The Social Contract with Joe Walsh
One conservative who supports Trump. Another conservative who supports Harris. A Conversation.
I sat down with @pasuburbsguy. We agree on most issues. But we disagree on Trump. HUGELY. So we sat down, to listen to each other, and to try to understand how and why we ended up on opposite sides this time around. Good, respectful conversation.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
- Broadcast on:
- 04 Oct 2024
- Audio Format:
- other
Listen up, corporate types, it's me, Billy Eigen. You might use Workday's responsible AI to future-proof your business. That doesn't make you rockstars. When have rockstars ever been responsible? Be a finance and HR rockstar with Workday. It took a lifetime to find the person you want to marry. Finding the perfect engagement ring is a lot easier. At blunile.com, you can find or design the ring you've always dreamed of, with help from Blunile's jewelry experts, who are on hand 24/7 to answer questions, and the ease and convenience of shopping online. For a limited time, get $50 off your purchase of $500 or more with code "Listen" at blunile.com. That's $50 off with code "Listen" at blunile.com. Hey, I'm Ryan Reynolds. Recently, I asked Mint Mobile's legal team if big wireless companies are allowed to raise prices due to inflation. They said yes. And then when I asked if raising prices technically violates those owners to your contracts, they said, "What the f*ck are you talking about? You insane Hollywood f*ck." So to recap, we're cutting the price of Mint Unlimited from $30 a month to just $15 a month. Give it a try at mintmobile.com/switch. $45 up from payment equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three-month plan only, taxes and fees extra, speeds lower above 40 gigabytes of details. America, we got to get back to doing what's expected of us as free citizens in this democracy. That means being tolerant, being respectful, staying informed, and being engaged. I'm former Congressman Joe Walsh. Follow me here and join the millions of Americans who are renewing their social contract with each other. The social contract, it's on us. Hey, this is former Congressman Joe Walsh. The social contract with Joe Walsh. A big part of this podcast is every week I try to sit down with somebody who doesn't think like I do about a particular issue or just about life in general. And try to model how to have respectful conversation with somebody who disagrees with me. I think that's so important. I think we got to get back to that in this democracy. My guest this week is Guy Sharaki, Guy Welcome. There you are, my friend. Guy is a good morning, my friend. Guy is a Philly guy. He's a senior fellow at the Commonwealth Foundation. He's also a writer for a publication called Broad in Liberty. Guy Welcome. Thank you for joining me this morning. You and I had a direct message exchange on Twitter. I forgot what I tweeted, but then you sent me something that I really found very thought-provoking and I agreed with having to do with Trump that he's not responsible for what's being Trump's kind of the reaction to what's being done. And I actually agree with a lot of that. And it got me thinking I wanted to have you on because and I'll lay the context out for our listeners. Correct me if I'm wrong. You are, I describe you politically. You're a good, solid, conservative. How would you describe yourself politically? And welcome. I'm comfortable. Good morning. Thanks for having me and I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue. I would describe myself as a traditional conservative. I in this day and age when people are shouting, I describe myself as a common sense conservative. Because to me, I'm not interested so much in promoting an ideology or convincing people to be conservative. I'm trying to find solutions to problems. And I think the solution to most pro conservative values. You are a traditional conservative. You're supporting Donald Trump in this election, correct? Yes, yes I am. So I am, I am, I've always thought of myself as a, I was a tea party guy. I still think of myself as a tea party guy. But I may, I'm more of a tea party libertarian slash conservative who's very much a never trumper and is supporting Kamala Harris. And so guy, I want to start there. I'll bet, I'll bet if you and I took a look at the top 30 issues, public policy issues, we probably agree on 25 or six of them. I could be off by a few. But generally, I think you and I probably fall politically in almost the same basket, yet we're supporting two different people this year for president. You start, explain that to people who would ask you, oh, hey, you went on Joe Walsh's podcast. He's a crazy never trumper. Like in your mind guy, why do you and I differ on who we're voting for? Let's start there. Well, first, I appreciate the question, Joe, and I agree with the premise. I think if you and I took a quiz, if we took one of those online, how do you identify yourself? Or if we use the Kamala Harris, then diagram, we would, our circles would be almost identical. So to me, as someone who was skeptical and 16, and who spent the better part of 2023 into early 2024 as a Ron DeSantis supporter, I was, in fact, cutting the effort to whip up delegates. Let me just interrupt just again for context. So you voted for Trump in 16. Did you vote for Trump in 16? 16 and 20. Got it. Okay. And then I moved by 20. I voted for Biden. So continue. So into 23, you were kind of more in the DeSantis camp. Right. I was in the DeSantis camp and I share that with folks because, at least in my area, in Pennsylvania, it's fairly known on social media. And I was working with, I forget if you would have overlapped it with Keith Ruffis, who was a member of Congress in Pennsylvania. So Keith and I were essentially whipping to recruit delegates. So that's where I was. And it wasn't so much a rejection of Donald Trump. It was that I thought the better path forward for Republicans was Governor DeSantis because of his experience and his record. And so I share that. So your listeners understand where I'm coming from. But to the point where you and I diverge, the joke I use, we'll see how funny it is. But you and I go to Paris and after many hours, we finally get to see the Mona Lisa. And you see the Mona Lisa and you're moved to tears because it's this epic historical portrait and you finally get to see it. And I look and I say, I don't know, it's a lady in a chair. And I think to a certain extent with Donald Trump, you and I are there. Whereas you understand, for reasons I understand, are very focused on his behavior, his language, his approach, his rhetoric. And I look and say, yes, but, and in essence for me is being a conservative, I try to approach it logically. I've taken that rhetorical piece of paper and drawn the line, the pros and cons. And I'm far more focused on the modern democratic party and what it means from the school district level to the city level to the national level through COVID. And to me, Trump, as I say, Trump is the leader of the not them movement. He is a populist. He is a reaction to those things. So whatever characteristics or challenges people may see in his behavior, his rhetoric, or even his policies, to me, he is the person standing in the way of federalizing, nationalizing and legalizing those things that are going wrong, federally, state, and locally. That's where I land with Trump, because I've made that intellectual leap. Okay, so interesting. Two interesting points jumped out there. Let me go at the first one initially here. So in your mind, Guy, the Joe Walsh's of the world, these very outspoken, conservative, never Trumpers, and you know who the others are, in your mind, because I want you to help me understand, we're primarily opposing Trump because of why. I think it's a comment. So first of all, it's very hard to categorize because it's just like in one box or Trump voters. I mean, I think you're, you know, again, not for me to presume, but I see you in a different package than sort of the Lincoln project or other folks, right? So I think my sense is for thoughtful conservatives, it is a combination of rhetoric and remnants leading up to and around January 6th, and that you view those things to be disqualifying, that he does not articulate conservative positions well, that he is confrontational to voters, and that his behavior up to and around the election, post-election in January 6th, show either legal, moral, or character flaws, or in fact, flaws in the rule of governance, that to you or others find it disqualifying it. And I understand that. Is it possible, Guy, because I get this a lot from folks, like even though you and I probably disagree on Trump, we do disagree on Trump, it's possible, I think, to be a conservative and to still support Trump. Is it possible in your mind to be a true conservative and say, I'm supporting Kamala Harris this year, because I'll get that from some folks who will say, Joe, it's just not, you can't, you can't call yourself a conservative anymore. Where do you fall on that? So, so personally, I have problems squaring the two, but what I try to reach the conclusion logically is that you have given much thought to this, and you place at its core your ideals, and in essence, your ideals are at the top of the list. Your ideals around January 6th, the rule of law, the transfer of power, are so paramount to you that you think, and I mean this, you know, complementary. In other words, you think that to be conservative is to preserve the rule of law, the transfer of power, and therefore you are being a good conservative by doing that. My concern, and again, I think, you know, you should label yourself whatever you want. I think that given what we saw during COVID, given what we've seen in terms of school districts and city policy and criminal justice, that the other stuff to me, if you will, trumps all that. And that's why to me to be conservative is to saying no to undoing the policies of Rudy Giuliani and fighting criminal justice. It's to be conservative, is that right? So, I just think it's where you put the perturbation. So, King, can you do it? Sure. Yeah, and I really appreciate that. That's well thought out. I went at it with Pierce Morgan a few weeks ago because Pierce said Joe Walsh, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, all these people have become so deranged by Trump that they've abandoned their principles. And my response was what you just said. In essence, my highest principles are democracy and the rule of law and disagree with me, but I consider Trump an existential threat to both. And to me, that's like a much bigger deal than the fact that I disagree with Kamala Harrison, you know, policies A through F. But so then help me understand you, my good conservative friend, let me put that then back on you. And it's broader than this, obviously. But a candidate for president who refuses to accept the election result and the will of the people to me is a threat to our democracy. And that is more important than where they stand on any issues. Do you though consider that like a uniquely higher threat? So, I mean, look, that's the quintessential question, right? That's one of the pivotal questions. And to me, two things. So one, to answer the, you know, as J.D. Vance said, to the question you posed, let me give this answer. So the question you, he was good. He was good. I think he was good both in substance and performance. So look, I think this, whatever happened, whatever happened on January 6, again, there's sort of this, we saw things and we are takeaways are somewhat different, but probably not too dissimilar. To me, ultimately, he leaves and the peaceful transfer of power and he didn't call out the army and he didn't bunker himself in the White House. You know, he behaved in a non-traditional way, but he behaved in a non-traditional way as a candidate and as president. You know, as a guy that went to Europe and told Angela Merkel out loud for the world to hear, you're not paying your share to NATO, right? And again, not to compare the two, but my point is more of he behaved in a non-traditional way. So then on the other side, look, Joe, if, and I've written about this and I have friends here in Pennsylvania that are involved in the, you know, Nikki Haley voters for Harris. And what I said to them is, look, if this was 1984 or even 2000 and we were debating where the proper line is on national abortion rights or what the corporate tax rate should be. In other words, if we were fighting between the 40s, the 40-yard lines, maybe I can't play that game, but maybe you and I might land in similar places. But now that we're playing end zone to end zone and that we are, in fact, debating American energy policy, whether the border should be sealed or not or anyone that shows up can simply say asylum, like we're playing Simon Evans, asylum gets you in. Now that we're talking about out loud about whether police actually stop crime or not, now that we're discussing out loud whether socialism is better than capitalism, we are now dealing with existential issues. So to me, again, I then lift and say, as we are now discussing existential issues, those go to the top because if we don't have the First Amendment, if we don't have a border and if we don't have capitalism and if we don't protect the Bill of Rights, then we never get to discuss tax policy, tariff policy, or others. So that's where I land that saying, "I've preserved my conservative bona fides." Just because you use Workday to drive long term success, it doesn't make you a rock star. Rock stars drive fast cars, not business operations. Thea Finance and HR Rockstar with Workday. Explaining football to the friend who's just there for the nachos? Hard. Tailgating from home like a pro with snacks and drinks everyone will love? Any easy win? And with Instacart helping deliver the snack time MVPs to your door, you're ready for the game in as fast as 30 minutes. So you never miss a play or lose your seat on the couch or have to go head to head for the last chicken wing. Shop game day faves on Instacart and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three gross reorders. Offer valid for limited time, other fees in terms apply. And by the way, everybody, I'm speaking with Guy Sharaki, a good, genuine, committed, conservative Philadelphia guy. He's a senior fellow at the Commonwealth Foundation. Check out his writing in Broad and Liberty. Guy, that's an interesting way to frame it. And I appreciate it because I've always made the distinction between these higher ideals, Constitution, the rule of law democracy, and then all of the public policy issues. You, I think, adroitly, and it's going to make me think about it, have placed issues like free speech and the border and capitalism, distinguish those from other more mundane policy issues. I appreciate that. And those, in essence, are your, the equivalent of, for me, it's democracy, the rule of law and Constitution. Those are your equivalent ones, free speech, communism, saving capitalism, all the rest. That's an interesting way to frame it. Does it bother you, and again, not necessarily January 6, but the fact that Trump, forget about January 6, the fact that Trump, uh, lied about the 2020 election results has never conceded, and in all likelihood, Guy, will do it again if he loses this time. Does, does that bother you? Is that like uniquely bad? As I think, but do you? Yeah. So, so looking ahead, you know, I sort of, you know, let's, let's, as we say, let's put a pin in that, because what he says on January or November 6, or November 10, or how he behaves, or what he tells his supporters or his lawyers, is very important. Because saying, saying I was robbed is, to me, at this point, sort of water off the ducks back, but, but I would have to see the specifics. So I would have to say, respectfully, what, how he behaves post November 5 when loser draw, what he actually says, and what he actually does is very relevant to me. And I can't really get it. Okay. Go back. Go back. That's fair. So then, my assumption is he's probably going to do like he did in 20, in, in which, in remembering 20, before the election, like I was on the radio, I was, you know, former conservative talk radio guy, I remember being on the radio in the summer of 2020, and I went ballistic because he started saying in the summer that the only way I will lose is if it's stolen, like they're going to cheat, like he kind of set the table for that. He's doing that again now. Sure. And I find that to be real troublesome. But, but then just so then he loses in 20, does it bother you that he never then formally conceded and congratulated Biden. And we talk about participating in the peaceful transfer of power that he just, you know, said F you Biden didn't go to the inauguration, but didn't like participate in all of that. Does that bother you? So sure, it bothers me. But again, it bothers me, but not to the point of being disqualifying. And what I was always concerned about, again, you have a platform where we can talk these things through. You know, unfortunately, we're in a world of soundbites and tweets, right? So what I always said about 2020 is words matter and words, and we hear different things. So stolen, robbed, cheated versus unfair, abused. I live in Pennsylvania, and I don't want to, I don't mean to filibuster or bore you. But in Pennsylvania, a state that was decided by 1.2 percent, we never had drop boxes. There is nothing in Pennsylvania statute that ever uses that phrase. Drop boxes were created out of whole cloth, because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, who in Pennsylvania, we elect in very hyper partisan, expensive elections, said that counties could use them. There were no standards to where they would be placed, how they would be monitored, when they would be collected. So, so that happens. Pennsylvania law explicitly says that a voter must sign and date his or her ballot. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court weeks before the voting, the accounting begins, says you may not county boards reject a ballot because it is not signed or dated. Pennsylvania law says ballots might be in by election day. Pennsylvania Supreme Court a week before the election said we'll let you do it until Friday. So as the nuns used to tell me back in school, lead us not to temptation. So am I of the theory that Donald Trump had more votes and a group of good old boys or left-wing Democrats ran off to a factory and made up a hundred thousand ballots and drug them in in sex or suitcases? No, I don't think that happened. But I think it was an imperfect system. And I wish the president Trump had won or lost by five points or four points. And it wouldn't matter. I think the fact that he lost by a point or 1.2 points and we had all these unprecedented and I would say extra legal or illegal things gives someone a lack of confidence. And I think those things happened in enough places that again, we never got to the discussion of what went wrong and we jumped to stolen and then the debate became stolen. And that's where it fell apart. And Guy Kudos and thank you for putting it that way because you're right. And I blame Donald Trump for that because he went right away to stolen. If Donald Trump during that 2020 campaign had said what you just said that because of COVID and I can make a legitimate case that because of COVID, a lot of states changed their voting rules to accommodate the voters. We can go back and forth on that. But if Trump had just raised these as concerns, hold different ballgame. But again, he's just not, he just went right to, it was stolen. You're right. And that then the argument followed. You don't believe, but you don't like JD Vance was asked last night. Did Trump lose in 2020? JD Vance couldn't answer that. You don't, you don't, you do believe that that Trump lost in 2020, correct? Yes. And I certainly don't believe that I certainly don't believe that ballots that after the fact ballots were collected and shoved into the pile or that after the fact ballots were removed. I do think that, and I can speak with much more authority to Pennsylvania. I don't know all these things about Arizona or Georgia that they stopped and started. I don't, what I can tell you in Pennsylvania is those three things happen. And the fourth thing that happened is Philadelphia, which for those listening, Philadelphia is both a city and county and is the largest city in county. The county was done at our convention center. Most Chicago other places have big convention centers. I say to folks, like, think of, think of Wrigley Field. It's that big. And what they did was the watchers had to stand at home plate while the counting was done in center field because of, quote, COVID. And as the nuns would say, lead us not to temptation. I have no evidence whatsoever and have never seen any evidence that the folks out in center field did anything funky. What I know is that by keeping the watchers at home plate, you invited Rudy Giuliani to fly into Philadelphia and jump up and down after the fact. And that's what concerns me. And I will tell you, Joe, a number of bipartisan groups have approached me of lawyers that you would know on both sides to try and say, how would you prevent that? And I have shared with each of them the things I've shared with you and said, because what what I want is for I want one of them to win fair and square. And for us to all go back to our business, you know, I coach girls softball. This will be my 26th season. After the election, I want to go back and coach softball. I don't want 100 days of angst. And I don't want to spend 2025 with either side saying that President Harris or President Trump isn't legitimate. And we can't get down to business. Right. Right. I'm that you and I agree, my friend. And I'm going to speak for you. Hit me if I'm wrong. COVID and no matter some of the changing of the voting rules in 2020, I believe Biden won fair and square. I believe Trump lost fair and square. I I'm just so troubled by the fact that Trump again now is is kind of just bypassing that because he's already laid down the marker again. If I lose, it won't be fair. And I but I want to stop on that issue. So with people asking me guy and Joe, you guys sound like your brothers, your Catholic brothers, how the hell can you two disagree on this? I believe Trump is a unique threat to I think he's everything our founding fathers feared. You obviously don't. Take the people guy in the middle in between us, people like Mitt Romney and others who say they won't vote for Trump. I mean, I I get how you and I differ. But the the the so-called never Trumpers who won't vote for Trump, but they can't vote for Harris, I get mad at these people because I know only because to me guy, if you believe like I do, Trump's a uniquely dangerous threat. He's everything our founders fear. Then I think you're obligated to vote for the only person who can beat him. And if I had Mitt Romney on my show, that's what I'd say. If you had Mitt Romney on your show and Romney said guy, I can't vote for Trump and I can't vote for Harris, you would try to pursue I'd try to persuade him to vote for Harris. You'd try to persuade him to vote for Trump. Make that case. I want my listeners to hear that case that you'd make to these folks because they know more. And and I appreciate and and and the shameless plug is I just wrote a column called a call to none of the above conservatives and and my column actually it was in real clear and it ran in real clear politics, real clear wire and actually the blaze picked it up and ran it over the weekend. Go ahead. And what I'll say for you and I can appreciate the reader's digest version of it is is this back to when you and I choke at the beginning, which is I would say to Mitt Romney, Joe Walsh and Guy Scharaki are going to walk you through two prisms through which to look at this election. And if you believe that that the threat to the bill of rights in the first amendment and the challenge of capitalism being put on equal footing with our socialism being on equal footing or even the suggestion that socialism better and that what the democratic party is doing at state and local levels on criminal justice and energy. If you believe those things are so vitally threatening to the future of the nation, then you're duty bound for Trump. If on the other hand, like Joe Walsh, you think that you're concerned about the constitution, the peaceful transfer of power and the rule of law, then you're sort of duty bound to stop it. But you've got to make that intellectual decision where which ones do you put at the top? What are your top issues? So the argument that I make goes back to earlier, Joe, which is I believe we're not debating tax policy. I use this as an aside to drive home the point. I worked as chief of staff to the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, a fellow named Jim Cauley when Tom Corbett was governor for four years. As we say, we were not invited back. We were at the time where the Marcellus Shale, the natural gas preserves under Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, were really became accessible. That was 2010, 2011. We passed comprehensive legislation to get the gas out of the ground to what now leads to Pennsylvania being the second largest producer in the nation behind Texas. And frankly, if you or I were governor, we'd be the number one state, but let's put that aside. Okay. But just to give you context, in 2011 and 2012, the fight in Harrisburg between the two parties was at what rate to tax the gas coming out of the ground? The most adamant left it wing liberal Democrats. Their argument was we need to tax it. In less than 10 years, we moved to a debate from at what rate do you tax this newfound product and energy source to the entire Democratic Party saying, keep it in the ground because it's an existential threat to the way of life, if not the planet. And so my point is, if we were debating at what rate do you tax gas or what do we charge the Germans for liquefied natural gas, then we're having a debate. We're having a good old fashioned debate. But if we're thoroughly doing that, so on those larger issues. So the argument, my closing argument to Mitt Romney is, I believe that capitalism is much superior to socialism. And socialism should be on the asheep of history, as Ronald Reagan said. The border is sacred. The First Amendment is being challenged. We saw it during COVID. Of all people, Mark Zuckerberger felt duty bound to come forward and say, the White House told me to bury certain things and to hide certain things. We cannot let those people come to power to federalize those things. Let me let me let me stop you. Thank you. No, thank you. I appreciate the argument. Let me thank you. I and we don't have time for this. You and I are probably as religious as defending the First Amendment. I am off the charts in my defense of the First Amendment. There clearly, historically, the left has been a threat to and wanting to censor speech. I would also argue and make the case that Trump and this new right, this new MAGA right, is as big a threat to the First Amendment as the left. But I don't want to get into that. I want to just ask you a straightforward question. Like, I consider Trump a real threat to democracy and the rule of law. Do you really believe that Kamala Harris wants to do away with capitalism? I think that she has members of her party that are socialist or support socialism. I think that there are policies that she would enact that have socialist elements. When we talk about tax, as you understand, you served and you're thoughtful, you don't have to stand up and say, I'm going to impose socialism. But if you in debate about energy policy or debate about health care policy, if you prohibit certain language or certain arguments from being made, that's socialistic, you can tax and regulate things to the point where they're doing. You can tax and regulate natural gas and elevate it to do that. So do I think that Kamala Harris is a socialist? No. Do I think that the loudest, most powerful voices in the modern democratic party are sympathetic to socialism and whether that to impose it per se or elevate it by regulating taxing or prohibiting certain things? Yes. And I am deeply concerned about that, particularly and especially in the realm of energy and particularly in the realm of taxation of business. Yes. Well, Guy, good point. Clearly Harris has moved to the middle on a number of issues and the risk I take supporting her and helping her get elected is that I'm going to have a problem with plenty of her policy. And that's a battle then that I would have to fight as I do with Biden because I supported Biden. But I do not consider her an ideologue. And like I think I considered Obama more of an ideologue. When it comes to just one single issue like fracking, I think Kamala Harris has wised up and no longer would support anything near any sort of a ban on fracking. But again, that's something that I'd have to be adamant about. Is there any? So right now it's a binary choice. Here you got Guy and Joe, two conservatives. They're supporting two different people for reasons I think we both understand. And by the way, you've been really helpful because you've made that distinction between, okay, here's the long list of policy issues. I hold democracy in the rule of law up here. I separate them. You very interestingly separated your bigger issues, namely capitalism, the threat to socialism, all of that. It's an interesting way to look at it. I am asked all the time though. It's a choice. Is there anything Harris could do or would say that would put me in that middle camp where I could never support her? Because I'll never support Trump. And I suppose it would have to be something as extreme if Kamala Harris came out and said, if I'm elected, I'm going to take away your guns. I'm going to go after the Second Amendment. I'm going to go down that road. I don't see her doing, but it would have to be something as profound as that. Or if I'm elected president, we will not support Israel. Then hello, goodbye. Or by the way, if she came out and said, if I'm president, I'll support Putin and not Ukraine. And by the way, I have a real problem because I think Trump supports Putin and not Ukraine. But don't want to get into that. But it would have to be something really big like that. I'm the equivalent of democracy in the rule of law. Is there anything that Trump could say or do that could make you say, I ain't vote for Harris, but I now can't vote for that? So to be intellectually honest, I assume there is, right? I assume there would be. I have never been in that position for a major office. I've never, for president, governor, senator, I've never, for local office, sometimes you know, you know, candidates, A and B, because you go to church with them or whatever, and you're torn. So look, Joe, in concept, sure, is there something you could say or do in the next 30 days that would have me to say, okay, well, that's a deal breaker. It would have to be very extreme because to me, at its core, and I think this is the difference, Donald Trump stepped into a vacuum. He became the spokesperson for populism, whether that was his rationale in 2014 and 2015 before he came down the stairs, he became the father and the face and the leader of populism, which with sort of a conservative core values or some conservative core values. He is a person. He is developed into a cult of personality. The other side is an ideology that has very strong feelings about the family, parents, energy, the climate, criminal justice, the economy. It's an ideology that has its pieces in district attorneys in Philadelphia, and school board members is in suburban Philadelphia, and folks at the EPA, the Department of Justice and Edgy. So that's a lot. So can I intellectually say there is something that Donald Trump could say or do that would push back against all that? I have to say, to be a thoughtful person, of course, it's possible. I'm just telling you, it would be a heck of a mountain to climb. But that's a fair answer. Obviously, as with mine, I'm going to get rid of guns for the Second Amendment. That's a hell of a mountain to climb. But Guy, and maybe we'll close with this. I agree there's an ideology on the left. I no longer believe when I went to Congress, you know, I would say things like Obama hates America. The left doesn't like America. I just think there's a different vision there of what America is. I believe Kamala Harris loves America. But to me, MAGA is an ideology as well. And I think you and I would agree to this. Maybe you're okay with it. And by the way, we are in a populist moment. I was never part of the Republican party establishment. The Romney's and McCain's hated me. I was crazy tea party. I am a populist. I think there are good populists and bad populists. I consider Trump the evil populist. But our system needs disruption. But I'm a free market, free trade, free speech, limited government, expand legal immigration, kind of a conservative. And to me, MAGA has become something very different. It's more of an authoritarian kind of like guy. I'll give you the final word. I've had so many Trump supporters tell me over the years, Joe, I don't give a damn if Trump acts like or wants to be a dictator. He's going after the bad people. So let him do what he wants. Blow off the Constitution to build the wall. I don't care. Let him be a dictator. And I can't support that because again, my higher ideals. This you do agree, though, that the party has changed. It is a populist MAGA movement. And respond to that it seems to be more open to authoritarianism. That scares me. And I'll give you the final word, my friend. I appreciate it. Look, again, to go back to the beginning, I think we're seeing similar things and looking at them slightly differently and having different reactions. Trump, Trump became the leader, whatever his thoughts were when he started, he's become the leader. As I've said, there's a sense that for the last 20 years that there's been there has been I don't know that folks met in anybody's basement or George Soros had a meeting on an island. But I mean, there is a sense that major corporations, the national media and the folks in Washington, disproportionately the Democratic side, but to the Republican side too, that have an agenda. And to a certain extent, there was a joke going on. And the joke was against everybody from Harrisburg to Sacramento, the deplorables, the little people, the people that cling to their guns and their God, the people who believe in family. And I think that that is a reaction. I truly think that most MAGA people want Trump to yell stop, time out, do over. I don't think they want to go hard. Like, I don't think most MAGA people want to run to the home of immigrants or to people who are homosexual and yell at them. I think what they want is not to have those people come and yell at them and accuse them of being hateful. I think most MAGA people have a libertarian streak of "leave us alone" and "leave America alone." In the words of evil bunker, it ain't broke, don't fix it. American values work, capitalism work, fighting crime work. We didn't need to undo it. And so I think they want to say stop, do over, let's go back to capitalism, let's go back to fighting crime. And that's what I think they're all about. Go ahead. Okay, no, two quickies then will be done. And we will, you and I will expand this conversation. I don't think there's any libertarian aspect to MAGA. Do you, and just give me a real, a 10 second answer, do you worry that there's an authoritarian bent to MAGA? Yes or no? No, I think there's a demand for results, which people portray as author. I think there's a demand for results. They're tired of the Mitch McConnell sort of will get around to it someday. And last question guy, my friend. Do you believe Kamala Harris loves America? I think her vision of America is radically different than mine in a dangerous vision of America. It is not one that races American exceptionalism. You are a son of a gun because this is, you and I are going to talk again. This is fun. Guy Sharaki, Philadelphia, he's a senior fellow at the Commonwealth Foundation. We just began to scratch the service. Two decent committed conservatives who profoundly disagree on who to vote for in this election. I hope everybody got a little something out of this conversation. By the way, read his stuff in broad in Liberty, and Guy just told me his latest piece is out in real clear politics and the blaze. Guy, my friend, we will do this again. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. It's a debate. We need to have more out in the open. Amen, brother. Thank you, Keith. Thank you for listening. Remember to listen, share and follow the social contract with Joe Walsh on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and everywhere great podcasts are found. And be sure to leave a five-star review. This has been the Social Contract with Joe Walsh. Listen up, corporate types. It's me, Billie Eichl. You might use Workday's responsible AI to future-proof your business. That doesn't make you rock stars. When have rock stars ever been responsible? Be a finance and HR rock star with Workday. Imagine the softest sheets you've ever felt. Now, imagine them getting even softer over time. That's what you'll feel with Bullen Branch's best-selling signature sheets in 100% organic cotton. In a recent customer survey, 96% replied that Bullen Branch sheets get softer with every wash. Start getting your best night's sleep in sheets that get softer and softer for years to come. Try their sheets with a 30-night guarantee. Plus, for a limited time, get 20% off your first order at bullenbranch.com. Code "Buttery." Exclusion Supply. See site for details. [BLANK_AUDIO]