than one student in my teaching career, I don't mean this to be offensive, but I care a lot less about your feelings than I do about your pursuit of truth.

Hello everyone watching and listening. Today I have the pleasure of speaking with the sitting president of a conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, Dr. Kevin Roberts. We discussed the operations and practical utility of think tanks, the state of progressivism in the academic environment, how multiple generations of students have now been rendered incapable of facing adversity while claiming to fight it, and why intellectual combat is not something to shut down but to champion against all odds.

So, you know, I was much older than I should have been as an educated person to understand what a think tank was and how they operated. And you know, I'm probably not as clear about all the details still as I might be. I don't know anything about their history or I don't know who set up the first one. I don't really know exactly who draws upon them and why, and what effect they have on public policy at the local, state, and national level.

So maybe we could start by just having you give everyone watching and listening a good description of what a think tank is, and to put them in context before we start talking about your think tank specifically.

Great question! At its base, any think tank, whether it's on the political left, the political right, or in the center, starts with research. It may focus on a certain set of public policy issues. The purpose of that research is a little bit different, maybe even a lot different in some cases, than the research that you might do as a professor, that I was doing as a history professor.

And that is, the purpose of the research at a think tank is to affect the outcome of public policy. Some think tanks will only focus on the research; other think tanks, as I’m sure we’ll discuss, will use that research and then hire people to go advocate. That is to say, they’re lobbyists to directly influence the outcome of public policy, whether that's at the federal level in the United States, obviously with Congress and the executive branch, at the state level, or even at the local level.

So they are, to sum up, quasi-academic institutions. In fact, many people will leave academia, strictly defined as the university, to do work at a think tank, although there are many people who are professors full-time at universities who do project or contract-based work for think tanks. I understand as a concluding point to this definition of think tanks broadly that the United States has the most robust and vibrant system of think tanks across the political spectrum of any place in the world.

So, about how many high-end think tanks are operating in the U.S., and are they predominantly a conservative enterprise, or a liberal or progressive enterprise? Is it distributed across the political spectrum?

It's fairly distributed across the political spectrum, although in the last generation or so—say the last 25 or 30 years—the proportion of high-end think tanks, of which there are maybe a dozen or maybe 15 in the country, the proportion of them who are on the political right has increased. I think that's a result of the conservative movement maturing, if you will. Many, if not most, of these think tanks are based in Washington, D.C., although a couple of them are based elsewhere. In New York, there are some think tanks on the right, including one that I used to lead that's based in Texas.

There’s a growing number of state-based groups that are affecting not just their own state policy but also federal policy. Well, it also may be that there’s been a need for conservative think tanks to emerge because, as is well known on statistical grounds rather than merely being a consequence of a conspiracy theory, there are virtually no conservatives in universities at the faculty level, and certainly vanishingly few in the social sciences and the humanities, which is where most of the research that pertains to policy would otherwise be conducted.

And so you could imagine that the establishment of private enterprises that are devoted to research on the conservative side might do something to redress that imbalance. And I understand that Heritage Foundation certainly plays that role. Do you think that’s also a contributing factor to the emergence of conservative think tanks in the U.S.?

It's huge! In fact, not that my story of how I became president of the Heritage Foundation is the most important or the most instructive, but that example you just mentioned of professors who are politically conservative in the social sciences and humanities being in small number is something I lived out.

You know, in fact, when I was in graduate school at the University of Texas, not known for its political conservatism, out of a few hundred graduate students in history, I was the only conservative I was aware of. Of those of us who were teaching assistants—60, 70 of us—I absolutely was the only one. And so it was no surprise to me when I had my tenure-track job at a southwestern public university that I was the only conservative. In fact, as would no doubt surprise you, in the entire College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, there was only one other right-of-center professor I was aware of out of a couple hundred faculty.

And so the relationship between that fact, that reality, and the emergence of a growing number of conservative think tanks is very direct because many of us have said forget the mistreatment—which is not an overstatement—of conservatives in the social sciences and humanities and public policy. We’re just going to go directly or work directly for these public policy organizations, especially those that want to work on higher education policy or education policy at large.

So I’m going to ask you a bit of a meandering question. It's partly a description of how I became aware of political corruption in the social sciences enterprise. So I trained as a clinical psychologist and a clinical researcher, and that's actually a very different discipline than social psychology.

And so social psychology is at the intersection, let’s say, of sociology and psychology. It focuses on the effect of group affiliation, let’s say, on psychological processes, and it's a radically leftist subdiscipline. I would say it's quite corrupt.

One of the ways I discovered that corruption was by beginning to investigate the technical structure of the belief system that makes up progressivism or left-wing thinking—especially left-wing authoritarianism. And as I delved into that, I learned, much to my shock, I would say, that there was an insistence among social psychologists—and then everyone that was influenced by them—that there was no such thing as left-wing authoritarianism; that authoritarianism in and of itself was only a conservative phenomenon and a right-wing phenomenon.

And I really couldn't understand that at all, you know, because the evidence that there’s left-wing authoritarianism, to call it compelling, is to say almost nothing. I mean, you could make a very strong case—although it's a vicious battle—that left-wing authoritarianism has been responsible for more misery and death in the 20th century than right-wing authoritarianism. It’s a rough contest, but when you have someone like Mao on your side on the left, it's difficult to defeat him on the brutality scale.

And you know, social psychologists didn't begin to admit that there might be such a thing as left-wing authoritarianism literally till 2016. We did some of the first research in that area.

So one of the things I’m wondering about is, what, if you can pull yourself out of your conservative proclivity, let's say, and your role, at least in part, as a lobbyist—what did you see when you were operating within the university system that indicated the danger of an academic system dominated not only by liberal individualists, let's say, but even more particularly by so-called progressivists? What did you see that doing to, say, you could speak more particularly to history for example?

Sure well, I'll start with an anecdote from the time when I was a young tenure-track but still untenured professor—which and you understand the vulnerability I had, especially given how outspoken I was in this episode. But then I will also speak to something that has happened in my field, which is early American history, but in particular African-American history.

And for people who are listening to us, I'm decidedly a middle-aged bald white guy, which means that I could no longer, according to the powers that be in academia, be a specialist or an expert in African-American history.

But let me start with the aforementioned anecdote. This was roughly about 20 years ago—I forget the exact year—but President Reagan had recently passed away, and my colleagues in the history department decided—now remember, as I've mentioned a few minutes ago, they’re all big libs—they decided they were going to host a symposium about Reagan’s legacy, and they were going to spend some money to market this around our campus.

You know, prudence probably suggested that I just keep my mouth shut. But I just thought, "Well, I don't think anyone's perfect. Reagan was a great but not perfect president." There simply was not going to be a fair, objective assessment of his legacy as president of the United States.

And so I talked to my other conservative friend—the other conservative in the College of Liberal Arts, who was an economist—and I said, "Well, let’s go join this panel of four historians and let’s offer a balanced opinion." Those four other faculty members had no reason to do anything other than proceed with their conversation, but because of the scheduled appearance of the two of us as conservatives, they canceled it.

And they canceled it because, as you know well from your own experience, they can’t stand the disagreement, and frankly, although they wouldn’t admit it, I think they were fearful of the facts that we would bring to the table.

And so that anecdote is helpful in this way—that is just emblematic of everything that’s wrong with universities.

But in my field, what has happened is that someone today in their early 20s who wants to go to graduate school in history and wants to study American Indian history, African-American history, the history of a particular culture, if they themselves are not members of that particular culture, they're not even going to be allowed to study it.

And so I was beginning to see the evidence of that when I was still in academia, and I saw that in terms of research grants, I saw it in terms of class assignments that were given by my history department.

And Jordan, this was mild. I mean, it was a kind of thing that was just a mere annoyance, but it's now become systematic such that if my own children came to me and said, "Dad, we want to go study such and such field in history or political science or anthropology," barring just a handful of schools in North America, I would have to discourage them from doing that.

Right, right, right. Okay, so I want to delve into that a little bit, too. You know, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the nature of thinking and its relationship to free speech and its relationship to conflict and disagreement. So let me lay out some propositions, and you tell me what you think about them, okay?

So the first proposition has to do with why you should think at all. Now, people will avoid thinking because it is difficult, right? It’s technically complex and demanding, and so there's reason right there not to engage in it. It's emotionally challenging, right? Because if you already abide by a certain principle and then you go at it, even in your own imagination, hammer and tongs, and you start to shake the foundation, then, well, that exposes you to cognitive entropy, and that produces anxiety.

And that's very well documented in the neuroscience literature. So there's every reason not to question your own presuppositions on the emotional side. So it's difficult and it's emotionally demanding.

And then on the social side, if you’re thinking with someone—which basically means that you’re exchanging verbal ideas—then there’s the possibility of eliciting disagreement and the emotional unpleasantness and possible conflict that goes along with that, right?

As well as the fact that if you expose yourself to someone who thinks differently than you, they can challenge your presuppositions and make you anxious and leave you bereft of hope.

So those are all the reasons you shouldn't think. And then you might say, "Well, given all those reasons to not think, why should you think?"

And the answer to that—the best answer to that I’ve ever seen—is implicit in the ideas of Alfred North Whitehead. Whitehead said—and I think this is true from a biological and evolutionary perspective—that we learned to think so that we could allow our inappropriate or impractical thoughts to die instead of us.

So, you could think of a thought not so much as a description of the world but as a virtual, fragmented avatar you send out in an exploratory foray to see if it can withstand any trials. And if it can't, then you dispense with it now.

And there's some cost to that—the emotional cost and so forth—but the advantage is you don't act out the stupid ideas and die.

So I’m laying this out for the listeners and watchers so that they can understand why you might think, "Well, do you really have to engage in contentious disagreement at the academic level if you’re a thinker? Why can't everyone just get along?"

And the answer is, well, some ideas are stupid and impractical, and it's better to kill those suckers before they make themselves manifest in the world. And in order to do that, you have to be disagreeable and offensive. Now, no more than necessary.

You know, I've really seen a difference there, for example, between North Americans and the Brits. Because the Brits, at their best, their education system teaches them to engage in like blood sport cognitive combat and to do that in a very civilized manner, right?

So that they keep the argument within the domain of rationality and abstraction. It doesn't spill over into interpersonal conflict. And part of what universities were supposed to do was train people to do that, right? To think critically, to think in a manner that risks disrupting themselves and their interpersonal relationships without that spilling over into actual conflict, right?

And to replace conflict with thought. Now we seem to be dispensing with that.

And interestingly enough, so there are a bunch of things I want you to comment on. My experience in academia and in the broader political world has been I have never talked to someone who is conservative once and tried to set them up with a potential combatant and had them refuse to participate or refuse to associate with that person.

And that has happened to me while trying to set up conversations dozens of times with people on the left. I started, I saw that starting about 2010 at the University of Toronto. It just sort of crept into the discourse.

So, maybe I could get you to comment on the necessity of combating thought. But then also I’d be interested in your ideas about why this proclivity to cancel seems to be so manifest on the left. You’d expect there to be right-wing thinkers who were also inclined to cancel and shun, but that hasn't been how it's been manifesting itself, at least for the last 15 years.

Well, the intellectual combat is essential at the university level. In fact, the very etymology of the word university talks about, or is based on, the unification of thought. It doesn't mean the unanimity of thought; it means that there has been a process in place—by the way, I agree with you exemplified by British institutions and British scholars on the left and right toward whatever capital T truth is.

And in American institutions, especially since the 1940s and accelerating in the ’70s, there's basically an absence of that—in fact, the opposite of that.

So that if you go and you say that I want to do intellectual combat, you know, somehow you're committing some grave sin inside the American academy. But it's essential because that's where we refine our own positions.

And I’ll just use an example of what think tanks do—just to go back to that question. The think tank, at its height, I would argue, is one where, of course, it’s going to have a particular set of positions that it’s taking publicly.

But the process of arriving at those positions internally is one where there is, as I like to call it here at the Heritage Foundation, creative conflict. And in my nearly two years here, in almost every meeting that I have with our policy people, I ask them, "Well, what would the competing, the alternative position be? And what case would we make for that? What evidence would we marshal for that?"

Because first of all, we need to question our assumptions, but secondly, given that the reason we do research at Heritage is in fact to effect change in public policy, we ought to be better prepared for the attacks that will come.

But to your second question, very related, which is why it is that in the political left, there is this absence of that kind of conflict. I think it’s because, ultimately, the most radical part of leftism is one that undermines truth very actively.

They’ve lost, as Yeats would say in his famous poem, they’ve lost the center. There’s nothing cohering their mode of thought. And if you look at what's going on in the political right—something that you’ve been talking about and researching more in recent years—there’s a very healthy, sometimes kind of fractious debate that's going on about particular policies about the relationship between the individual and the state.

Those can be a little frustrating sometimes in terms of political outcomes, but on the intellectual level, they are important and they speak to the vitality of the intellectual right right now.

Starting a business can be tough, especially knowing how to run your online storefront. Thanks to Shopify, it's easier than ever. Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business, from the launch-your-online-shop stage all the way to the "did we just hit a million orders?" stage. Shopify is there to help you grow.

Our marketing team uses Shopify every day to sell our merchandise, and we love how easy it is to add more items, ship products, and track conversions. Shopify helps you turn browsers into buyers with the Internet's best converting checkout—up to 36% better compared to other leading commerce platforms.

No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com/jbp. Go to shopify.com/jbp now to grow your business no matter what stage you're at. That's shopify.com/jbp.

So we did some research in 2016 looking at predictors of politically correct authoritarianism. First of all, we did a factor analytic study that showed that there was clearly a set of ideas that were associated with one another that you could identify as political correct authoritarianism.

So it wasn't just some right-wing delusion that that coherent system of ideas existed. And then we looked and we did that by asking a very large number of participants a very large number of political questions and then subjecting them to statistical analysis.

So that we could see which opinions clumped together, and how. And so there was a liberal contingent of ideas, and a conservative contingent, and an authoritarian left-wing contingent. And so then we looked at what predicted that.

The best predictor was low verbal intelligence. And I think the reason for that was that the radical leftists basically offer a unidimensional solution to a very complex problem, which is that all human motivation can be reduced to power—which is technically incorrect and preposterous—and also an extremely harmful, what would you call it, harmful insistence.

But it's very easy to understand, and it does provide for universal explanatory power. And then we also found that the personality trait agreeableness was also a predictor. And agreeableness is associated with compassion.

And the thing is, you know, if you engage in the blood sport of critical thinking, you do risk hurting other people's feelings, right? At least in the moment. Now, there might be long-term advantage to that for both players, as there often is when you settle a fractious issue, say, between a wife and husband or between family members.

There's some combat that's required to set things straight, but then you get an interlude of peace afterward.

It might also be that the radical leftists are also temperamentally predisposed to avoid conflict because, as they do say themselves, they prioritize compassion above all. In fact, they make it a universal virtue, let's say, and they don’t understand the necessity of having to at least, however irregularly, tolerate periods of emotional discomfort to set things straight.

So, you know, I’ve been trying to puzzle out—I mean, liberals—they don’t like borders because they’re high in openness. They’re creative and they’re low in orderliness, so they don’t necessarily find satisfaction in keeping things in their proper place.

So that's part of the reason they have a hard time drawing borders and distinctions. You know, that's why the moderate leftists, I think, have a hard time contending with the radicals.

But then there’s also this proclivity to prioritize emotional comfort over everything else, even in the moment, and that isn't commensurate with healthy debate of the discriminatory kind that has to occur if you’re going to refine your ideas.

You know, and then that does expose people in the way that you already said. You know, if you formulate policy and you don’t hash hack the hell out of it in intramural debate within your own institution and you launch those ideas out there in the world, they're going to get torn into shreds.

You bloody well better be your own worst enemy when you're thinking so that you're well protected against what the actual world—social and natural—is going to throw at you.

Another reason to think, well, it is—and two things come to mind at least initially. The first is, as I listened to the last part of what you said in reference to public policy, I think one of the frustrations that Americans, presumably Canadians, and Brits, and many people around the world have with politics is the absence of what they perceive to be a real debate, right?

And this is true on the political right. There's a frustration among grassroots activists who are conservatives in the United States about the absence of a real debate, whether it be about specific policy issues or even about the sort of social, economic, cultural diagnosis of the malaise that has beset the Western world.

People, especially younger voters who have a certain bias increasingly towards center-right politics are looking for those men or women who are candidates for elective office who are at least asking the right questions even if they may themselves decide that they disagree with that person's answer. They just want the questions asked.

And as we then focus on public policy, I don't know how public policy organizations can be prepared for the media that their scholars do—the testimonies, say, for example, that our scholars at Heritage do—without having just a vibrant internal process of disagreement.

And I think the key thing to home in on is that disagreement doesn't have to be disagreeable. It may, and if it does, it may get into the zone of hurting people's feelings. But as I've mentioned to more than one student in my teaching career, I don't mean this to be offensive, but I care a lot less about your feelings than I do about your pursuit of truth.

Your intellectual rigor that goes into not just the particular field we might be teaching in—your case, the behavioral sciences and my case, history—but even more importantly, your relationship as a human person, as a citizen of the polity in which you live, to everyone else, to the state itself, and ultimately, to sum up here, I think one of the problems with radical leftism is that this radical emphasis on the individual creates a radical emphasis on the individual's feelings.

Okay, so let’s delve into that a little bit too because the thing is that that radical emphasis on the individual is predicated on a very strange acceptance of what constitutes the individual.

Because what you see with the heinous radicals is their insistence that their immediate emotional or motivational whim defines their individuality, right? “I want what I want right now, and no one has any right to stand in my way.”

Now, the problem with that is that it's a pretty low-order conception of what it means to be an individual.

It's also extremely immature, and I can speak about that technically. So, the more immature you are, the more you are ruled by motivations that want to attain gratification right now, regardless of medium to long-term cost.

And so actually what happens is that you, as you mature, you learn to, quote, delay gratification—which is an oversimplification—you learn to subordinate the demands of immediate motivational and emotional states to long-term social harmony and your own long-term well-being.

And that requires a sacrifice of that immediate gratification. So, one of the weird things about the left is that the individual who they make sacred is an individual defined by his or her subjugation to their own hedonistic motivations.

That's a pretty low-order conceptualization of the self, right? And so I don't see it as a true individuality at all. And then, on the feeling front, see, one of the things you're trying to do with students at a university is to make their conception of themselves as an individual less dependent on their unconscious urges.

So, you know, take—I saw this very frequently, I'll take an example that might not be obvious given the tenor of our conversation. I took a very biological approach to psychology in my lectures, and it wasn't that uncommon for me to have a very fundamentalist Christian student who had been raised in a household that insisted that the theory of evolution was incorrect and that the world was relatively new: 6,000 years or 4,000 years old.

And my insistence on an evolutionary approach, especially combined with the fact that I also gave credence to, let’s say, the Judeo-Christian tradition, was very hard on them. And it was partly because their faith, and their vision of themselves, and their vision of the future was predicated on the assumption that you couldn't have that faith or that vision without accepting a non-evolutionary account of creation.

And that was where their feelings came into it, right? Because by upsetting that presupposition they risk exposing themselves to anxiety and hopelessness.

So it’s not feelings per se that are at stake; it’s the automatic and unquestioned assumption that the integrity of your psychological—that your psychological integrity rests necessarily on the acceptance of certain axioms.

Now, when you go to university, those axioms are supposed to be questioned. Now, and what that implies is that you help the student replace their self-conceptualization.

They stop seeing themselves as the static adherent of a set of dogmatic beliefs, and they start to see themselves as someone whose stability is partly predicated on their ability to dynamically transform, and to learn, and to engage.

So they become more of a dancer than a rock, let’s say. A good university can guide them through that process so they don't identify with those dogmatic ideas to the same degree. They can detach themselves from the ideas, and that also can help them allow the necessary death of their stupid ideas to occur without undue psychological suffering, right?

And that’s the debates you have in seminars and so forth—are practice for that, right? Under relatively civilized conditions where the stakes are comparatively low.

And now we've insisted that everybody become a, you know, a delicate snowflake and that you’re never to step on anyone's toes. And all we’re doing, as Greg Lukianoff has demonstrated quite clearly on the clinical front, is removing the possibility from our students of exposing themselves to the sort of challenges that would actually make them strong.

We are actually making them weaker, more hopeless, and more anxious by protecting them in that manner. And we’ve been doing that long enough that those hypothetical students—although you’ve had real students who fit that profile, as I have—have become members of Congress. They’ve become members of the United States Senate, and so they lead with their feelings.

They lead journalists sure; they lead with the belief that you can't even ask them a fair but difficult question. And that, of course, is exacerbating the problems that we see in the political sphere.

But I just want to respond to your excellent example of you leading with biology in your lectures and encountering a student who believed that the theory of evolution was incorrect.

As you may remember, I've led—I founded and then led another college of faith, founded a K through 2 school—and there, because it was a classical great books school, we had our particular faith dogmas as a Roman Catholic school. We made sure that our students were in classes that were questioning those assumptions even about our faith before they went into apologetics.

So even for someone who is a very devout member of a particular denominational faith, it doesn't mean that we should be hostile to the hard questions about what we believe. In fact, speaking as someone of faith who believes in the mysteries of my faith, we ought to really encourage that.

And so that's a way of saying that even for those of us who are politically conservative—maybe religiously conservative as well—that we ought not develop the same hostility to this creative conflict—these questions about the assumptions of our belief—that the left, of course, personifies every day.

Well, I think you could make a very strong case that your genuine faith is actually directly proportionate to the degree that you’re willing to allow that faith to undergo the most stringent of challenges.

I mean, if you have to hide away and never be, you know, called to account for what you presume, there’s no faith there. There's just a blind abandonment of reason and the necessity of hiding from reality in order to keep those axioms intact.

I think this is partly why, for example, there’s a powerful biblical injunction in the New Testament to do what you can to even love your enemies, which is a hell of a thing to ask, you know, but if you understand that one of the advantages to adversarial enmity is the refining of your own beliefs, then you can also understand how it might be possible, if you could manage it, to welcome the most dreadful of challenges in the hope that, see, I thought about this in terms of, you know, you remember in the Genesis story when Adam and Eve are barred from Paradise. God places cherubim at the entry to Paradise, and they wield swords that are on fire that turn every which way.

I’ve been thinking about that image. It’s a very dramatic and powerful image and a strange one, and it also begs the question of why God would do such a thing.

And I think the answer is this: if the goal is re-entry into something approximating a paradisal state, then obviously everything that isn't fit to be there has to be cut away. But that also indicates another issue, which is that if you confront an adversarial enemy, and in their adversarial argumentation they can demonstrate to you where you're weak and unworthy, even though that’ll be painful because you have to let that go, and that might be a lot of you.

The net consequence could be that what grows as a replacement in consequence is much better for you and for everyone else. And it does seem to me that that's inevitable.

It follows the same logic, in some sense, as the necessity for critical thinking itself. You know, you have to think critically so you can put your ideas to the test.

And this is also why free speech is so necessary. In the same manner, you're not good enough thinker to think up all the objections to your idiocy by yourself. You have to allow other people to call you out. But the net benefit of that, in principle—and this is what we hoped in universities, obviously—is that if you exposed yourself enough to the eradication of your stupidity, then what would be left would be something much more solid, flexible, dynamic, adapted, sophisticated, beneficial, and productive, all of that.

And I think all of that's solid in terms of psychological doctrine. So, that's partly why it’s so appalling to see the universities take this false compassionate turn and hyper-protect their students instead of, you know, trying them by fire so to speak.

It's solid as psychological doctrine; it's also solid in terms of doctrine in civil society, right? Because what happens is that especially with the advent and popularity of social media, going back to your principle about thinking at its base—eliminating those really kind of dumb thoughts that we have, inappropriate things that should never be put into practice.

People aren't thinking, but they're exercising their free speech in a rather messy way on social media. And then, so ironically, to kind of come full circle in our conversation, their feelings are hurt because in the absence of their thinking—which would eradicate some of their dumbest thoughts—they are posting ideas.

Some of them are elected officials at very high offices—maybe even the President of the United States, or the Vice President of the United States—and their feelings get hurt because of all of the pushback that's created as a result of how dumb their comments are.

All of this goes back to what’s lacking in our secondary schools, our elementary schools, our universities, which is creating not just the habit of thought but creating the physical space—I mean, literally, the classroom—where this is practiced and where our feelings become harder to hurt because we’ve had a lot more experience mentioning some kind of dumb thoughts and people explaining why they are.

Well, we're also in community there. This is one of the things that's quite different from the online world. You know, like, and I’ll ask you how your think tank is constructed because of this.

So if you're in a seminar, let's say, there's the possibility of developing interpersonal relationships. So that would be a means of communication and potential friendship that would iterate across time.

And that broader container that's community-based can help brunt you against the fractiousness of momentary disagreement, right? You can think—this used to happen politically too when people actually lived in Washington instead of just sojourning there.

As, say, congressmen, you know, 40% of congressmen sleep in their offices now. So it used to be that you could have a scrap with the guy across the aisle and then go for a beer with him afterward or meet him on the golf course or, you know, go play baseball and go to a baseball game with him and his kids, and a lot of that's disappeared from Washington.

The problem, partly, the problem with the online discourse is there's no community of reciprocal interaction that binds people together; at the same time, the expression of their random opinions divides them.

And so I wanted to ask you about that on the think tank front: How is the Heritage Foundation actually set up? How is it constituted? How often do you people meet? How do you establish the preconditions for fractious thought while maintaining the social—the underlying social community and keeping people united in vision, let’s say, as they move forward?

Well, our first rule, to your point about being in person and being, living in community, is that any conversation that may have a difference of opinion—which, at least in our think tank, would be many—has to be in person.

We’re not going to have that conversation via email. We're not going to have that conversation by phone. We're also not going to have that conversation via video conference.

And because we—the purpose of our research isn't just to write a white paper, but for that white paper’s ideas, the ideas of the author, to actually take shape and ultimately become law—we have to do that work in person.

It’s very difficult to advocate for these ideas without being in the office of a member of the House or a member of the Senate. So that's how we live out that first rule.

But the second rule is that as long as the debate doesn’t become personal, everything is fair game—the assumptions, the principles, the applications of what we would call the permanent things, timeless conservative principles to our particular circumstances.

And, I will say in the last two years at the Heritage Foundation, in part, if not in large part because of getting past some of the COVID nonsense, we’re really living that out in a vibrant way.

In fact, we often have friends—whether they're financial supporters or just supporters of another kind—who will visit, and they find it remarkable at the intensity of the debates that we have here while also recognizing the third thing, which is that for us, culture is everything.

By that we mean internal culture—that is to say, when you walk in the doors here, we want this to be the most cheerful place in Washington, D.C. I understand that's a low bar, but for us, our cheerfulness, our hospitality goes hand in hand, very fittingly as you know with our willingness to be engaged in a very intense debate with our friends and colleagues.

You've heard us talk about how important it can be to have a VPN to protect your online privacy, but choosing a VPN you trust is equally as important. Now, we like to do our research on our sponsors and only recommend brands to our listeners that we believe in.

We can say with full confidence that ExpressVPN is the best VPN on the market. Here's why: ExpressVPN doesn't log your activity. Lots of cheap or free VPNs make money by selling your data to advertisers, but ExpressVPN doesn't do this.

They even developed a technology called Trusted Server that makes their VPN servers incapable of storing data at all. ExpressVPN now uses Lightway, a new VPN protocol they engineered to make user speeds faster than ever.

Other VPNs can sometimes slow your connection, but ExpressVPN is always blazing fast and lets you stream videos in HD quality with zero buffering.

The last thing that really sets ExpressVPN apart is how easy it is to use. You don't need any technical skills to get set up. Just fire up the app and tap one button to connect—that's it! Even your grandparents could do it.

And it's not just me saying this: CNET, Business Insider, The Verge, and many other tech journals rate ExpressVPN the number one VPN in the world.

So protect yourself with the VPN that we use and trust. Visit expressvpn.com/jordan—that's expressvpn.com/jordan—for three extra months free.

Expressvpn.com/jordan.

So, you know, I just did a seminar on Exodus in Miami. We did 16 2-hour sessions; they've been released on YouTube. And we did one 8-day session, and then we broke for six months and did another 8-day session.

And one of the things we did, we brought together nine people, and we kind of knew each other but not that well. And there was a wide range of opinions on the panel from moderate left to pretty socially conservative—no real progressive types but certainly people on the moderate left.

And we found we were really attempted to be hospitable to all of our guests. So, in addition to having the seminar lay itself out for two hours each evening, I hosted people continually at an Airbnb that I rented there, and we barbecued together.

And I rented people some jet skis, and we had some fun, and like each night was a party. And at the same time that that was happening, I was also, while we were walking through Exodus and through other elements of the Old Testament, I was struck by the immense emphasis in those texts on the absolute sacred nature of hospitality, right, as a duty.

And I came to understand, thinking that through but also watching what was happening with this seminar, was that if you’re hospitable to people—and this partly speaks to the necessity of an actual localized community—then they begin to trust each other at a fundamental level.

There’s a core of consensus and trust there, mutual regard for mutual well-being that then enables experimentation to take place at the cognitive fringes in an atmosphere of trust, right?

And so I've really been struck in Washington. Washington, you know, I’ve been talking to people there, people involved with the Presidential Prayer Breakfast. And one of the things they've said repeatedly is that the civil society in Washington has broken down in the last four decades.

Partly because of virtualized communication, so people don’t have to be present. Partly because under Newt Gingrich, there was incentives for congressmen to spend more time in their district and less time in Washington, which might have had some benefits but also helped undercut the Washington Society because of the difficulty in having congressmen bring their entire families to Washington for what can be a relatively brief career, right?

They have to disrupt the career of their spouse, for example. And so one of the things—and so many of them, as I said, don’t even have apartments in Washington now. They don’t make friendships or establish social relationships even with the people in their own party, much less talking across the aisle to Republicans, for example.

If they're Democrats. So that—okay, so now you said at the Heritage Foundation that you have fostered an atmosphere. You know, you said it with a bit of irony, because it's a low bar in Washington—but that it's a very cheerful enterprise, and so what do you think you've done right to foster that atmosphere?

The atmosphere that enables robust debate to occur without it degenerating into ill will.

Well, the most important thing is that our mission—which is focused on revitalizing self-governance in this country and across the world—is very unifying and motivating. And so the people who want to work at Heritage are people who are animated by that.

And in our selection process of how we hire someone, whether at the junior level or the senior level, it's not just about philosophical or political alignment, but it's as much about cultural alignment.

That is to say, a lot of the interview process is focused on how this potential colleague is going to fit into our process of creative conflict. And that creative conflict, as we've discussed, being something that never swerves into the personal and is so focused on the ideas and our love for the ideas.

But I also want to mention that that’s very much related to your excellent and accurate point about the sort of demise of Washington society.

I mean, I've heard from so many long-term members of the Senate, so many long-term members of the House, and these are stalwart conservatives who don't wake up each day looking to compromise with the left. They say that they and their spouses have seen a huge deterioration in even members of the Republican Party spending time together.

Now, as you said, there are certain benefits to that. You know, being home in your district or your state, but there are also benefits to the people who do the good work in Washington, D.C.

And there are some to having community. And I’ll just give you an example. That is a self-critical. When I first got here about two years ago, I was always talking about D.C. being a terrible place to live, and no doubt there are parts of D.C. that are, but at the same time, sometimes in the same paragraph, I was encouraging relatively young conservatives to join our presidential transition project, which we call Project 2025.

And one of them mustered the courage after one of these talks to come up and say, “Kevin, you know those two things don't go hand-in-hand. If you want people to leave their communities, their hometown, their lives, if they’ve established them, wherever home is, and come to D.C., and in your words, tithe two, four, or eight years to the next conservative administration, maybe Heritage needs to spend some time helping to revitalize that society, helping to revitalize that community.”

And that was a really good constructive criticism that we’ve taken to heart because of the culture that we have here at Heritage.

Yeah, well, it points to a broader problem too, I would say, on the conservative side, practically and philosophically. I mean, there are plenty of reasons for conservatives, for example, to engage in the kind of dialogue that we've been engaging in in this conversation— for example, to level substantive criticisms at the universities as institutions.

And of course, we've taken the odd side shot at the Washington establishment, let's say, in the political process per se. And that's a very problematic on the conservative side because the progressive mantra is that all institutions are so corrupt they should be demolished and replaced.

And to the degree that conservatives engage in incautious social critique, it seems to me that we play, they play—we play, to the degree that I'm a conservative—into the hands of those very progressives, right?

And there’s another question too is, you know, it’s a matter of drawing lines—always a matter of drawing lines—where and how to include and exclude.

Now you want to produce a culture that's hospitable and unified but that's also capable of fractious debate. And you said that precludes, for example, hiring people who are of the progressive left.

How in the world do you think you manage to determine when it is that someone has ideas that are sufficiently different and novel so that they can add to the utility of the fractious debate but not so disruptive and novel that they violate the tenets of the community?

And that would allow, if you answer that, that would also allow you to expound on the central ideals of the Heritage Foundation. You said revitalizing self-governance is part of the Heritage mission, and I assume that the people you hire have to accept the validity of the central message at least, right?

There's got to be some core axiom that unites everyone, but how do you differentiate? Well, how do you solve that conundrum? And what do you think is the central axiom around which the entire Heritage Foundation rotates, let’s say? What are you guys aiming at and why?

Yeah, great question, especially as it relates to hiring people, which we’ve been doing a lot of over the last couple years because of growth. The focus of Heritage in terms of policy is that we need a much more limited federal government, and not just because limited government is an end unto itself but because it is a symptom of flourishing by individuals who are living in community, who are also, of course, enjoying greater self-governance.

But in terms of specific policy that we’re looking for, there’s the typical list that people would expect: that if you’re going to have a more limited government, you're going to have a fairer taxation system—that’s probably lower, states are probably going to have more authority to make decisions that are closer to the people they’re governing.

There’s a certain belief on the foreign policy side that America should be strong, although in the Heritage view that strength needs to be more restrained and less expensive and less adventuresome than the neocons of the last generation were arguing for.

And we also believe—to speak about not surprisingly to you—the policy I care most deeply about in education is that every dollar that Americans spend on government funded schools should follow every child to the school of his or her parent’s choice.

That’s just a brief smattering of the specific policy issues, but they all, if you think about it, speak to the preeminence of the individual in his or her community working at the local level and, eventually, the state level, having great authority over the federal government.

And so ultimately—to be succinct about this—the Heritage Foundation exists to devolve power from Washington back to the states and ultimately back to the people themselves.

Now, if you pause and think about that, there’s room for a lot of differences of opinion, at least, at the very least, differences in priority, right?

And so to your question about people coming in, job applicants coming in, there’s going to be some difference of opinion, but what we're looking for is the absence of a disagreement on some of the core principles.

And now I’ll speak to them. Probably the best summary of these, in addition to Heritage products, would be the historian Russell Kirk's great essay on the 10 principles of conservatism, which emphasize things like continuity, prudence and change, community.

If someone is wanting to work at the Heritage Foundation and they don’t understand or appreciate those—or they don’t have a concern about what I think is the greatest problem in America today, which is fatherlessness, the deterioration of the family—and if we fail to address those on the social and cultural and maybe even policy fronts, everything else we're working on is almost moot, then there's going to be a philosophical misalignment.

But there's also still, even within that set of positions we have, opportunity for great differences. We have some economists here who are going to say that as it relates to the so-called family policy public policy arena, that the only thing we need to do is to make sure that we're ending the disincentives to marriage and family formation in American tax law.

There are others of us who might be more commonly called social conservatives who say there may be a role for the state—whether it’s the federal government or a state government—as the nations of Hungary and Israel have done—to actually proactively aid marriage and family formation for the sake of saving society.

All of that to say, because we’re a think tank in the interviews with policy people or prospective policy people, we have these conversations and it has become in the last several years in conservative public policy pretty easy to far out when someone’s not completely on the reservation, if you will.

And perhaps the most common conundrum that we have—just to give a precise example—would be on the nature of the free market. For so many years, I mean, my entire upbringing to be conservative was to believe that the free market was some sort of altar—

In fact, free market belief was tantamount to being conservative. While the free market is a good thing, the free market is a symptom of a healthy society—healthy families, good public policy. It isn’t the end unto itself.

And so I mention that example because it's the most common conversation that we have internally when we’re interviewing policy colleagues but also when we're having conversations internally about how to help the American political right navigate this reality that so many leaders of the so-called free market aren’t even in the free market themselves.

Most leaders of Fortune 500 companies actually hate conservatives and hate conservatism. The Heritage Foundation is, I would like to think, leading the way and beginning to resolve that conflict.

Okay, well, I have a bunch of questions about that. So the first comment in question, I suppose, is one on the strategic front.

So I think the conservative movement has weakened its argument for the decentralization of power by aligning that argument too closely with libertarian, neocon, and free-market principles because it often devolves into a proclamation that a government that's too large is too dangerous, which I do believe.

But that's not the crucial issue, as far as I'm concerned. That if the government was smaller, the tax burden would be less. If the tax burden would be less, that would be better because people should be economically free, and they should be economically free because, well, the society functions better when the free market is as untrammeled as possible.

And so, in some ways, it’s an Ayn Rand philosophy of, you know, rugged individualism conjoined with libertarian admiration for the free market.

Now there are some problems with that, one you pointed to, and we'll get back to that later, I think when we discuss neoconservatism. One is that the free market itself is probably not the only basis for an equitable and just and moral polity.

It's not the thing that's at the bottom, and I think that's where the libertarian types have it wrong, and I think there are good reasons for that.

But more importantly, there's a better reason to discuss the necessity of devolving power down the hierarchy to lower levels. The first thing I would say is it’s not power. We shouldn't use that language because that's the language the leftists use. It's meaning and responsibility, and those things are aligned.

And so what happens, and I've really found this idea striking a chord with audiences that I've talked around the world, is that if you deprive people of local responsibility, you deprive them of all the meaning in their life.

Because the meaning in their life is actually a consequence of taking responsibility for themselves—taking responsibility for their marriage, for their family, for their local community, for their business enterprises, for their town, for their state, for their country, in that order, right?

And then maybe to God. Responsibility obtains at every one of those levels. That's the subsidiarity idea, of course.

But the purpose for that is that if you devolve that responsibility down the hierarchy, you re-instill the meaning in people's lives. The meaning that sustains them through catastrophe.

And so you gotta ask, you know, well, why should the typical young person listen to a conservative who says, “Well, you should take more local responsibility?”

Because it sounds like a lot of work, a lot of duty, and something that’s not particularly hedonically gratifying. But if the answer is, “Well, if you forgo that responsibility, you have nothing to sustain you when you suffer,” and you forgo the possibility of formulating the extremely tight and reciprocal social interactions that buttress you through life, and you deprive your life of intrinsic meaning, then that seems like a very bad idea for you.

And I found is very striking everywhere I’ve gone to talk. If I make that connection between responsibility and meaning, the audiences fall completely silent.

It always happens because no one—see, we haven’t had a good discussion about the relationship between meaning and responsibility in the West for like 60 years, right?

Since the mid-60s, it's been a long time. It's been a very long time. People assume that there’s no meaning outside of a kind of narrow hedonism or that there’s no meaning at all, and that's a very dismal set of propositions.

And it is a weak place in the progressive enterprise because sustaining meaning is found in responsibility and really in self-sacrifice—or at least the sacrifice of the narrow self.

Now this insistence that your enterprise has on this subsidiary vision—is that grounded at least in part in Catholic social doctrine? Because that principle of subsidiarity is—

Okay, can you elaborate on that a bit?

Sure, and the Heritage Foundation is non-sectarian, but we’re animated by the Judeo-Christian intellectual tradition. And as we discussed earlier in reference to education, I'm Roman Catholic, but the effect of subsidiarity on Heritage's mission, of course, long predates me.

We've been around for 50 years, and it’s just because it’s a vital part of our Western intellectual tradition, as you explained so well.

And I think it's an excellent way, given the conversations on the political right right now, to talk about the issues we’re discussing here about meaning and responsibility.

It’s related very much to something that has become more common parlance in conservative circles, which is to say that the reason we want a more limited government isn't because of some doctrinal belief that the free market is always better than government; that's not the case.

It's because there is an inherent dignity that comes from work—or, to put it more broadly, there’s a dignity that comes from responsibility; and therefore, we have greater meaning.

It's no surprise to me that you've gotten that wonderful response in all of those talks when you emphasize those points because people not only know that that’s true just intuitively—right? Naturally.

The second thing, to come back to my constructive criticism of free-market conservatives—myself included, years ago—have done a very poor job of taking advantage of that great vulnerability of the political left that you identified, which is this very issue.

Because our response to that for 20 or 25 years was, “Well, the free market will take care of it. Pull yourself up from your bootstraps. Read Ayn Rand. It's all going to be okay; just work a little bit harder.”

Well, in reality, that isn’t true in the first place, but this is really key. It's especially not been true since the mid-1960s with the ill-named War on Poverty because what that has done is actually eradicate for two generations of Americans the meaning and responsibility that every human person should have.

Therefore, in order for, just to kind of swerve into the sidewalk level, as I like to say, if conservatives are going to succeed in safety net reform and so-called welfare reform, we first have to get better at talking about the limitations of the free market and the necessity of conservative principles—conservative political dogma—to be associated with our long tradition of living in community, which actually has a longer history in conservatism than even free market principles.

We talk about pre-born a lot on our shows here at The Daily Wire. We believe in their mission, and we know you do too. Who wouldn't want to help mothers and their children in crisis?

Pre-born is reaching into the hearts of women by allowing them to hear the hearts of their babies and introducing them to their precious lives. It's a divine connection that doubles as a baby’s chance at life.

Every day, Pre-born's network of clinics rescues 200 babies' lives, but it doesn't stop there. Your gift of $28 for a free ultrasound goes directly to women in need, and Pre-born doesn't take any of that money; they independently fundraise for their team to continue to make a difference.

They offer mothers maternity clothes, doctor’s visits, and the help they need. All gifts are tax-deductible and will go directly towards saving babies’ lives.

To donate, just dial pound 250 and say the key word "baby." That’s pound 250, baby, or donate securely at preborn.com. That’s pre-born.com.

Well, that also points to a place where social conservatism and the more free market end of conservatism—the libertarian end—could be unified, right?

So, okay, so let’s concentrate on responsibility for a moment. So I'm going to speak about that psychologically. So someone young might be thinking, "Well, why should I bear up under the load of additional responsibility?"

And I would say, "Well, if you—responsibility is going to be a challenge, it means you have to determine that you are going to lift something that you haven't yet lifted."

And then you might say, "Well, why should I do that?" And the answer is something like, "So you get stronger and better."

And so if you decide to take responsibility for yourself, then you put yourself through the paces that will dissolve your idiocy and bad habits—all the ones that interfere with your ability to take care of yourself—disappear.

Now, often, students do that to some degree when they go off to university because they have to learn how to live independently, right? Which is a big part of what university does.

And that burns off the remaining childhood idiocy that they've carried with them, right? That dependence on their parents and maybe the dependence—over-dependence—on their initial peer group.

So they have to mature, and the whole utility of taking on responsibility is that you confront yourself with necessity in a manner that forces beneficial change.

You know, and you might say, "Well, why does it have to be forced?" And the answer is, well, you know, we don't know how much situational privation and necessity has to be there to motivate people to develop.

Now, you could take on just exactly the right amount of responsibility so it would feel like the challenge was optimized, right? But that also—that optimized challenge is also what puts you in the zone of proximal development and forces you to expand your horizons.

And so you adopt responsibility; you can care for yourself better; then you can care for other people better, but that also does genuinely make you a better person in that your domain of competent action expands in precise proportion to the amount of responsibility that you've been willing to undertake voluntarily, right?

And it’s not surprising that that’s associated with meaning. So the conservatives can sell the leftists can sell rights, rights, rights—which is what they’ve been doing forever—and the hedonistic self-gratification that goes along with that.

But the right can sell the deep and abiding meaning that comes with the hoisting of voluntary responsibility, and that is—that's not a free market argument, right?

It is not. The free market is a consequence of that. Exactly!

The free market isn’t going to work, and this is where the social conservatives have an edge too, and I think this is becoming increasingly obvious. In the absence of that underlying ethos of responsible conduct, you can't have a free market.

Because people have to be able to trust each other before the free market can even get going, and you can't trust irresponsible people. That’s the precise rub.

And I will tell you that any leader in a public policy organization has certain things that he or she does every day, every single day; either directly or indirectly, I’m dealing with that tension on the political right.

Because part of what Heritage tries to do, beyond the research and advocacy that we do, is also play at this plane where you and I are having this conversation on the intellectual level.

And when we do that, what we’re arguing for is, as I like to say, an unhyphenated conservatism. We’re, we’re all of those things, but when you’re all of those things, you’re not trying to be, you know, something to everybody.

We're talking to our audience on the political right, and it means that you’re also going to be aware of the limitations of some of the things that are goods, like the free market.

The free market is good, but there are many higher goods, and—as we've talked about chronologically speaking—which is what I try to do almost every day in reminding more free market-oriented friends on the right is you have to have that healthy society.

You have to have, as I often like to put it, healthy families. You have to have this moral system in place to even give birth to the free market.

It was the monks of Salamanca in the 1200s who first came up with this concept. And even Adam Smith himself, I think, would be very, very comfortable in this exchange that you and I are having about the lack of privacy of the free market as it relates to human goods.

Yeah, well, that’s a matter of putting everything in its proper place, right? That’s—and it is an open question how far down the hierarchy of axiomatic primacy the free market rests.

But yeah, and the more libertarian types, they’re going to say it's right at the bottom, and Ayn Rand is a good example of that. Right? For her, the free market is the god out of which all other goods emerge.

But I think the Adam Smith conceptualization, the classic British liberal conceptualization, for that matter, is much more accurate, which is that once you have a society that’s essentially predicated on the Judeo-Christian axioms—one of those being responsible self-sacrifice—and the trust that emerges from that, then you can instantiate a free market and it can serve a governing function.

But it can't exist—see, I think the same thing is actually true of science. This is something I want to talk to Richard Dawkins about because I don’t think the scientific enterprise itself—the scientific enterprise is predicated on the idea that the cosmic order is good, that we can investigate it, that we can understand it, and that if we do that, that will be good.

Those are all axioms of faith, in my estimation, and they’re also specifically Judeo-Christian axioms.

There are a bunch of axioms of faith that are embedded in the Judeo-Christian tradition that are also presuppositions of the free market, like fairness in weights and measures and honesty in mutual exchange, right?

Because, like, the free marketers have a hard time dealing with a simple question, like if I can screw you over and make money doing it, why shouldn't I? It’s an Ayn Rand principle, right? Self-interest is the most important thing.

And the other thing, just to introduce this to this wonderful exchange that is so true about the free market in the 2020s, is that what most Americans think of when they think of the free market right now rests—it almost requires collusion with what Heritage would call big government.

Right? And so what I try to do, all of us at Heritage, when we’re talking about the best aspects of the free market is to place the emphasis not on those companies that are actually seeking regulatory favoritism actively by agencies in D.C.

Don’t put the emphasis on them, instead put the emphasis on small businesses, on entrepreneurs in America, who actually are the ones creating the jobs. They’re much more in line with this proper understanding of where the free market falls in that list of axioms for the conservative dogma.

Yeah, well, one of the places that the left and the right—the more socially conservative classical subsidiarity, right—could be aligned, and I see this emerging in people like Russell Brand and Joe Rogan, right?

Is that there’s every reason to be skeptical of towers of Babel, whether corporate or government.

Yeah, well, the thing is, is that once something gets so large that it can capture the environment in which it's supposed to thrive, then it presents a danger, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a corporation or a government.

And that means that all of us—left and right alike—like the lefties are always saying, "Oh my God, big corporations!" and, you know, looking at the behavior of the pharmaceutical companies, for example, over the last 20 years, you can have some sympathy for their perspective.

And then the Libertarians say, "Oh my God, big government!" And neither of them seem to notice that the unifying horror there is big, it’s out of control, big.

And the danger of regulatory capture—and, you know, one of the things we’re trying to puzzle through, I started this organization; I’m involved in the origin of this organization called The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, and we're trying to work through these issues of subsidiarity, but also expressing great concern about corporate gigantism and fascist collusion at the highest levels of what—the hierarchical enterprise, right?

And the true fascism, I would say. And so how have you at The Heritage Foundation grappled with this issue of the danger of regulatory capture? Like, what policies do you think should be put in place?

I mean, like, on the YouTube front, for example—I mean, it's one corporation now that controls the primary communication network for 7 billion people. And in the main, they've done a pretty damn good job, but YouTube's got a bit heavy-handed on the censorship front as has Facebook, you know, colluding with the Biden Administration, as has come out in recent weeks.

How do you guys grapple with the problem of emergent gigantism say within a free market framework? How do you conceptualize the solutions to that problem?

Well, three things come to mind. The first is—and I don't mean this to be just sort of academic think tank speak—it’s really important on the political right for us to be doing this as a first step because of this 30-40 year long-held position that the free market equates to conservatism.

And that is to remind people that regulatory capture is a result of so-called free-market leaders going to government and asking for favorable treatment.

The second thing, which is more substantial in terms of what we do on a day-to-day basis, is through our Project 2025—roughly speaking, it’s a presidential transition project where we’re coming up with the policies, including deregulatory policies for the next conservative administration.

But it’s also one—and this is vital; that as important as the policy is—we’re recruiting 20,000 people to go into the next conservative administration, and if that happens, then you're going to see across the board—from the Department of Energy to the Department of Education, which we've written the plan to completely destroy—we need that eliminated by the end of this decade.

To completely start from scratch with the FBI. What this public policy organization, the Heritage Foundation, does isn’t just talk about those things. And we don’t just come up with the plans; we’re actually recruiting the men and women who will put that in place—hopefully as soon as 2025.

But the third sort of kill shot, if you will—the one bullet that will be really helpful to ending regulatory capture—is Schedule F reform.

It’s the civil service reform that will give the next president of the United States power to fire the bureaucrats who are part of the problem. But if that’s all you do and you don’t take the first step, which is to explain on our side, you know, the sort of business-free market side, that we have to call out those businesses that are asking for this kind of treatment, then we're not going to solve the problem.

Okay, so I have two questions that arise from that. One is on the presidential candidate front. I gather, I have no doubt that your organization is watching that completely surreal race intensely.

Are there particular candidates, or how are you working with candidates so that your plan to restructure the so-called managerial deep state or the government deep state dovetails with their campaign offers?

Is that happening formally? Does it happen informally? Where do you see an alignment of interests or a conflict of interests, for that matter?

Great question! It happens both formally and informally. Formally, because of our tax designation from the IRS, we can't endorse in a political race, and so we don’t.

But that doesn't mean that we don’t have any influence over it. And the influence that we try to have over it—I think we are—is in ideas and policy.

And so I mentioned a couple of times earlier this Project 2025—the policies and personnel for the next administration, we have shared those policies with all of the major conservative aspirants and, for that matter, a couple of candidates left of center, including RFK, because we are ultimately nonpartisan in our tax designation.

The informal part of that is we provide policy briefings to any candidate who accepts our invitation for that. We've made that invitation across the political spectrum. This year, I personally have done the briefing for a handful of the, I guess, more likely nominees for the Republican nomination.

There are a few candidates who are probably misaligned with Heritage, but those who are highest ranking in the polls are those we're closest to.

I will say this: The most important thing for the Heritage Foundation and our members as it relates to 2024 is not just that the most conservative candidate who can win the general election becomes our standard bearer.

It's that he or she, even before they take the oath of office on January 20th, 2025, is ready to govern in the most aggressive, ambitious, audacious way to destroy the deep state and devolve power back to individual Americans.

That's a good place to bring this to a close. So for everyone who's watching and listening, thank you as always for your time and attention to the Daily Wire Plus folks for facilitating these conversations and working so effectively on the production quality front. That's much appreciated.

Film crew here up in Northern Ontario. Thank you very much for talking to me today. We're going to switch now to the Daily Wire Plus side. I'm going to talk. Our discussion now will turn to more autobiographical matters, as they usually do on that side of the platform.

And so those of you who are watching and listening who are interested might give some consideration to casting some attention the Daily Wire Plus way. And other than that, thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me today.

And thank you to all of you who've been watching and listening.