This is really something….

Vivek Ramaswamy was on Lex Fridman’s podcast recently and it was a really fascinating discussion.

But what stood out to me more than anything else is that Vivek is SO strong on policy that Lex continually asked him to make a “Steel Man Argument” on each point.

In case you’re not familiar with that term, it basically means asking the person to take the other side of the debate from the side they support and make the best argument they can.

In other words, Lex couldn’t really keep up so he just kept asking Vivek to debate himself!

And he did!

Vivek talks for about 98% of this video, taking both sides of arguments, setting them up, knocking them down, and in general just doing a fantastic job of talking through every single policy issue that was raised.

Vivek is MAGA.

Vivek is (hopefully) a big player in the future of the Republican party.

I hope President Trump grants Vivek and Elon powerful positions in his new cabinet to go in an REMOVE 75% of the Federal Government just like both have talked about.

It’s a great interview, please enjoy:

Full transcript:

Vivek: The way I would do it, 75% headcount reduction across the board in the federal bureaucracy, send them home packing. Shut down agencies that shouldn’t exist. Rescind every unconstitutional regulation that Congress ever passed. In a true self-governing democracy, it should be our elected representatives that make the laws and the rules, not unelected bureaucrats. Merit and equity are actually incompatible. Merit and group quotas are incompatible. You can have one or the other, you can’t have both. It’s an assault and a crusade on the nanny state itself.

And that nanny state presents itself in several forms. There’s the entitlement state—that’s the welfare state—it presents itself in the form of the regulatory state—that’s what we’re talking about. And then there’s the foreign nanny state where effectively we are subsidizing other countries that aren’t paying their fair share of protection or other resources we provide them. If I was to summarize my ideology in a nutshell, it is to terminate the nanny state in the United States of America in all of its forms: the entitlement state, the regulatory state, and the foreign policy nanny state. Once we’ve done that, we’ve revived the republic that I think would make George Washington proud.

Lex: The following is a conversation with Vivek Ramaswamy about the future of conservatism in America. He has written many books on this topic, including his latest called Truths: The Future of America First. He ran for president this year in the Republican primary and is considered by many to represent the future of the Republican Party. Before all of that, he was a successful biotech entrepreneur and investor with a degree in biology from Harvard and a law degree from Yale. As always, when the topic is politics, I will continue talking to people on both the left and the right with empathy, curiosity, and backbone. This is Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Vivek Ramaswamy.

Lex: You are one of the great elucidators of conservative ideas, so you’re the perfect person to ask, what is conservatism? What’s your, let’s say, conservative vision for America?

Vivek: Well, actually, this is one of my criticisms of the modern Republican Party and the direction of the conservative movement is that we’ve gotten so good at describing what we’re against. Right? There’s a list of things that we could rail against—wokeism, transgender ideology, climate ideology, covidism, COVID policies, the radical Biden agenda, the radical Harris agenda, the list goes on. But, actually what’s missing in the conservative movement right now is what we actually stand for. What is our vision for the future of the country? And I saw that as a deficit at the time I started my presidential campaign. It was, in many ways, the purpose of my campaign because I do feel that that’s why we didn’t have the red wave in 2022.

So they tried to blame Donald Trump, they tried to blame abortion, they blamed a bunch of individual specific issues or factors. I think the real reason we didn’t have that red wave was that we got so practiced at criticizing Joe Biden that we forgot to articulate who we are and what we stand for.

So what do we stand for as conservatives? I think we stand for the ideals that we fought the American Revolution for in 1776. Ideals like merit, right? That the best person gets the job without regard to their genetics. That you get ahead in this country not on the color of your skin, but on the content of your character. Free speech and open debate—not just as some sort of catchphrase, but the idea that any opinion, no matter how heinous, you get to express it in the United States of America. Self-governance, and this is a big one right now, is that the people we elect to run the government, they’re no longer the ones who actually run the government. We, in the conservative movement, I believe, should believe in restoring self-governance where it’s not bureaucrats running the show but actually elected representatives.

And then the other ideal that the nation was founded on that I think we need to revive, and I think as a north star of the conservative movement, is restoring the rule of law in this country. You think about even the abandonment of the rule of law at the southern border. It’s particularly personal to me as the kid of legal immigrants to this country, you and I actually share a couple of aspects in common in that regard. That also though means your first act of entering this country can’t break the law. So there’s some policy commitments and principles—merit, free speech, self-governance, rule of law. And then I think, culturally, what does it mean to be a conservative? It means we believe in the anchors of our identity, in truth, the value of the individual family, nation, and God. Beat race, gender, sexuality, and climate if we have the courage to actually stand for our own vision. And that’s a big part of what’s been missing.

And it’s a big part of not just through the campaign, but through a lot of my future advocacy, that’s the vacuum I’m aiming to fill.

Lex: Yeah, we’ll talk about each of those issues. Immigration, the growing bureaucracy of government, religion is a really interesting topic, something you’ve spoken about a lot, but you’ve also had a lot of really tense debates, so you’re a perfect person to ask, to steel man the other side.

Vivek: Yeah.

Lex: So let me ask you about progressivism.

Vivek: Sure.

Lex: Can you steel man the case for progressivism and left-wing ideas?

Vivek: Yeah, so look, I think the strongest case, particularly for left-wing ideas in the United States, so in the American context, is that the country has been imperfect in living up to its ideals. So even though our founding fathers preached the importance of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and freedom, they didn’t practice those values in terms of many of our founding fathers being slave owners, inequalities with respect to women and other disempowered groups. Such that they say that that created a power structure in this country that continues to last to this day. The vestiges of what happened even in 1860 in the course of human history isn’t that long ago. And that we need to do everything in our power to correct for those imbalances in power in the United States. That’s the core view of the modern left.

I’m not criticizing it right now, I’m steel manning it, I’m trying to give you, I think, a good articulation of why the left believes they have a compelling case for the government stepping in to correct for historical or present inequalities. I can give you my counter rebuttal of that, but the best statement of the left is that we’ve been imperfect in living up to those ideals. In order to fix that, we’re going to have to take steps that are—severe steps if needed—to correct for those historical inequalities before we actually have true equality of opportunity in this country. That’s the case for the left-wing view in modern America.

Lex: So what’s your criticism of that?

Vivek: So my concern with it is, even if that’s well motivated, I think that it recreates many of the same problems that they were setting out to solve. I’ll give you a really tangible example of that in the present right now. I may be alone amongst prominent conservatives who would say something like this right now, but I think it’s true, so I’m going to say it. I’m actually, even in the last year, last year and a half, seeing a rise in anti-black and anti-minority racism in this country, which is a little curious, right? When over the last 10 years we got as close to Martin Luther King’s promised land as you could envision. A place where you have every American, regardless of their skin color, able to vote without obstruction. A place where you have people able to get the highest jobs in the land without race standing in their way.

Why are we seeing that resurgence? In part, it’s because of, I believe, that left-wing obsession with racial equity over the course of the last 20 years in this country. And so when you take something away from someone based on their skin color, and that’s what correcting for prior injustice was supposed to do according to the left-wing views, you have to correct for prior injustice by saying that whether you’re a white, straight, cis man, you have certain privileges that you have to actually correct for. When you take something away from somebody based on their genetics, you actually foster greater animus towards other groups around you. And so the problem with that philosophy is that it creates… there are several problems with it, but the most significant problem that I think everybody can agree we want to avoid is to actually fan the flames of the very divisions that you supposedly wanted to heal.

I see that in the context of our immigration policy as well. You think about even what’s going on in—I’m from Ohio, I was born and raised in Ohio, and I live there today—the controversy in Springfield, Ohio. I personally don’t blame really any of the people who are in Springfield, either the native people who were born and raised in Springfield or even the Haitians who have been moved to Springfield, but it ends up becoming a divide and conquer strategy and outcome where if you put 20,000 people in a community where there are 50,000 people, where the 20,000 are coming in, don’t know the language, are unable to follow the traffic laws, are unable to assimilate, you know, there’s going to be a reactionary backlash.

And so even though that began perhaps with some type of charitable instinct, right? Some type of sympathy for people who went through the earthquake in 2010 in Haiti and achieved temporary protective status in the United States, what began with sympathy, what began with earnest intentions, actually creates the very division and reactionary response that supposedly we say we wanted to avoid. So that’s my number one criticism of that left-wing worldview. Number two is I do believe that merit and equity are actually incompatible. Merit and group quotas are incompatible. You can have one or the other, you can’t have both. And the reason why is no two people, and I think it’s the beautiful thing, it’s true between you and I, between you, me, and all of our friends or family or strangers or neighbors or colleagues—no two people have the same skill sets. We’re each endowed by different gifts. We’re each endowed with different talents.

And that’s the beauty of human diversity. And a true meritocracy is a system in which you’re able to achieve the maximum of your God-given potential without anybody standing in your way. But that means, necessarily, there’s going to be differences in outcomes in a wide range of parameters—not just financial, not just money, not just fame or currency or whatever it is. There’s just going to be different outcomes for different people in different spheres of life. And that’s what meritocracy demands, it’s what it requires. And so the left’s vision of group equity necessarily comes at the cost of meritocracy. And so those would be my two reasons for opposing the view: one is it’s not meritocratic, but number two is it often even has the effect of hurting the very people they claimed to have wanted to help. And I think that’s part of what we’re seeing in modern America.

Lex: Yeah, you had a pretty intense debate with Mark Cuban.

Vivek: Yeah.

Lex: A great conversation. I think it’s on your podcast, actually.

Vivek: Yeah.

Lex: Yes. Yeah, it was great.

Vivek: He’s a good guy, though.

Lex: It was great. Okay, well, speaking of good guys, he messages me all the time with beautifully eloquent criticism, I appreciate that, Mark. What was one of the more convincing things he said to you? You’re mostly focused on kind of DEI.

Vivek: So let’s just take a step back and understand ’cause people use these acronyms and then they start saying them out of muscle memory and stop asking what it actually means. Like, DEI refers to D—diversity, equity, and inclusion—which is a philosophy adopted by institutions, principally in the private sector, companies, nonprofits, and universities, to say that they need to strive for specific forms of racial, gender, and sexual orientation diversity. And it’s not just the D, it’s the equity in ensuring that you have equal outcomes as measured by certain group quota targets or group representation targets that they would meet in their ranks.

Now, the problem with the DEI agendas in the name of diversity is that it actually has been a vehicle for sacrificing true diversity of thought. So, the way the argument goes is this: we have to create an environment that is receptive to minorities and minority views, but if certain opinions are themselves deemed to be hostile to those minorities, then you have to exclude those opinions in the name of the D—diversity. But that means that you’re necessarily sacrificing actual diversity of thought.

I can give you a very specific example that might sound like, okay, well, is it such a bad thing if an organization doesn’t want to exclude people who are saying racist things on a given day? We could debate that. But let’s get to the tangible world of how that actually plays out. So there was an instance, it was a case that presented itself before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC, one of the government enforcers of the DEI agenda. And there was a case of a woman who wore a red sweater on Fridays in celebration of veterans and those who had served the military and invited others in the workplace to do the same thing. And they had a kind of affinity group, you could call it that, a veteran-type affinity group, appreciating those who had served. Her son had served as well.

There was a minority employee at that business who said that he found that to be a microaggression. So the employer asked her to stop wearing said clothes to the office. Well, she still felt like she wanted to celebrate. I think it was Friday, the day of the week when they did it. She still wore the red sweater and she… well, she didn’t wear it, but she would hang it on the back of her seat, right? Put it on the back of her seat at the office. They said, no, no, no, you can’t do that either.

So the irony is, in the name of this D—diversity, which is creating a supposedly welcoming workplace for all kinds of Americans by focusing only on certain kinds of so-called diversity, that translates into actually not even a diversity of your genetics, which is what they claim to be solving for, but also a hostility to diversity of thought. And I think that’s dangerous. And you’re seeing that happen in the last four years across this country. It’s been pretty rampant. I think it leaves America worse off. The beauty of America is we’re a country where we should be able to have institutions that are stronger from different points of view being expressed.

But my number one criticism of the DEI agenda is not even that it’s anti-meritocratic—it is anti-meritocratic—but my number one criticism is that it’s actually hostile to the free and open exchange of ideas by creating, often, legal liabilities for organizations that even permit certain viewpoints to be expressed. And I think that’s the biggest concern.

Lex: I think what Mark would say is that diversity allows you to look for talent in places where you haven’t looked before and therefore find really special talent, special people. I think that’s the case he made.

Vivek: He did make that case, and it was a great conversation. And my response to that is, great, that’s a good thing. We don’t need a three-letter acronym to do that, right? You don’t need special programmatic DEI incentives to do it because companies are always going to seek in a truly free market—which I think we’re missing in the United States today for a lot of reasons—but in a truly free market, companies will have the incentive to hire the best and brightest or else they’re going to be less competitive versus other companies. But you don’t need ESG, DEI, CSR regimes in part enforced by the government to do it.

Today, to be a government contractor, for example, you have to adopt certain racial and gender representation targets in your workforce. That’s not the free market working. So I think you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s going to be good for companies and companies are going to do what’s in their self-interest—that’s what capitalists like Mark Cuban and I believe. But if we really believe that, then we should let the market work rather than forcing it to adopt these top-down standards. That’s my issue with it.

Lex: I don’t know what it is about human psychology, but whenever you have a sort of administration, a committee that gets together to do a good thing, the committee starts to use the good thing, the ideology behind which there’s a good ideal, to bully people and to do bad things. I don’t know what it is.

Vivek: This has less to do with left-wing versus right-wing ideology and more the nature of a bureaucracy is one that looks after its own existence as its top goal. So part of what you’ve seen with the so-called perpetuation of wokeness in American life is that the bureaucracy has used the appearance of virtue to actually deflect accountability for its own failure.

So you’ve seen that in several different spheres of American life. You could even talk about the military, right? You think about our entry into Iraq after 9/11—it had nothing to do with the stated objectives that we had. And I think by all accounts, it was a policy move we regret. Our policy ranks and our foreign policy establishment made a mistake in entering Iraq, invading a country that really, by all accounts, was not at all responsible for 9/11. Nonetheless, if you’re part of the U.S. military or you’re General Mark Milley, you would rather talk about white rage or systemic racism than you would actually talk about the military’s actual substantive failures. It’s what I call the practice of blowing woke smoke to deflect accountability.

Because there is the same thing with respect to the educational system. It’s a lot easier to claim that… and I’m not the one making this claim, but others have made this claim, that math is racist because there are inequitable results on objective tests of mathematics based on different demographic attributes. You can claim that math is racist. It’s a lot easier to blow that woke smoke than it is to accept accountability for failing to teach black kids in the inner city how to actually do math and fix our public school systems and the zip code-coded mechanism for trapping kids in poor communities, in bad schools.

So I think that in many cases, what these bureaucracies do is they use the appearance of signaling this virtue as a way of not really advancing a social cause, but it’s strengthening the power of the bureaucracy itself and insulating that bureaucracy from criticism. So, in many ways, bureaucracy, I think, carves the channels through which much of this woke ideology has flowed over the last several years. And that’s why part of my focus has shifted away from just combating wokeness—because that’s just a symptom, I think—versus combating actual bureaucracy itself. The rise of this managerial class, the rise of the deep state, we talk about that in the government, but the deep state doesn’t just exist in the government. It exists, I think, in every sphere of our lives, from companies to nonprofits to universities. It’s the rise of—you can call it the managerial class, the committee class—the people who professionally sit on committees, I think, are wielding far more power today than actual creators, entrepreneurs, original ideators, and ordinary citizens alike.

Lex: Yeah, you need managers, but as few as possible. It seems like when you have a giant managerial class, the actual doers don’t get to do. But like you said, bureaucracy is a phenomenon of both the left and the right, this is not—

Vivek: It’s not even a left or right, it just transcends that, but it’s anti-American at its core. Our founding fathers, they were anti-bureaucratic at their core, actually. They were the pioneers, the explorers, the unafraid, right? They were the inventors, the creators. People forget this about Benjamin Franklin who signed the Declaration of Independence—one of the great inventors that we have in the United States as well. He invented the lightning rod, he invented the Franklin stove, which was actually one of the great innovations in the field of thermodynamics. He even invented a number of musical instruments that Mozart and Beethoven went on to use—that’s just Benjamin Franklin. So you think, oh, he’s a one-off. Everybody’s like, okay, he was the one zany founder who was also a creative scientific innovator who happened to be one of the founders of the country. Wrong, it wasn’t unique to him.

You have Thomas Jefferson. What are you sitting in right now? You’re sitting in a… on a swivel chair. Okay. Who invented the swivel chair?

Lex: Thomas Jefferson?

Vivek: Yes, Thomas Jefferson.

Lex: Yeah.

Vivek: Funny enough, he invented the swivel chair while he was writing the Declaration of Independence.

Lex: You’re the one—

Vivek: Which is insane.

Lex: —reminded me that he drafted—he wrote the Declaration of Independence when he was 33.

Vivek: And he was 33 when he did it while inventing the swivel chair.

Lex: I like how you’re focused on the swivel chair. Can we just pause on the Declaration of Independence? It makes me feel horrible.

Vivek: But the Declaration of Independence part everybody knows, what people don’t know is he was an architect. So he worked in Virginia. The Virginia State Capitol Dome, so the building that’s in Virginia today where the state capital is—that dome was actually designed by Thomas Jefferson as well. So these people weren’t people who sat on professional committees, they weren’t bureaucrats. They hated bureaucracy. Part of Old World England was committed to the idea of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy and monarchy go hand in hand. A monarch can’t actually administer or govern directly—it requires bureaucracy, a machine to actually technocratically govern for him.

So the United States of America was founded on the idea that we reject that old worldview. Right? The old world vision was that we, the people, cannot be trusted to self-govern or make decisions for ourselves. We would burn ourselves off the planet, is the modern version of this—with existential risks like global climate change. If we just leave it to the people and their democratic will, that’s why you need professional technocrats, educated elites, enlightened bureaucrats to be able to set the limits that actually protect people from their own worst impulses. That’s the old worldview. And most nations in human history have operated this way.

But what made the United States of America itself—to know what made America great, we have to know what made America itself—what made America itself is we said hell no to that vision. That we, the people, for better or worse, are going to self-govern without the committee class restraining what we do. And the likes of Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and… I could give you examples of John Adams or Robert Livingston, you could go straight down the list of founding fathers who were inventors, creators, pioneers, explorers, who also were the very people who came together to sign the Declaration of Independence. And so, yeah, this rise of bureaucracy in America, in every sphere of life, I view it as anti-American, actually. And I hope that, you know, conservatives and liberals alike can get behind my crusade certainly to getting there and shutting most of it down.

I mean, even if you have a company that’s generated tons of cash flow and solved a problem, let’s say it’s a biopharmaceutical company that developed a cure to some disease, and the only thing people knew at that company was how to develop a cure to that disease. And they generated a boatload of cash from doing it, at a certain point, you could just give it to your shareholders and close up shop. And that’s actually a beautiful thing to do. You don’t see that happen enough in the American consciousness, in the American culture of, when an institution has achieved its purpose, celebrate it and then move on. And I think that culture in our government would result in a vastly restrained scope of government rather than today it’s a one-way ratchet. Once you cause it to come into existence, you cause new things to come into existence, but the old one that came into existence continues to persist and exist as well. And that’s where you get this metastasis over the last century.

Vivek: That’s a good way of putting it.

Lex: On the human psychology level, you kind of implied that for Donald Trump or any president, the legal situation was difficult. But is that the only thing really operating? Isn’t it also, on a psychological level, just hard to fire a large number of people? Is that what it is? Why is there this basic civility and momentum going on?

Vivek: Well, I think there’s one other factor. You’re right to point out the legal backdrop, and that’s a valid and understandable reason. But I think there are other factors at play too. One factor is that there’s something to be said for never having been in government, showing up there the first time, and having to understand the rules of the road as you’re operating within them. Also, having to depend on people who aren’t aligned with your policy vision, but tell you to your face that they are.

That’s one of the things I’ve admired about President Trump. He’s been very open and humble about that, saying that there’s a million lessons learned from that first term that make him more ambitious in this second term. But everything I’m talking to you about is what needs to happen in the country. It’s not specific to Donald Trump—it’s about what needs to be done. Over the next four years, Donald Trump is our last best hope for moving that ball forward, but I think the vision I’m laying out goes beyond just the next two or four years. It’s about fixing a century’s worth of mistakes.

I think we’re going to fix a lot of them in the next four years if Donald Trump is president, but if you have a century’s worth of mistakes that have accumulated with the overgrowth of the entitlement state in the U.S., it’s going to take, you know, probably the better part of a decade to fix them.

Lex: I disagree with you on both the “last” and the “best” hope. Donald Trump is more likely to fire a lot of people, but is he really the best person to do so?

Vivek: We’ve got two candidates, right? People face a choice. This is a relevant election. One of my goals is to speak to people who may not agree with 100% of what Donald Trump says. And I can tell them, “You know what? I don’t agree with 100% of what he says.” As someone who ran against him for U.S. president, I can also tell them that, right now, he is, in this cycle, the last best hope that we have for dismantling that bureaucratic class. And, you know, I think that this is a long-term project. But we have the next step to take over the next few years, so that’s where I land on it.

I mean, you talked to him a few weeks ago—I saw you had a podcast with him, right? What was your impression about his preparedness to do it?

Lex: My impression is that his priority allocation is different from yours. I think he’s more focused on some of the other topics that you’re also focused on…

Vivek: Border? Laser-focused on.

Lex: …And there’s a tension there, just as you’ve clearly highlighted.

Vivek: We share the same priority with respect to the southern border, and those are near-term fixes we can hit out of the park in the first year. But at the same time, I think we’ve got to think on a decade-long time horizon. My conviction and belief is that Donald Trump does care about dismantling that federal bureaucracy—certainly more so than any Republican nominee we’ve had in my lifetime.

But there are going to be competing schools of thought where some will say, “We want to create a right-wing entitlement state, right? Shower federal subsidies on favored industries while keeping them away from disfavored industries, create new bureaucracies to administer them.” And I don’t come from that school of thought. I don’t want to see the bureaucracy expand in a pro-conservative direction—I want to see the bureaucracy shrink in every direction.

And, you know, from my conversations with Donald Trump, I believe that he’s aligned with this vision of shrinking the bureaucracy. But that’s a longer-term project.

Lex: There are so many priorities at play here, though. You really do have to do the Elon thing of walking into Twitter headquarters…

Vivek: Shut it down.

Lex: …With a sink, right? Let that sink in. Firing a very large number of people. But it’s not just about the firing; it’s about setting clear missions for the different departments that remain, hiring back based on meritocracy. It’s a full-time job. And it’s not only full-time in terms of actual time; it’s full-time psychologically. Because you’re walking into a place unlike a company like Twitter, an already successful company. In government, everybody around you—all the experts and advisors—are going to tell you you’re wrong. It’s a very difficult psychological place to operate in because you’re constantly the “asshole.” The certainty you have to have about what you’re doing has to be nearly infinite because all the really smart people are telling you, “No, this is a terrible idea, sir, this is a terrible idea.”

Vivek: No, you have to have this spine of steel to cut through what that short-term advice is that you’re getting. And I’ll tell you, certainly, I intend to do whatever I can for this country, both in the next four years and beyond. But my voice on this will be crystal clear, and President Trump knows that’s my view. And I believe he shares it deeply—that all else being equal, getting in there and shutting down as much of the excess bureaucracy as we can is a big part of how we save our country.

Lex: I’ll give you an example that’s really difficult given your priorities—immigration. There are an estimated 14 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Vivek: Yes.

Lex: You’ve spoken about mass deportation.

Vivek: Right.

Lex: That requires a lot of effort, money… How do you do it, and how does that conflict with shutting it down?

Vivek: Sure. It goes back to the original discussion we had about what the proper roles of the federal government are. I gave you two: one is to protect the national borders and sovereignty of the United States, and two is to protect private property rights. There’s a lot else the federal government is doing today, both at the federal and state levels, that is outside those two things. But in my book, those are the two proper functions of government. So for everything else, the federal government should not be doing. But one thing they should be doing is protecting the homeland of the United States of America and the sovereignty and sanctity of our national borders.

So in that domain, that’s mission-aligned with a proper purpose for the federal government. I think we’re a nation founded on the rule of law. I say this as the kid of legal immigrants. That means your first act of entering this country cannot break the law. And in some ways, if I were to summarize a formula for saving the country over the next four years, it would be a tale of two mass deportations: the mass deportations of millions of illegals who are in this country and should not be, and the mass deportation of millions of unelected federal bureaucrats out of Washington, D.C.

Now, you could say that those are in tension, but I think the reality is anything outside the scope of what the core function of the government is—protecting borders and protecting private property rights—that’s really where the predominant cuts need to be. If you look at the number of people who are looking after the border, it’s not even 0.1% of the federal employee base today. So, 75% isn’t 99.99%; it’s 75%, which would still leave the… It would still be a tiny fraction of the remaining 25%, which I actually think needs to be more rather than less.

So it’s a good question, but that’s where I land on it—when it’s a proper role of the federal government, great, act and actually do your job. The irony is, 99.9999% of those resources are going to functions other than the protection of private property rights and the protection of our national physical security.

Lex: There is a lot of criticism of the idea of mass deportation, though. One is that it will cause a large amount of economic harm, at least in the short term. The other is that there would be potential violations of our higher ideals of how we treat human beings—in particular, the separation of families, for example, tearing families apart. And then there’s just the logistical complexity of doing something like this. How do you answer some of those criticisms?

Vivek: So, fair enough. And I would call those not even criticisms but thoughtful questions. Even if someone is aligned with doing this, those are thoughtful questions to ask.

So I do want to say something about this point—how we think about the rule of law in other contexts. There are 350,000 mothers who are in prison in the United States today who committed crimes and were convicted of them. They didn’t take their kids with them to those prisons either, right? So we face difficult trade-offs in all kinds of contexts when it comes to the enforcement of the law. And I just want to make that basic observation against the backdrop of, if we’re a nation founded on the rule of law, we acknowledge that there are trade-offs to enforcing the law. We’ve acknowledged that in other contexts, and I don’t think we should have a special exemption for saying that somehow we weigh the other way when it comes to the issue of the border.

We’re a nation founded on the rule of law. We enforce laws, and that has costs, that has trade-offs, but it’s who we are.

Vivek: So, against that backdrop, the easiest fact I can cite is that we have already accepted as a nation that there are trade-offs to enforcing the rule of law. We see that when we enforce laws against theft, against violent crimes—everywhere else in society, we accept the costs that come with enforcing the law. The same principle applies to enforcing immigration law. And it’s worth mentioning that we are already seeing families separated for many other crimes. So why would we create an exception for immigration law?

Now, the question of economic harm—that’s a reasonable question to ask. I would say that the economy will adapt. We have a labor market where, in many cases, people are competing for lower-wage jobs because the market is flooded with illegal immigrants who are willing to work for much less. That hurts American citizens, particularly low-income Americans and African Americans, who are disproportionately impacted by the influx of illegal labor. So, I actually believe that removing illegal immigrants from the labor market will raise wages for American workers, though there may be some short-term disruptions. But over time, the economy will adjust and likely even thrive because we’ll have a more lawful, fair labor market.

Regarding the logistics of mass deportation—yeah, it’s a challenge, but it’s not insurmountable. The federal government has significant resources, and if it prioritized this as a matter of national security and law enforcement, it could be done. It’s not going to happen overnight, but if we focus our efforts on this, the problem can be mitigated over time. It’s not just about rounding people up all at once. It’s about consistent enforcement of the law. You enforce it on the employers who hire illegal immigrants, you enforce it at the border to prevent new illegal crossings, and you steadily deport those who are here illegally.

Lex: But with that logistical challenge in mind, do you see a scenario where the deportation process could be more selective? I mean, what happens with people who have been in the country for many years, have families, have roots? Is there any nuance there in terms of prioritizing who should be deported first?

Vivek: Sure, I think there can be nuance. It’s common sense that you prioritize deporting criminals and those who pose a clear threat to public safety first. I think that’s a no-brainer. If you’re here illegally and have committed crimes in addition to violating immigration law, you’re at the front of the line for deportation.

For others, yes, I think there could be some consideration given to how long someone has been here, whether they have family ties, and whether they’ve been otherwise law-abiding. But the key here is that they are still breaking the law by being here illegally. The rule of law has to apply to everyone. That’s the foundation of any functional nation. So, while there could be some flexibility in terms of timing and prioritization, the ultimate goal has to be the enforcement of our immigration laws.

We have to restore order at the border first and foremost. After that, we can talk about specific pathways for those who are willing to get in line legally or make amends. But the guiding principle has to be that the law is enforced and that the United States is a nation where the rule of law matters. Otherwise, we lose what makes this country a country.

Lex: Okay, so how do you balance enforcing the law and implementing mass deportations with the idea that some people came here seeking refuge, escaping dangerous situations, or extreme poverty? Does that fit into the enforcement process in any way?

Vivek: Look, I’m sympathetic to people who are escaping desperate situations. The United States has always been a beacon of hope for people around the world. We have a rich tradition of being a refuge for those fleeing persecution, war, and hardship. But that process has to happen through legal channels. We have laws and a system in place for asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants. We need to make sure that system works and that people who qualify for asylum or refugee status can go through the proper legal process.

What we cannot do is allow our borders to be wide open for anyone to cross, with no regard for the legal system. If you want to come here for a better life, there are legal ways to do that. The issue is when people break the law by crossing the border illegally, it undermines the entire system. We have to enforce our laws, and we have to restore the integrity of our borders.

In the long run, I do believe the United States should continue to be a welcoming place for legal immigrants, but we cannot do that if the system is being abused and overwhelmed by illegal immigration. We need to enforce our borders first, and then we can have a discussion about reforming our legal immigration system to make it more efficient and more humane.

Lex: So, one last question on immigration before we shift gears. How do you think these immigration policies will affect the long-term relationship between the U.S. and countries in Central America and Mexico?

Vivek: That’s a good question, and I think we need to be clear that enforcing our borders and our immigration laws is not about being hostile toward our neighbors. In fact, a stable U.S.-Mexico border benefits both countries. The current situation, where human trafficking, drug cartels, and uncontrolled migration are rampant, isn’t good for Mexico either.

One of the things we need to do is work with Mexico and Central American countries to help address some of the root causes of migration. Part of that is economic opportunity, but part of it is also security. We need to help these countries stabilize their economies and secure their territories so that their citizens don’t feel the need to flee in the first place.

That being said, it’s not the U.S.’s responsibility to be the safety net for every country in the world. We can’t accept that. Our responsibility is to our own citizens first. So we have to secure our border, enforce our laws, and then work with our neighbors to improve conditions so that migration is not the only option for people in those countries.

But we cannot compromise our own security and sovereignty in the process. It’s not a zero-sum game. We can have strong relationships with our neighbors while also maintaining the integrity of our borders and the rule of law within our own country.

Lex: Okay, let’s pivot from immigration for a bit. We’ve touched on a lot of ideas in this conversation, including the role of the federal government, bureaucracy, and the nanny state. What’s your broader philosophy on individual liberty? How does that fit into this larger vision of reforming the country?

Vivek: That’s a great question because, ultimately, it all comes back to individual liberty. Everything I’m talking about—shrinking the size of government, dismantling the nanny state, restoring the rule of law—it’s all aimed at protecting and expanding individual liberty.

The founders of this country believed in limited government for a reason. They believed that individuals should be free to pursue their own happiness and live their lives without being micromanaged by the state. That’s what I believe too. I think we need to get back to that founding vision where government’s role is to protect your rights, not tell you how to live your life.

I think one of the biggest threats to liberty today is the overreach of government into every aspect of our lives. Whether it’s through the regulatory state, entitlement programs, or the nanny state, government has expanded far beyond its original mandate. That stifles innovation, it stifles economic growth, and most importantly, it stifles individual freedom.

So my broader philosophy is this: Government should exist to protect our borders, enforce laws, and protect private property rights. Beyond that, individuals should have the freedom to make their own decisions, to succeed or fail on their own merits, and to live their lives as they see fit. That’s the essence of liberty. And I think that if we restore that principle in America, we will unleash a new era of innovation, prosperity, and human flourishing.

Vivek: So, that’s my vision. It’s a return to the founding principles of this country: merit, individual liberty, and the rule of law. Those are the core values that have made America the greatest country in the history of the world, and I believe that if we get back to those principles, we’ll see a revival of what makes this country exceptional.

Lex: How does that vision for liberty fit into the role of the private sector? You’ve mentioned big tech, free speech, and censorship before. How do you see that playing out?

Vivek: Yeah, that’s a crucial piece of the puzzle. When I talk about liberty, I’m not just talking about protection from government overreach. I’m also talking about protection from corporate overreach, especially when it comes to free speech and individual rights.

Big tech companies, for example, have become some of the most powerful entities in the world, and they’ve started to behave like governments themselves—deciding what can and cannot be said, controlling the flow of information, and influencing elections. This is a serious threat to liberty.

I believe we need to apply the same principles of liberty and free speech in the private sector as we do in the public sector. These tech companies need to be held accountable for censoring speech, especially when they’re acting in collusion with the government, as we’ve seen with cases where social media platforms have worked with government agencies to suppress certain viewpoints. That’s unacceptable.

In a free society, you should be able to express your views without fear of being silenced by a powerful corporation or the government. That’s why I’m a big advocate for reforming Section 230 and holding these companies accountable when they engage in censorship. Free speech is one of the most fundamental rights we have, and we need to defend it at all costs.

Lex: Do you see any risks with government intervening in the private sector too much? You know, there’s always a balance—when is government intervention justified, and when does it go too far?

Vivek: Absolutely, there are always risks. I think you have to be very careful when it comes to government intervention in the private sector. Generally speaking, I believe in minimal government interference in markets. But when it comes to protecting fundamental rights like free speech, that’s where the government has a role.

If a private company is infringing on individual rights in ways that affect the broader society—especially when it’s colluding with government—that’s when you need government to step in and protect those rights. But the goal should always be to minimize government intervention and allow the free market to work as much as possible.

It’s a fine line, but I think the distinction comes down to whether the private sector is interfering with individual liberties. If they are, then intervention may be necessary to protect those liberties. If not, then we should let the market do its thing.

Lex: Speaking of free speech and the free market, let’s talk about education for a minute. You’ve mentioned the Department of Education before and talked about scaling back the federal government’s involvement in education. How do you see that playing out? What’s the role of the states versus the federal government in education?

Vivek: I think education should be as decentralized as possible. The federal government’s role in education should be minimal, if not nonexistent. Education is one of those areas where local control is much more effective. What works for one community in Iowa may not work for a community in New York City. Local school districts and states should have the autonomy to decide what’s best for their students.

At the federal level, we should not be dictating what gets taught in classrooms or how schools are run. That’s a local issue. The Department of Education, in my view, has overstepped its bounds and created more problems than it’s solved. I’ve talked about shutting it down, and I stand by that. We should let states and localities take the lead on education policy.

The other piece of this is school choice. I’m a big advocate for school choice, whether it’s charter schools, vouchers, or other mechanisms that give parents more control over where their kids go to school. Competition in education is a good thing. It forces schools to innovate and improve, which benefits students. Every child should have access to a quality education, regardless of where they live or their socioeconomic background.

Lex: But what do you say to critics who argue that school choice programs might undermine public schools or create inequalities in the education system?

Vivek: I understand those concerns, but I think the reality is that the current system is already failing too many kids, especially in low-income areas. We need to give parents more options to find the best education for their children. If a public school isn’t working, why should a family be trapped there? School choice gives parents the power to seek out better opportunities, whether that’s a charter school, a private school, or even homeschooling.

Yes, there are challenges to address, but I believe that the benefits of school choice far outweigh the risks. Public schools that are struggling should be incentivized to improve by the presence of competition. If they know that families have other options, they’re going to be more motivated to innovate and raise their standards.

At the end of the day, it’s about empowering families and students to succeed. The current one-size-fits-all approach in many public schools isn’t working, and we need to give families the freedom to find the right fit for their children.

Lex: Alright, shifting gears a bit—what’s your vision for the future of conservatism in America? We’ve touched on a lot of policy issues, but what’s the bigger picture here? What kind of country do you want to see in the next 10, 20 years?

Vivek: The bigger picture is that I want to see America return to the values that made it great in the first place. I want to see us embrace the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, meritocracy, and the rule of law.

In 10, 20 years, I want to see a country where people are free to pursue their dreams without government interference. I want to see a country where success is based on merit, not on group quotas or identity politics. I want to see a country where families are strong, communities are vibrant, and government is limited in its scope and power.

I think conservatism is about getting back to basics. It’s about embracing the idea that people can govern themselves, that they don’t need a nanny state to tell them what to do. It’s about creating an environment where everyone has the opportunity to succeed based on their own hard work and talents.

At the same time, it’s about restoring a sense of national pride and unity. We need to remember that we’re all Americans, and we’re all in this together. The culture wars and identity politics have divided us for too long. It’s time to move past that and focus on what brings us together as a nation.

So, in the long term, my vision for conservatism is one that embraces individual liberty, national unity, and a return to the values that have made America the most prosperous, innovative, and free country in the world.

Lex: That’s a powerful vision. As we wrap up, what’s the one message you want people to take away from this conversation? What’s the core of your message to America?

Vivek: The core of my message is simple: We need to revive the spirit of 1776. That means getting back to the principles of liberty, merit, and the rule of law that founded this country. We need to restore faith in the American dream—that if you work hard, play by the rules, and believe in yourself, you can achieve anything.

At the same time, we need to get the government out of the way. We need to dismantle the nanny state in all its forms—the entitlement state, the regulatory state, and the foreign policy nanny state. Once we do that, we’ll see a revival of American greatness.

So my message to America is this: Believe in yourself, believe in this country, and let’s work together to restore the values that make America exceptional. If we do that, the future will be bright.

Lex: Vivek, thank you so much for your time and for sharing your thoughts today.

Vivek: Thank you, Lex. It’s been a great conversation.

Lex: Alright, dear friends, thank you for listening. As always, if you want to support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description below. And until next time, stay curious, stay thoughtful, and most importantly, stay kind.


And if you wanted to see President Trump’s appearance on the Lex Fridman podcast, I’ve got you covered….

President Trump Says He Will Release ENTIRE Epstein Client List When President!

President Trump just vowed to release and declassify a TON of information when he becomes President.

UFO Files…

JFK Files…

9/11 Files….

Epstein Files…

It’s ALL coming out!

Watch the short clip here:

Transcript:

“The Pentagon has released a few videos, and there have been anecdotal reports from fighter pilots. So a lot of people want to know, will you help push the Pentagon to release more footage, which a lot of people claim is available?”

“Oh yeah. Sure, I’ll do that. I would do that. I’d love to do that. I have to do that. But they are also pushing me on Kennedy, and I did release a lot, but I had people come to me and beg me not to do it. But I’ll be doing that very early on.”

“There’s a moment where you had some hesitation about releasing some of the documents on Epstein. Why the hesitation?”

“I’m not involved. I never went to his island, fortunately… But a lot of people did.”

“Why do you think so many smart, powerful people allowed him to get so close…”

“A lot of big people went to that island… But fortunately, I was not one of them. It’s just very strange for a lot of people that the list of clients who went to the island has not been made public.”

“Yeah. It’s very interesting, isn’t it? Probably will be, by the way.”

“So, if you’re able to, you’ll be—”

“Yeah, I’d certainly take a look at it… But yeah, I’d be inclined to do the Epstein. I’d have no problem with it.”

“That’s great.”

Now you know why they tried to assassinate him.

I have the full interview down below if you want to watch.

Keep reading….

President Trump: “Our Country Is Missing a Lot of Religion”

President Trump had a very interesting segment in his Lex Fridman interview today where he talks about religion.

I have a feeling a lot of you may agree with him, I know I do.

President Trump: “Our country is missing a lot of religion. I think it really was a much better place with religion. It was almost a guide. You want to be good to people. Without religion, there’s no real guardrails. I’d love to see us get back to more religion in this country.”

Watch here:

The full interview is only about 40 minutes but really fascinating to watch.

I thought Lex did ok.

I don’t think that Joe Rogan interview is coming any time soon.

I’d love to see President Trump go chat with PBD next, I think he’d absolutely hit it out of the park.

If you want to watch the full interview with Lex, I have it for you right here:

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.