How has the collectivism outlined in this 2018 episode manifested in 2021?
How has the collectivism outlined in this episode in this 2018 episode manifested in 2021?
This throwback episode with Jeffrey A Tucker from August 2018 covers all the bases, as we discussed the rise of collectivism from the left and the right, Jordan Peterson and his role in advocating individualism and being an "Alt-right killer through education", the dynamic between immigration and the welfare state, Trump's economic nationalism, and predictions for the elections coming down the road...
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Studio Sponsor ➡ BNC: Proven sales and messaging strategies that WIN - briannicholsconsulting.com
Support the program with a one-time donation or join our Patreon!
Take our audience survey for a chance to win a "Don't Hurt People, Don't Take Their Stuff" bumper sticker!
We can become great at doing the the things that we do well the things that we focus on like I'm I think our audience is great at selling Liberty I think we have been amazing at doing that. Welcome to The Brian Nichols Show Your source for common sense politics on the we are libertarians network as a sales and marketing executive in the greater telecommunications cybersecurity industry. Brian works with C level executives to help them future proof their company's infrastructure for an uncertain future. And in each episode, Brian takes that experience and applies it to the Liberty movement, you start to ask questions that pique his interest and get him to feel like okay, this guy's actually got something that maybe you can help me out. And then in your asking him questions and trying to uncover the real problems build that natural trust. I know it wasn't a monologue there, man. Instead of focusing on simply winning arguments or being right, we're teaching the basic fundamentals of sales and their application in the world of politics, showing you how to ask better questions, tell better stories, and ultimately change people's minds. And now, your host, Brian Nichols.
Well, Happy Sunday there, folks, Brian Nichols here on The Brian Nichols Show. Thank you for joining us. Sadly, no candidate for you this week, but have no fear. We're going back into the archives heading back to August of 2018. It was Episode 29. My first ever conversation with Jeffrey Tucker Jeffrey is a great friend of the show. And back in August of 2018 Top of Mind was collectivism in America, Jeffrey joined the show to discuss number one collectivism on the rise from both the left and the right, number two Jordan Peterson and his role in advocating individualism and being a quote unquote, Alt right killer through education, the dynamic between immigration and the welfare state, Trump's economic nationalism and some predictions for elections that come in to the future some, we've already lived through some yet to be on the horizon. So with that being said, back into the archives, we go so on to the show, Jeffrey Tucker, here on The Brian Nichols Show. Hey, it's great to be here. And let's be clear, that if you live long enough, you get an awesome biography.
So, so that that huge thing that you read, that's only because I'm 54 years old,
I can assure you, those aren't achievements, such as what happens to you when you hang around long enough? I mean, to my listeners, it just speaks to the qualifications, if I will, of the man I'm speaking to, because, you know, I had the pleasure of sitting down with you at, as I mentioned, America's future foundation retreat back in April, when we were up in Detroit, and to just have the opportunity to sit with you and just to be able to pick your brain. I mean, it was just a wealth of knowledge and then to have you give your your keynote discussing. That's Trump America, it was just enlightening. So let me just go back and reflect on that evening, just a little bit. First of all, it was wonderful to hang out with you. And there's so many wonderful people out there. But you know, part of the problem I think I have as a keynote speaker is that I have so many big things I want to talk about. And I felt like that evening, everybody wanted me to just kind of tell jokes and talk about bow ties and talking about bourbon for breakfast and, and talk about, like, a hang in there, Liberty is gonna be great. Instead, I plunged into a ideological reconstruction
of the influence of German style had galleon ism on on American politics and, and, and I felt like you like people weren't ready for that after dinner. And, and, and, and actually, after about 45 minutes, the organizer was like, Okay, that's enough of this weird crap that you're talking about. And I kind of regretted it, you do know what I mean? I mean, I cuz I, I guess part of me just wants to, like, I'm so convinced to this paradigm
of understanding the ideological layout, like it makes sense of the chaos all around us that I really wanted to use that chance to, to explain this to all these awesome people in the room. But at the same time, I don't think that everybody was entirely prepared for that. So
I'm not sure if you know what I mean. And the other thing is that I'm sometimes a little dopey, you know, like, I just think, oh, here's an audience. Oh, here's something I know.
Let's go, you know, I prepare like five hours of content.
And so sometimes, so if anybody is listening who's considering
considering me for an after dinner speaker or something like that, just know that sometimes I get a little confused.
Well, I mean, as one sitting and enjoying your 45 minute speech that you gave, I thought it was very fascinated, because you're able to take the app, just, you know, give us a sneak peek is what we're going to talk about today. But kind of To summarize, what you talked about, back in April was, you know, the, the manner in which America has essentially, it's welcomed and almost created this situation to have someone like Donald Trump, get to the presidency, and using that that populist rhetoric, and you spoke to that very, very, very well. And I think I'm good to listen to that and kind of see where we are society today. And the way we approach various issues, he, he really helps put things in perspective, especially when you can see, you know, obviously, the the old adage is those who don't learn from history, are condemned to repeat it, and to see how we've kind of gone through this cycle in the past. So could you kind of speak to that? And yeah, my audience, and probably is a little confused. It's like, why do we keep recreating these, these ideological categories? Is it because it's because we're slaves of history? Because we're controlled by the ghosts of the past? I mean, the fact that, that, you know, Thomas Carlyle in 1840, roads, you know, the great man theory of history, are we still haunted by that, you know, that that, you know, some some Progressive Era, right wing, idiot, you know, plotted, you know, the extermination of non whites in 1906, you know, are is that still part of our cultural inheritance, and we're, we're kind of wandering around aimlessly being controlled by philosophers, dead philosophers and passed.
Or, you already, we keep recreating this categories, because there's a kind of illiberal logic to the aspiration to control the state. And so the branding keeps having to change, you know, and I don't know the answer to that question, actually. And sometimes I look at Donald Trump and I think, Oh, my God, you are the combination of the right wing, the right he galleon dreams of 1820. You know, you know, in the wake of the loss of the Battle of Jannah, when the Prussian state in the Prussian church, you know,
wove a theory of history in which, despite all intentions, and all randomness of human choice, there was a baked in inevitability to the rise of the state and the destruction of individualism.
Or, you know, his history is kind of a randomized shuffling, of, of, of several choices, you know, right wing liberalism, left wing of liberalism and liberalism, you know, then we keep defaulting back to this again and again. And I haven't quite made up my my mind on that question. But But this much I do now, when I look at it, Trump there's and the movement is inspired, there's nothing, nothing that's random or surprising about it. It's all unfolding exactly, as you would have expected. And the purpose of my book was to highlight this kind of alternative collectivist tradition that
we don't know that much about in living memory. And it's been it's like resurrecting from the dead, you know, and, and it's like a seances taking place. And like, here's these ghosts of Interwar dictatorships and
rightist reactions to leftist extremism. And it's all around us and everybody's looking at looking at it go Hmm, that's all weird.
What am I you saying this kind of thing? Oh, he doesn't like immigrants. Well, maybe he's got a good point and never quite thought of it that way. Oh, he wants protectionism. But that's a little bit random. Well, I guess foreign countries are kind of kind of suck, you know. And, oh, he says he can fix everything because he's a great man. Well, maybe he is. I don't know, you know, so.
That random, that randomized confusion, you know, as if we're, we're, you know, it's as if it's 1930. And we're at the public park and there's a aspiring dictator on a soapbox and he's saying, people of America, you can be great.
We need to get rid of bad fours. Get rid of bad foreign products and bad foreign governments. And leave it to me, the great man and then your lives will
be complete, we will be great again. And there's some stupid idiots out there go, huh.
I never quite thought of it that way.
That's a laxus man. And then we can get rid of all the things I don't like, he seems to be on my side, not on the side of the bad mainstream media, and the bad side of that, you know, the left who I know I don't like, and I don't entirely kind of connect with what he's saying. But this give him a chance. And that seems to be what's going on. That's what frustrates me. And that's the reason I wrote my book was to like, familiarize people with this very real, extremely prescient, live reality over the last 200 years where righteous style collectivism rises up in the wake of the failure of leftist style collectivism. And we keep taking the bait, you know, and, and, and, and the upshot of the themes that I've been writing about over the last couple of years, has been like, no, guys, look, there's another way. And that way is called liberalism. And it has a 500 year old tradition. It's all about freedom for the individual, the right of society, to the and the capacity of society to kind of organize itself. We don't need Trump, we don't need Elizabeth Warren, we don't need Obama, we don't need any of these people. We just we just let,
let's, let's have laissez faire, let's have freedom and human rights. And and and that's the way we achieve greatness. It's amazing, too, because you you're not the only one who sees sameness right now. And obviously, of the University of Toronto, Dr. Jordan Peterson has become one of the most prominent voices in the ideas of rejecting the collectivism of both as you're mentioning the left and the right, but then also embracing this notion of the individual. So, I mean, do you kind of look at a man like Jordan Peterson, it's kind of like a bedfellow with you? Oh, oh, well, I mean, in a word, yes. Okay. So yes. But here's what's amazing to me about about Jordan Peterson, and it's not so much Jordan Peterson but as a reaction to him. So he comes along and says, Hey, you can't violate my rights. How about that? Yeah, I'm just not gonna go along with you. You're violating my rights. And the left is like, Oh, my God. Somebody is disagreeing with what we we've told him to do. He must be a Nazi.
He jumped to conclusions there. Yeah. No, but that's that's where they are. Right? I mean, these people are insane. So they're like, he must be a fascist. He must have secret racialist biases, he must hate LGBT LGBT people, you know, there's something there's something demonic about him because he doesn't agree with us. And, and it's been fascinating
to me to see the the narrative of this guy because they tried to you like he disagreed. he disagreed with the idea that anybody should be able to impose on his right to think and speak, right? That was it. And then they're like, Oh, you must be probably you're probably the devil. You're probably kind of like Hitler.
And, and a very naive Canadian intellectual that he was, he was like,
No, I, my whole life has been opposing collectivism. I despise fascism. I hate
Nazis, you know, like, the Holocaust is the worst thing that ever happen. He explains this, like, wait, wait, you're not making any sense to us. You're disagreeing with with our desire to impose upon you. But you're not pushing for an alternative desire to impose upon us like, you know, and I feel like it gradually dawned on
him. But I don't think it was obvious to him, even at this point last year, that he is a liberal. He's a genuine, classical liberal in the classical sense. And now he's getting at it. He's like, Oh, you thought because I disagreed with the Canadian civil rights
That therefore I must be some sort of must be filled with hate or something. And you're shocked to discover that I'm not welcome to a traditional understanding what human liberty is. And, and and honestly,
let me just say this, I think so this just shows you how stupid the left is. Right. So if the left really opposed the right the alt right for example, right. They would have celebrated Jordan Peterson and every sense that instead of the New York Times The Washington Post and Vox and I don't know if you can name all the left to center venues or far left or the SJW sides you want. They should have said oh, this is a great man. He
He is the ultimate all right killer, which he is, right? Oh, yeah, then they should have celebrated him as a genuine liberal, but because these ideological categories are basically invisible to the left, and also they're extremely stupid people. They tried to demonize him as being some sort of rightist, and it's completely 100%. Wrong. He's opposed to identity politics of all sorts. And he's been very aggressive about this. In fact, I have a theory that despite the last attempt to demonize the guy, Jordan Peterson, has been the best thing that's happened to intellectual culture over the last 18 months and the end the reason not because he opposes the left, which he does, and that's been awesome. But because he worked as the perfect honeypot for the alt Right, so the alt right was like, oh, here's a guy who's opposed to this stupid LGBT Canadian civil rights legislation that's follow him. And he's like, Okay, fine. Follow me if you wish. But now you have to listen to me. And here's what I have to say. individualism
down with identity politics up with human liberty. Let's Let's be liberal as opposed violence. And he's been the greatest teacher for the alt right, you can imagine. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the strength of the alt right began to kind of drop. I, when Jordan Peterson became so prominent, I think he's been an awesome evangelist for the liberal cause. I didn't really think about it that way. Because, I mean, we've seen Dr. Peterson Go on, and he's taken the the arrows. Oh, yeah. And he's strong. And he's on and, and, and courageous. And, and like I say, he's, he's adaptable. Like he's learned.
How to anticipate how people are trying to paint him. I don't think he knew this in the early days. Like, he's, I'm sorry, I keep saying a gentleman liberal. And I hope you understand what I mean by that. I mean, like, genuine in the sense that like, he just wants the emancipation. Yeah, emancipation of the human spirit, the the universal,
the universal right of everybody to live a dignified life and freedom. Okay. That's, that's what he believes. And, and he was shocked when, when the left came after him so hard. And that's why so many of the interviews you see with him online, he's like, discombobulated like, What are you talking about? I, I'm, I believe it's, I believe, in the rights of the human person, I want the rights of every individual to, to, to define his or her life, according to his or her own lights. This is this is what he genuinely believes. And he's been educated about basically the pathologies of the left. The pathologies of the right is something he just presumed all along. But he just didn't know how horrible the enemy that he attained become taken on with which would it be but but as a result, he's so intelligent, that his his slaughter them at every turn. And I think it's absolutely brilliant. anagram, and again, let me stay with with as much clarity as I possibly can, if the left was genuinely opposed to right riders, collectivism, racism, fascism and Nazi ism, and so on, they should have celebrated this guy from the very beginning, they should have put them on Vox, he should be a regular columnist for The New York Times, he should have been celebrating MSNBC, CNN should have interviewed him constantly for every political, modern political issue. He should have been celebrated by the central left as the ultimate alt right killer. instead. They're so stupid. They didn't understand who this guy really was. And I think what that illustrates for us as libertarians, or traditional liberals, or whatever you want to call us,
it shows us just how unfamiliar The world is. 21st century is with our ideology. Like we're so unfamiliar that people don't even recognize it when it comes along.
And I would say two part of it and I want to hear your thoughts on this is that we've gotten it into this this tribalist, like, you have two camps, and as you've alluded to, it's the leftist collectivism and the right collectivism. And if you're outside of the confines of those two collectivist camps, then you're kind of in this no no man's land where you you look at the issues in an objective manner and you take this individualistic approach. And I almost think it's like two people speaking different languages where you have the collectivist narrative on each side as it's us against them instead of That's right. It's you as the individual. Let's do something with your own personal life to make you you know, to make your own personal liberty flourish. That's right. And by the way,
There. This is why it's so important for us to understand history. This battle, the left and the right, versus liberalism has been going on, as far as I can tell, since since since the early part of the 19th century, in these two sides developed in the opposite direction, to the way in which liberalism was changing the world so dramatically. You know, liberalism is awesome, because it's like, okay, nobody's in authority. Nobody's in charge of society. Nobody's in charge in the nation. How about you just be free. And let's see what happens. And then once we allow that, and it, and it developed from basically the
early 16th century, really late 15th century, all the way up into the early 19th century. And then people the intellectual started looking around going, wait, this is a disaster. I mean, we hate this. the wrong people are getting prosperous. People are developing the capacity to move where they want, marry whom they want, for God's sake, what who's talking about eliminating slavery, but this is the worst thing I've ever heard. Oh, you want women to have rights? That, you know, is somebody going to intervene here? We're going to, we're going to blow away all the traditional hierarchies, we're gonna, what's next, we're gonna get rid of monarchies. You know, I mean, like, Are we just not gonna control the world at all? You know, what's gonna happen to religion? What's gonna happen to morality? What's gonna happen to our families? I mean, like, if I if I, if I bear children, don't you understand this by right to like, tell them exactly what to do. They can't just turn 17 and move to the city. All right, that ain't gonna happen. And marry some dude. I don't know. All right. So so so the right and and and by the way, this, this Irish immigrant is simply not permitted to get richer than this, this this Protestant white dude that that has a heritage dating back five generations in our country. Right. And, and we can't just trade with anybody. China's not allowed to get rich. Certainly Japan is not you can't just like bring in spices from Malaysia. This is the Why are we eating this food? What are those who who brought this tomato
into their country anyway, this is the kind of like this panic, that that that generation in the early 19th century experienced was like, we have got to shut down this insane anarchy where else we're gonna lose everything, we're gonna lose our faith, we're gonna lose our families. We're gonna lose control of our communities and for God's sake, this nation that we rely on fundamentally for our all of our identity and self definition. And for God's sake, what's gonna happen to our words, we don't have wars, we're never going to experience heroism and courage and, and, and bloodshed and enemy ness and what's our lives can be worth in. So there was a huge reaction against liberalism. And that began in the early 19th century. And, and, and it culminated basically, in the 20th century with communism and Nazis, right. So
and so here we are on the 21st century, and we can't quite get rid of this anti liberal sensibility that people have this, this this panic that comes in the light of the loss of control. It's still around us. And we experienced it, both from Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump. I mean, those are the two sides out there.
And, and and what are we fighting for? I mean, in the end, we're fighting for the rights of individuals to live their lives according to their own choosing, and for the rights of society to develop and evolve, according to its own lights. And, and that's, like, I think sometimes we as libertarians, forget just what a radical thing we're saying. You know, we're saying, nobody's in charge. How about that?
And a lot of the world is going, Adam, I don't know, I don't know if that works, actually.
What if I made one thing that I know? And even we see this within a lot of libertarian circles is the reaction to some of the more I don't say radical, but just more consistent libertarian principles like that of saying, you know, let's look at immigration, objectively from a libertarian standpoint. Yeah. And you know, that the libertarian libertarian answer is to allow a free flow of immigration, just in a form of economics. But then you have, the more I would say, the more collectivist group which is almost an oxymoron itself, within libertarian circles who argue, well, if you have open borders, then you're going to have what's happening in Europe right now, where you have an influx of, in this example, these murderous Muslims who are raping and killing women and children. So what what's the answer, like how do we approach that from a libertarian?
perspective and say this is this is how we're going to fix it or not necessarily fix it. But this is how we address it in a market based solution.
Well, I'm really glad you brought up this issue. And I think it's really important to talk about this stuff frankly, and, and openly. And I, my own view is that, like, people hold this view, you know, that like, America is a country for white people, or let's keep sweden, sweden, you know, keep out the immigrants. I don't think people who say that should be demonized as racists. I don't think it's enough to call names. I think we have to talk about this subject, frankly, and I'm really glad that the subject has come along and I've been very disappointed in the way libertarians have been unable to formulate any kind of coherent response to what's basically a right to galleon sort of nationalist
and I think, to do this, let's began with with the problems in Europe, for example, right? So most of these European countries have extreme laws against because they're highly regulated.
economies, right? So they have extreme laws against foreigners working.
So like, we need to understand what this what this implies. So you're, you're a refugee, and you show up in Germany, you're like, Okay, here I am in a great Germany. Is there anything I can do for you? Nope.
I can't work Nope, we have got a business idea. I'd like to start a business can't do that. Not allowed, what can I do? Well, you can accept a welfare check.
And otherwise stay in this ghetto.
Alright, that's not gonna make you entirely happy, it's probably going to turn you to to be an anti social kind of problem. Right? So the labor legislation, the welfare state, the restrictions on entrepreneurship and starting business, the absence of laissez faire, and these economies are, are all conspiring to make these new immigrants become
what many of them become, you know, like anti social and an angry. So that's not the fault of immigration, that's a fault of the regimes and social democratic welfare. State has made it basically impossible for a lot of the refugees who would otherwise be productive and beautiful members of society, at and contribute mightily to the to the, to the, to the cultural and economic life of all countries, and make
it impossible for people to adapt, because because of the legislation, and then look what happens.
The welfare state, and by the way, democracy
in general, is premised on this idea, that, that a society that that a nation is a kind of family. So you don't entire, like taxations knowing. But on the other hand, your money is going to people who are kind of like you, people that you would help out? If you could. So then then
populations, look at who's getting the benefits, and they go, Wait, these people are not like me. This is not working for me, I don't like this. So then you face the choice is like, should we kick them out? Or should we abolish the wall first.
And it's not a surprise that that that people are defaulting to the sense of like, let's get rid of strangers ruining my life, they're ruining my nation, that is not a surprise, because we've misconstrued what nationhood really amounts to. So that's that's the that's the dynamic operating though in the world today. In other words, we're ultimately going to have to decide, do we want diversity? Or do we want the welfare state?
What about? I asked this because obviously, this is the more contemporary issue, not necessarily in America, though it has become one of the fears that's been raised up, but looking at Europe, in particular with the refugee crisis. And obviously, we can we can discuss how well if it wasn't for the the endless wars, the refugee crisis would be mitigated, but neither here nor there, but to discuss the cultural differences between those refugees, mostly based on some type of religious basis. So for example, the the implementation or acceptance of like Sharia law going into these more Western democratic societies. Sure. How do we rectify that? Well, so yeah, let's, let's address that. So part of the problem of the modern state is is premised on a kind of homogeneity of law and culture. And that's because we have the governments and totalitarian societies and everybody accepts us as natural and a laissez faire society, that is not a problem. So, like, let's go back to the 19th century America, we had a ton of Jewish immigration.
We had a ton of Catholic immigration. Well guess what? Jews, for the most part, especially Ashkenazi Jews from Russia, for the most part, obey their own rabbinical law. They they created their own communities and obeyed their own law, and pay no attention to the nation state whatsoever. Catholics have their own canon law, their big book they complied with, because the Pope said is the right thing. And and that was definitely had primacy primacy over the national law. It wasn't a problem, because we didn't have a central state manager, anybody. And nobody in the 19th century, actually, Slade did happen in the 1890s, that people said, Oh, look at these Catholics are obeying the Pope. And this is terrible. But for the most part, it worked. Because we didn't have a presumption of a homogeneous legal order. We didn't have a presumption of a homogeneous society that everybody's marching in lockstep in the same direction. In the 21st century, that's not true. There's this this assumption that everybody has to be the same, or else we can't function as a society.
And that's what I think genuine liberalism is to take issue with, like, why don't we want to kick out the immigrants, what we should actually be doing is dismantling the whole presumption that that the nation needs to be a homogeneous thing in terms of religion, race, language, dynastic dynasty, geography, whatever that whatever it is that that for you defines what nationhood is, that's what we need to unravel, but violating human rights,
preventing people from hiring whom they want to hire, working with whom they want.
Traveling, the right of travel, denying those rights is the worst possible thing we could ever do. So I would just
urge liberals and libertarians to focus on the actual problem, which is not human beings, but the institutions that are making
make it making it so difficult for us to come together and find value in each other as human beings. That's that's the fundamental issue. And
I mean, there's more we can say about this topic. But I think the tendency of libertarians to turn against free migration has really been catastrophic for our cause, I really do. Which is not the same thing as saying, as saying, Oh, we should all argue for open borders right now. I do think we should favor open borders. But I think more fundamentally, we need to restructure our conception of what a nation is. And that is something that libertarians are not intellectually prepared to do right now, because we haven't studied this subject enough. We haven't thought about it hard enough. That's why racism and
religious bigotry and all these things that I would, you know, which are real things have made their have made conquests as liberal libertarian world, because we haven't been sophisticated enough to deal with it intellectually. And otherwise, it's such a hot button issue. It's so it's so difficult to discuss, especially when you're in this, this paradigm of this left, right. Yeah, yeah. Either you're with the left or you're with the right. And for sure, and you can't really, it's weird to say but like, libertarians tend to be a mix, I would say the best parts of the left and the right in terms of the social acceptance and the fiscal economic responsibility. And really, I think it boils down to the most basic being don't hurt people don't take people's stuff. And yes, that the libertarian society builds on top of that. It's just it's, as you alluded to, it's so difficult for libertarians now, I don't have an intellectual conversation about it. But to have the stones to stand on stand on principle and say, here's what we believe. You can use sling arrows, that's all you want. But this is this is the reason we believe it. And and this is why morally, we look at the the issue, for example of immigration, and we feel that we're in the right position here. I'm not doing a complete one at best, because if I have an economist on I want to talk about economics a little bit. I wanted to get your opinion on. Obviously, right now, we're going through a very interesting time in politics where we're seeing the right in this collectivist, right, especially, really, they're they're enamored with the way that the economy is going you have I had Michael John's who was the co founder of the Tea Party back in 2008 2009. He was on my show back last month and he was discussing, you know, if you look at the tariffs like we can say tariffs are bad, but if it's gonna lead to more tariffs being gotten rid of down the road, that's a good thing. You know, we're cutting tax
His left and right. And I'm just yeah, I myself, I find myself a little lost for words. So I want you to share your Oh, yeah, no, no, it's fine. It's fine and I get why people think this I mean, I'm so
I'm somewhat sympathetic with with people who are like, oh Donald Trump must have an endgame here and maybe as to lower tariffs the 40 chess. Yeah, 40 chess, but I think these people are being extremely naive.
Donald Trump believes in economic nationalism. That's what he wants to bring about. everything he's done up to date has been about building walls, not just for people but for goods and services around America, then that is not surprising, because the writer galleon tradition again, dating from the early 19th century, has always erected protectionism as being a central principle of this ideological vision. Why? Because only because protectionism unites people for what reason to rally behind whom the guy in charge. So in the end, the right hand galleon political tradition has begun fundamentally with protectionism as a as a core postulate. And these people and I see them every day. I mean, my friend Larry Kudlow, who's like an economic adviser to the White House, whatever
was on NPR a couple of days ago, and oh, what Donald Trump really wants.
It's very difficult even to say this is free to free trade notes. No tariffs, no tariffs,
no subsidies, no non tariff barriers. Okay. So my friend Larry Kudlow is like, proclaiming this on, on National Public Radio and is a dear heart but he's either a liar or deceiving himself. Because the day that first of all, since all this tariff hysteria began in early 2018. Trump has never given us an end game. He's like, keep out the cars, keep up, keep out the steel, keep out the aluminum keep out everything. And then one day he's dealing with, with with,
with Europe, and he's facing a car industry, very interesting, massively protesting the idea of tariffs. He's trying to figure out some way to get around this. So he announces, oh,
here's my endgame. No tariffs, no non tariff barriers, no subsidies. On that same day, this guy signed an executive order to release $12 billion in aid to American farmers have been hurt by his tariff policies. So it's like, this guy is trolling, you know,
the media and trolling the American people. He's he said, I don't want any subsidies, stop subsidizing your products. Oh, and by the way, here's my executive order, giving $12 billion dollars in subsidies to the farmers have been hurt by by me.
So it's the ultimate hypocrisy. And in those days, and that was, what two weeks ago, in those days sets, then he keeps changing the terms he's so one day is like, Oh, look at these terrible trade deficits. We we can't have free trade until we get rid of the trade deficit. Okay. All right. We can discuss that some other time. And then like, yesterday,
guess what he's generating get another objection to free trade, namely dumping.
No foreign country should should dare to sell us products that we can buy for ourselves at cheaper prices than we can ourselves can produce them. So, like his excuses for economic
nationalism are without limit without limit. I mean, I can like right now this 12 excuses Donald Trump has has named for why we can't have free trade. Oh, they're violating our intellectual property. Now they're dumping on us. Look, they're subsidizing their their products. Look at the trade deficit. We can't have free trade because the trade deficit. I mean, it just, it's nonstop. It's unending. At some point. I don't know who your friend was that you interviewed last month. But these people need to recognize Donald Trump is an economic nationalist, have the right to galleon sort. He's a follower of of Friedrich list. You know, the the only economist in 300 years to finally advocate, you know, protectionism economic policy, and he's doing it because he wants to reconstitute the nation state, plan the economy, be the master of the industrial sector, and and inspire the hoi polloi. The stupid bourgeois hoi polloi to rally around Him as their CEO. That's what he's doing. And I'm so I I've explained this dozens of times on the national international press and I've been right
Every single time and so it's frustrating for me, because because this guy is transparent. protectionism is his ideology, economic nationalism is his dictatorial aspiration, he's gonna get it come hell or high water, and he will let nothing stop him. If you want free trade, you're gonna have to get this guy out of power. That's the most important thing. So I know we're getting we're getting close in time here but I'll ask you the same question that I asked. So is Michael John's Michael John's he was the co founder back at the beginning of the Tea Party movement. I asked him this question. I said, Michael, right now here we stand. You know, it's it's 2018. It's two years until Donald Trump's 2020 re election. You know, looking at the world, let's say, Trump does get elected again in 2020, which is up to debate, especially depending on how things turn here in the midterms, the next few months. What will the world look like in 2024? And he responded that, you know, we're gonna have a strong booming economy and American employments going to be sky high, there's gonna be national confidence, we're gonna have a real reduction of foreign intervention, and foreign entanglements. And I mean,
these people are crazy. I mean, like,
like, I'm always astonished, like, Oh, he's making peace with Russia. Okay, maybe that's because, you know, Putin is a fascist, just like him.
But in terms of his international relationships, I mean, Obama, actually, you know, I'm not a fan of Obama, but he actually,
he actually negotiated a peace with two hot button nations, Cuba and Iran. Like we had actually diplomatic relations and a good growing levels of peace with both these countries. Donald Trump shows up and reverses both those more sanctions on Iran. Oh, down with Cuba, Cuba sucks. So, like, these are just two incidences, and not to mention the fact that he's got a drone wars going on all over Syria and everywhere else. Donald Trump is a warmonger of the worst sort. And, and it's going to get worse. He's actually worse than Obama on on on international politics. He doesn't want peace. Yes, he wants peace with Putin. And he was peace with North Korea because he'd like personally identifies with dictators, okay. But he does not want peace with with
Saran, and he doesn't want peace with Cuba. And actually, I think these are very much more like stances. He's done nothing to unravel true presence in Afghanistan. For God's sake. We're still there. It's unbelievable. But are we there twice as long as the Soviet Union was, and and that same thing about Iraq and his war on ISIS, by the way, which he claims to have won? You know, I wouldn't. I wouldn't
celebrate that victory just yet. Because he did it by
drone drone wars that which, which randomly killed and terrorized whole populations. So I mean, is that going to come back? I think, probably so I don't think we're done with Muslim extremism. The strength of Donald Trump is not capable of beating back of a fanatical faith that's been unleashed by American wars. So these people, I don't know what to tell you. I mean, I find their naivety. Basically I think trumpism has become a cult. And, and they, and they believe anything he says and does because he's against their enemies. And guess what?
If you go along with that ideology, you're being trolled. You're selling your soul, for collectivism and fascism. And it's extremely dangerous. You cannot call yourself a defender of human Liberty, and be a member of the Trump cult that that is like, I wish we could just grow up and see what's going on around us. We do not have to be partisans in this endless battle between left and right to control our lives. Our job is to dissent from this stupid war that dates back 200 years, and to hold up the light of liberty, celebrate the individual and dismantle states that are preventing society from developing according to their own life and given us freedom and prosperity. And peace. That's that's that's what I, I believe, and I, I say it every day, in every way and everything I write. So 2024 Donald Trump gets reelected in 2020. Where do you see America going into the 2024 election? both as a nation in terms of our the the thermostat of aggression between the left and the right but also where do we stand economically? What's your your your educated ascent? Okay. If it is what I worry about, if if Trump gets his way and we go full protectionist, I actually worry that the economy will tank I mean, it's happened before 1930, the Smoot Hawley act
tariffs, nobody intended that to happen. They created unbelievable calamity. I think that Trump's trade policy is playing with with fire in the worst possible way. So I don't know. But but but here's, here's what I'm thinking in terms of politics and competitors to Trump.
You know how you see the democrats now flirting with socialism, and oh, here's, you know, this young Hispanic woman and New York, look, she wanted election, maybe we can have Bernie Sanders, but I don't think any of that really matters. I think what's going to happen between now and the next election is the democrats are going to realize that if you're going to defeat Donald Trump, you need to have your own version of Donald Trump. And and I think that they've began to settle on who this is. And and I and I have the feeling that could actually happened, but it's gonna be a tough guy. Who do you think it might be?
Sorry, I don't remember his name is Mike Cole. He's the Michael Avante the lawyer. Yeah, yeah. microbots do and I say this based on? Yeah, he asked for me to and I say this based on an extraordinary article and appeared. What is it today Monday, that appeared yesterday in the in the New York Times Magazine. It was it was a brilliant article. I think that Michael vontae is the chosen one. And he's not an ideological leftist in any way. He's a tough guy, New York fixer with skin as thick as cement walls, right? He's Trump. And, and I think the democrats at this point are so panicked about the invincibility of Donald Trump that they're going to forget
Bernie Sanders in the socialist Cult of the far left, and they're going to they're going to everybody's going to be like, whatever else happens, we got to get this guy here. I think a volunteer is the only person in public life today who could actually accomplish this. So I think he's gonna get the nomination. And I think he's gonna win. And he can win based on a free trade platform and anti dictatorship platform, a platform and favorite Constitution and the rule of law, which he actually believes in, and which is I'm not like I think this guy is an unprincipled creep, by the way, right? I think he's a complete monster and an litigating troll. On the other hand, He's good looking. He's super articulate, as tough as nails. And Trump is vulnerable. Not for the reason that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders believes, right, but but because he's done a lot of stupid things to screw over the very people who voted for him, for example, the attacks on free trade, and that's where he's honored. And I think the democrats are going to have been so traumatized, so shaken by by Trump's popularity and don't believe anything you read the Washington Post.
Trump is an enormously popular president, they've got to come up with somebody who's capable of rally in the masses. And I think Michael avanta is capable of doing that. So that's, that's what I think is going to happen. I think other words between now and that election, everything is going to change. Like don't believe anything you read in the nation, The Washington Post, if you want to, you want to see where the ruling class the leftist center ruling class is headed
you The New York Times, and that article on Michael Avante was extraordinary that he is the chosen one. That's that's going to be the contest in the next presidential elections with Donald Trump versus on take advantage is going to be slick, young, beautiful, articulate, and, and and rally in the masses. And I think Donald Trump at that point is gonna look stupid and old. And and I think he's gonna win.
Well, Mr. Mr. Jeffrey Tucker, thank you so much. And before I let you go, first and foremost, I want people to be able to find you on social media. So give us some plugs, and then give us some out some final thoughts here for the rest of the show. Yeah, sure. So so my Twitter is Jeffrey Tucker. And I'd be glad for you to follow me I write almost every firstname.lastname@example.org which is the American Institute for Economic Research, founded in 1933. And I'm very honored to have this position there. And my final thought is that if you believe in prosperity, peace and human dignity, think of yourself as a dissident. Don't get sucked in. Don't go along with the prevailing narrative. You do not have to accept prevailing orthodoxies Think for yourself. fight for freedom, fight for human rights, and I think I think we can when I can, but it's gonna require all of us. Alrighty, folks, that's gonna wrap up my one on one with Jeffrey Tucker throwback to August 2018 time as a son of a gun. I was listening to the episode as I was going back through and just my voice Oh my God, I was such a young pup and it was only a few years back time as a son of a gun. I listened to like episodes at Tom woods, and you hear when he does his throwback episodes and he goes back to you know, some speech from 2008 or 2000.
benign, and he sounds so young you're like, oh, wow, that's a big shock. And then you hear yourself and it hits you even more. So yeah, just time is is wild. And I think COVID has really helped it really exemplify that even more. But that's all my little thought there. But hey, if you enjoyed the episode, please do me a favor, share today's episode. And also do me a favor. Go ahead and tag Jeffery, I think you'd appreciate to see a nice little tag here in his throwback episode. But with that being said, coming up here on Monday, Chris Goyzueta returns to the program. We've missed him. He's been busy. He's been teaching in school because he has it is back to school and he is a Professor of Marketing, but he's taking some time to return to the program we're talking about. Yes. What happened to the Mises caucus there for a hot sec, where they lost their Facebook group talking about the importance of not building up your community on rented land also talking about ads content, and networking. How can they help get you new customers? Well, I promise they are three easy ways. Make sure you hit subscribe so you're not missing how those three easy steps can help you go ahead and in fact, get more customers. But with that being said, it's Brian Nichols signing off. You're on The Brian Nichols Show for Jeffrey Tucker. We'll see you tomorrow.
Thanks for listening to The Brian Nichols Show. Find more episodes at The Brian Nichols show.com if you enjoyed today's episode, don't forget to subscribe. Want to help us reach more people? Give the show a five star review and tell your friends to subscribe to find us The Brian Nichols show.com and download the show on Apple podcast, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. Follow me on social media at V. Nichols liberty and consider donating to the show at Brian Nichols show.com forward slash support. The Brian Nichols Show is supported by viewers like you. Thank you to our patrons Darryl Smith, Maura Stanley, Michael Lima, Mitchell megabits, Cody, John's, Craig Acosta and the we're libertarians network.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
Jeffrey Tucker is a former Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education & Editorial Director at the American Institute for Economic Research, columnist at Forbes, a managing partner of Vellum Capital, the founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, economics adviser to FreeSociety.com, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books, most recently Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty. He has written 150 introductions to books and more than ten thousand articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.
Check out some of our favorite episodes!