Christopher Caldwell: Is It Too Late to Save the English-Speaking World?

An all-American and veteran-owned company, Freeze Dry Wholesalers is offering Tucker listeners a lifetime discount of 15% off with code Tucker at checkout.

Using proprietary freeze-dry technology, Freeze Dry Wholesalers is the only company in the industry that can freeze dry whole steaks, entire pork chops, and more.

With a diverse line of products lasting for the next 25 years, Freeze Dry Wholesalers is the perfect option for hiking, camping, or stocking up your emergency supply.

Receive a lifetime discount every time you use code TUCKER at checkout.

Go to freezedrywholesalers.com today and be prepared for tomorrow.

So you travel more than anybody I know.

You spend more days out of the country and have for more years than literally anyone I know.

So answer this question.

The countries that seem to be moving backward the most quickly, this is my perception, are the white Christian English-speaking countries, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, UK, United States.

Am I imagining that?

What is that?

Well, no, I don't.

I can't really speak about the countries of what they used to call the old Commonwealth, the

Australia and New Zealand.

I've never been to those places.

But

I certainly think that England,

the UK more generally, but England in particular,

is really in a difficult position now.

And

I think that the diagnosis that English people generally are coming to is that

they've had too much immigration.

It seems like they've been overwhelmed by immigration, but you may have a better handle on the numbers.

How much immigration has the UK had-ish?

Well, I think that they're up around, you know,

the country is

the country.

Well, most recently, the country's had a lot of immigration since,

you know, since the Second World War.

It had some moments of acceleration.

They had a huge wave of migrants from both

the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent in the years right after the war.

And by a huge wave, you know,

one, you know, it's a couple hundred thousand.

But more recently, we've had

even larger numbers.

And in fact,

one of the things that has made Brexit so contentious in England is that the big promise of Brexit, the primary promise of Brexit,

was to limit immigration.

That's what most English people thought it was for.

Now, Brexit was delayed between the referendum and

2020.

And when Britain finally got Brexit, it had COVID.

And so it had a period of zero immigration for a while.

But then something really interesting happened, which is the people who had managed to get Brexit, that is the

government of Boris Johnson, sort of looked at the numbers and they were very frightened that

the economy was going to continue slow after

COVID.

And due to the way the British government scores economic predictions, immigration

comes out as, by definition, a benefit to the economy.

Seriously, so they're in California.

Yes, so

they decided to just loosen immigration for a little bit.

And the result was really extraordinary.

They got,

I think, 4.5 million immigrants between 2021 and 2024.

4.5 million?

Yes.

And so we're talking about

in three years, we're talking about an immigration

that is 7% of the country's

population.

And that immigration, because

the European,

because Britain had left the European Union, was not European immigration.

It was 80% of it came from outside of Europe.

So it was a profoundly foreign immigration and the largest Britain had ever had.

And

it was brought about by the very people whose entire reason for being in government was to stop immigration.

And it's had an

extremely destabilizing effect on the on the politics of the country.

So they,

according to the way British economists score the economy, more people, almost always from poor countries, make you richer or something?

Yes.

I mean, it's sort of like it adds.

It adds a certain amount of units of labor in the country.

Is that many units of labor richer?

And there's not really a sufficient, without going into the economic details, there's not sufficient reckoning

done of the fact that these people will age, they'll form families, and they will collect the generous and perhaps overly generous state benefits that they've been brought in to,

you know, to help defray.

Yeah.

I mean, is there in the history of the world a country that's had like that level of immigration from poor countries that got richer because of it?

The United States.

But it's a very special case because we were,

you know, we were

we had laid claim to a, you know, a continent-wide landmass, although we didn't always do that explicitly.

And we had only a very few millions of people with which to claim it.

And so we really needed people.

And they generally came from societies that were,

or let's say they came from, they might have come from societies that were richer than ours, but they came from the less fortunate parts of those societies.

So I think it did enhance the United States while we had, you know, a more or less virgin territory.

I understand that the Indians were there, but a lot of the territory was virgin and ripe for development.

As long as we were in that position, it was a benefit to us.

The mistake that other countries in the world have made, and Europe more than anyone, has been to assume that if they get mass immigration, it's going to work the way it did

under the very special circumstances of 19th century North America.

But instead, what's happening is it's working more like the circumstances of 17th century North America.

That is, the people who are arriving from abroad are becoming the

core group

in

replacing the indigenous population.

That seems to be what's happening.

Not everywhere, but in a lot of places.

If you go to London, if you go to London,

it's incontestable.

Well, it's overwhelmingly, it's like 70% non-British, right?

Non-English.

That's right.

That's right.

So, what I mean, can that be changed, fixed, reversed?

That's what the discussion in England is about now.

And that's why

the politics on the English right is so,

you know, it's so fractured.

It's fractured, but it's actually very interesting.

A lot of, you know, there's a lot of

sort of like new ideas.

sort of popping up out of desperation.

Like what?

They're mostly

They're mostly ones that you would recognize from

the Trump campaign.

A lot of them have to do with deportation.

There is a lot of discussion of withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights and from the UN

refugee treaty

from the 1950s.

The UN has a refugee convention from the 1950s that governs a lot of rights of asylum.

And the Tony Blair government in the late 90s and the early part of this century

passed something called the Human Rights Act, which made

which

made European human rights law and the authority of the European Convention of Human Rights binding on the UK.

So there is talk about

exiting those agreements and not just talk.

I mean, this is the sort of thing that

whenever it's brought up in a Western country, it's described as extreme right-wing and fascist

and that kind of thing.

It's not just being talked about in England.

It's being talked about by,

I would say, the three main forces on the English right, which are Nigel Farage, who's in the Reform Party, Kemi Badenock, who is the leader of

Conservative Party, and Robert Jenrick, who's the main sort of like radical,

let's just say, the Conservative alternative within the Conservative Party.

All of them are talking about getting Britain out of the European Convention of Human Rights

to the extent where you think if there is ever a Conservative government again, it will happen.

I mean,

it's no less believable than Brexit was before Brexit happened.

You probably heard about Eight Sleep.

Lots of people are talking about it.

It is a company with one mission, improving your sleep, and it's changing the way people do that, the way they get a good night's rest.

We just got word that their team is launching a new product.

It's called the Pod 5.

It's an original and innovative mattress cover plus a blanket that uses precision temperature control to regulate your body's sleep cycles and give you the perfect sleep, which really, really matters.

It can range all the way from 55 degrees to 110 degrees meaning that you're covered no matter what it's like electric blanket to the next level but also a cooling blanket so it makes you sleep better temperature has a massive effect on the way you sleep by the way it also detects snoring

And then it adjusts your bed position to reduce or completely stop it.

So there are a lot of ladies in America who are going to be grateful for this product.

Everybody who works here will tell you, because they all use it, that there's no better way to be alert, productive, and happy than by sleeping well.

And 8Sleep really does help.

Visit 8sleep.com slash Tucker.

Use the code Tucker to get 350 bucks off your Pod 5 Ultra.

If you don't like it, you return it within a month.

That won't happen.

We think you'll love it, but you can if you want.

8Sleep.com slash Tucker.

You don't want to be passive and tired and dependent, do you?

Of course you don't.

You want to be strong and self-sufficient.

That's the goal.

And our friends at Beam can help you.

They understand that real strength does not come from drugs.

It comes from inside you, internal motivation, internal strength, health.

That's the key.

Bigger.

So we partner with Beam because they have the same values that we have, that Americans have, hard work, accountability, free will, independence.

Be strong, don't be dependent.

Not until you're really old anyway.

Beam can help you.

achieve that.

This great U.S.

company is offering our listeners a new bundle, the American Strength Bundle, and it comes with top-selling creatine and protein powder that delivers what your body needs to perform, to recover, and to stay strong.

No junk at all.

All natural ingredients that actually taste good.

You will love it.

You can get 30% off this bundle at shopbeam.com slash Tucker.

This is not in stores, just on that page for people who listen to this podcast only.

They're encouraging you to be weak.

Don't let them.

Go to shopbeam.com slash tucker for 30% off.

Managing your money shouldn't feel like a guessing game.

Klarna is your smarter everyday spending partner, built to help you make clear, confident choices with your money.

With the Klarna app, you have access to the tools you need to shop smarter.

Compare prices, track your purchases, find exclusive deals, earn cash back, and choose whether to pay now or split payments over time with no interest when you pay on time.

It's a flexible, secure way to stay on top of your budget and spend with intention.

Whether it's your weekly essentials, a planned purchase, or something in between, Klarna fits into how you already shop and helps you do it with more confidence.

It's not just about stretching your money, it's about using the right tools to manage it better.

Klarna brings everything into one place, so you're always a step ahead.

Download the Klarna app or head to Klarna.com to learn more.

California resident loans made or arranged pursuant to a California finance law license.

And NLS number 1353190.

Klarna balance account required.

Klarna may get a commission.

Limitations, terms, and conditions apply.

But that's that's still ⁇ I mean, that's pretty tepid, really.

Like pulling...

I mean,

the country's been pretty much the same for 1,000 years.

I mean, you can go to Stonehenge, pull up bone fragments, and trace the DNA to people living in Britain.

So, I mean, for all history that we know of, it's been pretty much the same.

People with something the French came a thousand years ago or whatever, but there have been some changes.

But in general,

they're the indigenous population.

And now in 80 years, they've been like overthrown, replaced.

It's

an extraordinary anthropological moment it's like we never heard of anything like that happening well there were these the there were have been a couple of examples of um you know what the german um

uh uh uh paleo uh historians call you know uh filkewanderung you know movements of peoples you know where you know people move off the steps in asia and and and um into western europe and then they you know that's how we got our independent

sorry, our Indo-European languages.

Yes.

And, you know, there's movements down through Greece and onto, you know, you know, the Minoan

area.

I don't, I don't know exactly when it was, about a thousand or two thousand BC.

The Russians and the Finns have kind of Asiatic eyes, you know.

I don't know what happened when, but occasionally there are these huge movements of population.

This one's a little bit different because it's enabled by technology.

So it's not contiguous peoples sort of like pushing against one another.

I mean, it's sort of people who are brought by boat and by and by airplane.

But in terms of

its importance, yeah, it's a major.

But I guess what I'm saying is the reason it's unprecedented, I mean, Genghis Khan, you know, rolled over and impregnated thousands of people.

But I don't think those people's leaders asked him to come and impregnate their wives.

This is like the only invasion I've ever seen that was been bidden by the leaders of the countries that have been invaded, like come and invade us.

It's not like they were begging for it, but they say they sort of created a climate of permissiveness, you know, that

which people took advantage of.

And

it's the

I think I think what you're getting at is what was the psychological state of Europeans between 1945 when they started doing this,

and today that's made this.

That's exactly the question.

And I don't understand it.

And it's a funny thing because you and I have lived through the deepest part of that trans transformation, and it's still kind of a mystery to us.

So, if anyone's watching this 100 years from now,

I hope they can see how confused we, in fact, were.

But, I mean, I think that in the wake of World War II,

something happened in the middle of the 20th century.

And it's really tough to say what it was.

It might be a coming to, you know, to consciousness of, you know, after the horrors of the two world wars.

It's like

you don't want to, you know, this is maybe too moralistic an explanation, but, you know,

people began to understand that there were bad things could happen if you were too judgmental about about other people's or

inimical.

But there are other factors, such as just the technological factors,

the sort of the visibility of alternative places to live through television.

And that, I think, is, I think it's,

I think the technological are as, you know, and oh, and the fact of the fact of easy travel through airplanes, and the fact that the telephone, the television, and finally the the internet enable you to go someplace without being cut off from your ancestral homeland.

So it makes the decision to travel abroad much lower stakes.

I mean, the people who came to the United States in the 19th century from Sicily, they were gone.

They got on, you know, for the most part.

They never saw their people again.

Yeah.

Well, you know, in fact.

In the Italian migration, a lot of them did go back.

But it was a, in general,

in general, it was a big decision.

In the case of the Irish, I think they were usually here for good.

Anyhow, I think it's a combination of,

you know, at the statesman, at the level of statesmen, I think it's a discomfort with any kind of expression of hostility or lack of hospitality towards other peoples.

But at the just the operational level of the individual migrants, I think

technology

had a lot to do with it.

It's impossible.

But I mean, yeah, technology for sure.

But, you know, Victorian England had

the ability to move people around the world to control the world's biggest navy and all that.

And it would have been unimaginable.

They didn't want.

millions of non-English living in England because they were proud of England and they thought it was distinctly English.

And they thought that I guess what I'm getting at is it's so strange to me that

the self-confidence of Western Europe collapsed after winning the war.

I think that's so, Germany's a different case, but I mean, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, I mean, these are all countries that had nothing to be ashamed of from my perspective, certainly England and France.

Why did they lose confidence in themselves

after winning?

Oh,

that's a sort of complex question.

I'm not sure I agree that these countries had, I mean,

they were all in very different positions.

I mean,

Germany, Austria, and Italy were the defeated powers and the malefactors in the war.

Right.

France.

had collaborated, part of France had collaborated, and there was a tremendous amount of soul-searching, and there was a tremendous amount of guilt.

Spain and Portugal had kind of resolved their own civil war in the 1930s, and they were kind of out of the picture.

It would seem that Britain had a record that it could really be proud of, but it was dismantling an empire.

And so the two main victorious non-the, you know, the vict the main victorious powers were the United States, Britain, and Russia.

Russia was communist and had its own

project to propagandize.

But the United States and and Britain, they also had reasons for self-examination.

There was, you know,

I think there was plenty of triumphalism after the Second World War.

It's a very tough thing to read.

I think that the America I grew up in was really quite proud of its role in the Second World War.

I remember.

Even as it was re-examining its own history, you know, of racism and slavery

and even the, you know, the settlement and the and the wipeout of the Indians, you know.

So it was a mix of, it was a mix of impulses.

So I'm not sure that they were, I'm not sure these countries were, were as self-doubting as we as we think.

Well, the effect was to just collapse, I mean, especially in the case of the UK.

So is there any getting back to what it was even 35, 40 years ago?

You know, it's funny.

I heard a member of the Reform Party saying that what

people really long for in England is a return to the status quo anti-Tony Blair.

That is, you know, Britain had a lot of

migration.

There was one wave in the 40s and 50s.

There is another one that kind of coincided with the beginnings of our latest wave, which has never, which has gone on unabated.

But they had a wave in the 70s and 80s, the British did.

But the biggest one

was intentionally started by Tony Blair.

And

so the reform, this one member of the reform party says, if we could just go back to the status quo anti-Blair, that would be fine.

That was only 30 years ago.

But in fact,

The amount of change has been so tremendous.

And it's not just that the numerator of migration is changed.

It's also that the denominator

of the total population of Britain has changed.

That is, Britain is a very, very

slow growing demographic.

So they're not really producing a lot of new children.

And so a disproportionately large amount of

the...

British people in years to come are going to be the product of immigration.

So, no, I don't see any

in general, there's no way short of like cataclysmic developments

to reverse any of that.

We're sorry to say it, but this is not a very safe country.

Walk through Oakland or Philadelphia.

Yeah, good luck.

So, most people, when they think about this, want to carry a firearm, and a lot of us do.

The problem is there can be massive consequences for that.

Ask Kyle Rittenhouse.

Kyle Rittenhouse got off in the end, but he was innocent from the first moment.

It was was obvious on video, and he was facing life in prison anyway.

That's what the anti-gun movement will do.

They'll throw you in prison for defending yourself with a firearm.

And that's why a lot of Americans are turning to Burna.

It's a proudly American company.

Burna makes self-defense launchers that hundreds of law enforcement departments trust.

They've sold over 600,000 pistols, mostly to private citizens who refuse to be empty-handed.

These pistols, and I have one, fire rock-hard kinetic rounds or tear gas rounds and peppered projectiles, and they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away.

There are no background checks.

There are no waiting periods.

Burna can ship it directly to your door.

You can't be arrested for defending yourself with a Burna pistol.

Visit burna BYRNA.com or your local sportsman's warehouse to get your say.

Burna.com.

It's pretty obvious now that this country is getting weaker than ever.

Meaning the population is unhealthier.

That's what Maha is about, trying to counteract this long-term trend that's culminated in a disaster.

Americans are so unhealthy, we can't staff the military.

And it's really, really sad.

Why is this happening?

Maybe because sick people are easier to control.

Whatever the reason, there are answers to it.

One of them is Joy and Blokes.

They are revolutionizing supplements with smart supplements.

They're personalized for you.

They're based entirely on your genetics, your biomarker data.

They're not guessing.

So they use labs, advanced labs that measure up to 110 key biomarkers.

Then their clinicians design a precision supplement plan that's updated as your body changes.

So it's not just off-the-shelf vitamins.

It's much more precise and therefore much more effective.

So there are about 3 billion possible combinations.

And the effect is you get exactly what you need and you get nothing that you don't need.

You also get 60 to 30 minute consultation, depending on how much time you need.

You get access to expert guided hormone care, including testosterone optimization for both men and women, longevity medicine, cutting-edge peptide therapy, and you get it all from home.

Right now, new customers get 50% off all diagnostic labs plus 20% off all products and therapies.

You also get a free 15-minute health coach consult.

And the effect is the desired effect, stronger, sharper, more energy.

You get it right away.

Go to joyandblokes, j-o-i, and blokes.com slash tucker, root cause medicine.

It's the way healthcare ought to be.

Let's listen in on a live, unscripted Challenger School class.

They're reviewing the American Revolution.

The British were initiating force, and the Americans were retaliating.

Okay.

Where did they initiate force?

It started in their taxation without representation.

Why is that wrong?

The purpose of a government is to protect individual rights, and by encroaching on individual rights, they cannot protect them.

Welcome to eighth grade at Challenger School.

Learn more at challengerschool.com.

So it just kind of goes extinct.

I mean,

because there's no way that those two cultures can live and share power.

I mean, one, that doesn't, that's never happened in history.

One culture dominates in the end.

You have a culture.

It depends on how separate they remain.

I mean, let's look at the, at the, um,

at the history of

the settlement of North America.

I mean, the, the British, particularly if you talk to Spanish historians and Spanish observers of this, were notoriously insistent on remaining separate in the lands they conquered.

And

they did dominate.

And

some places they were able to settle

these

areas.

In other places, like India, they were sent home, you know, after a long period of exploiting the place.

But there were other

there were other nationalities that tended to colonize by mixing more.

And so

there is a sort of a

mix of cultures becomes possible.

The cultures that mixed into what we now think of as

different Latin American cultures were

earlier on quite separate.

There still is a degree of separation in South America between these different strains of like the European culture and the native culture of,

but I mean,

in most of Latin America, you can say that there's such a thing as Brazilian culture, there's such a thing as Mexican culture.

And there will be, you know, I trust such a thing as English culture

in 50 or 100 years.

But it will be a very different

thing

than

the English culture that we recognized.

over the last 500 years.

So it is a rupture.

You're right.

What happens to the, I mean, at some point, do the politics get radical?

Well, that, I think, is the.

Because it makes me feel radical hearing justice.

Well, that, I think, is what's happening in England now.

And it's one of the reasons I went to England.

And it's why I

think it's really, it bears watching in

the next few years.

They had a, they had a huge,

they had a lot of riots last summer.

I mean, there was an episode in which,

you know, the British-born child of

Rwandan immigrants, who sounds like he was kind of a crazy man,

went to a Taylor Swift dance party that was being held for a bunch of,

you know, little girls, and he stabbed a dozen of them and

killed three of them.

And

the town in which he did it just blew up.

And

the protests spread across the country, and you had like a wave of really quite spontaneous

public uprising.

And that was last, that was just about a year ago in August.

The government, which had just entered office, the Starmer, the government of Keir Starmer, the Labor government, chose not to view it as a spontaneous

uprising.

They described it as the, you know, a reaction to misinformation and that sort of thing.

That did not convince the

public very much, though.

And I think it contributed to the,

in general, low popularity the government has enjoyed since then.

It's a strange, just as an aside, it's a very strange situation in Britain where they have a landslide, this Labour government has a landslide majority, although they've won only a third of the votes.

So that in itself is very stabilizing.

But I think the events that we've just been, let's see, the developments we've just been discussing have made, have contributed to

make Britain susceptible to radicalization.

Aaron Ross Powell, what about Germany?

I mean, Germany's also been completely transformed by immigration, but that's a society with less free even than Britain, and people can't even say it out loud.

They've been taught to hate themselves and to keep that stuff inside.

But you wonder at some point, did Germans say, you know, just had enough?

And well, you know, I think it's, it's worth

it's worth remembering that, you know, that we had a lot to do with that, you know, German culture of denazification and

sort of, let's say, German,

the, the critical German approach that, that they take to their past.

And so Germany was not, Germany has never been a real free speech society.

It's not

a value that is held to quite the high degree that we hold it in our First Amendment.

In fact, no other culture on earth really has that absolutist idea of free speech that we treasure, I think rightly.

Working with that German culture, which is not a pure free speech culture, I think that we reasoned, you know,

the United States, partly because of the circumstances of the Cold War, wanted to reintroduce Germany into the family of citizen, of civilized nations very fast.

I mean, we were talking about rearming them in the 1950s, you know, we were talking about creating, building a European army around Germany in like 1955.

It was as an alternative to that that the European Union was created because that prospect really freaked the French out.

Okay.

But at any rate, the United States really wanted Germany to

be reintroduced to the West.

And to do that,

a certain

number of ground rules had to be laid down.

You know what I mean?

Like you couldn't buy a

you couldn't buy a copy of Mein Kampf.

You couldn't,

you eventually you couldn't join a Communist Party.

You know what I mean?

There's

so

yeah, Germany had Germany's

Germany's free speech was was a little constrained.

You know,

it might have been constrained anyway, but it also had this highly critical idea of

German history.

And

again, it's understandable, but there's a lot of great stuff in German history, too.

I mean, the Reformation comes out of Germany.

Germany was the most cultured country in the world with the, you know, with the arguable exception of Britain at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century.

And it's, it's, I mean, I don't have to go through the list.

It was only a matter of time before Germans said, well, like, can't we talk about the good things in our in our culture, too?

I thought that that moment actually was coming around the time of the Iraq war.

And I think that that was a to a to a,

you know, Gerhard Schroeder.

I mean, at the time, it was fashionable to blame France for the European opposition of

to the American adventure in Iraq, in which, in which, you know, Europe has been spectacularly vindicated, I think.

But in fact, I think it was Germany as much as France that was driving that

rebellion.

And it was Gerhard Schroeder who said, who is then the chancellor of Germany, he said,

the foreign policy of Germany is going to be made in Berlin and only in Berlin.

I thought that that was happening then.

At any rate,

for a long time, people really lacked the institutions through which to express that

German,

you know, I wouldn't even call it pride.

It's just the desire that,

it's partly pride, but it's just the desire that Germany be treated like a normal country again, you know.

And I think now, 80 years after the war, that 80 years after the war, and

confronted by certain problems that actually require a certain amount of national pride to address, I mean,

Germans are beginning to talk that way again.

They're beginning to say, you know, we need to be Germans again.

So the people trying to wreck our civilization want you to be passive.

They want you weak so they can control you.

Weakness is their goal.

No thanks.

Our friends at Beam, a proud American company, understand that our country can only be great if its people are strong.

And that's why they've created a new creatine product to help listeners like you stay mentally sharp and physically fit.

People like to mock creatine.

CN doesn't like creatine at all.

But people buy it because it works.

Beams creatine can help you improve your strength, your brain health, your longevity.

It's completely free of sugar and synthetic garbage that's in almost everything else that you eat.

Of course, you don't hear about it too much because, again, a population that is strong, clear-minded, and physically capable is a threat to tyrants.

That's why they want you playing video games.

To celebrate American strength, actual American strength, Beam is offering up to 30% off their best-selling creatine for the next 48 hours.

Go to shopbeam.com/slash Tucker.

Use the code Tucker at checkout.

That's shopbeam B-E-A-M.com/slash Tucker.

Use the code Tucker for up to 30% off.

It's built on core values: integrity, results, no BS.

Beam.

We strongly recommend it.

The Conjuring Conjuring Last Rights.

On September 5th.

Hooray!

The Conjuring Last Rights.

Only in Theater, September 5th, Bridget R.

A Carlos no Legusta Larina porque se pega todo.

Cundo gabi organizó biaje en expivia parira sorfia y l invito estudo enir.

Así quarregóno tel con alberca panodamic a lista.

Y pasaro nuna semana nelagua.

Vives para tener las cosasas a tú gusto.

Vivimos para yo dorteen contradun lugar en la playa con alberca cascada, tina y una regader encreble.

Expivia, Vivimos para viajar.

It's interesting that that

AFD, the alternative for Germany,

is treated like an outlaw party by the courts in Germany, and yet it's growing in popularity.

I was just reading in the largest German state, members of the party were banned from owning guns because they were

North Rhine, Westphalia.

Yeah.

Can that continue?

Well,

this is a big, this is a big drama.

Yes, it can continue.

It's a,

It's an interesting situation.

I mean,

the German, I'm not sure where in the Grundgesets it is, in the

German basic law,

but

the German

Constitution permits something called the Office for the Protection of the Constitution to monitor parties to make sure that they're not dangerous right-wing extremist parties.

And the goal of having that in the constitution was to prevent any recruitescence of Nazism.

Now, there are parties all across Europe that had certain antecedents, whether in the institution itself or in certain just personnel, you know,

the way, for example, Mussolini's

fascist party was ended at the end of

World War II, but a lot of its members went and they joined the MSI, the Italian social movement.

And that sort of continued after the Second World War.

And then

there were offshoots of it.

Many of the people in it became left-wing.

Giorgio Maloney started a new party, but it had some people who were in the MSI.

So if you want to trace a genealogy from

mid-20th century fascism to certain European leaders, you can.

And people do that as a way of sort of gaining talking points against Maloney.

They do it.

However, the interesting thing about the AFD, though, is that the AFD is not one of those parties.

The AFD was founded in 2013 by a bunch of academic macroeconomists who were worried that the European Union, by guaranteeing

the debts of Greece and other failing countries, was in an invisible way taxing Germany.

So

it was built around a very recondite complaint, you know,

and not a hate-filled complaint.

And I remember interviewing the head of the party at the time, who was an economist named Berndt Luke.

And he was just a very nerdy guy.

He's left,

I think he's left the party since.

But the party underwent two transformations.

The first came in 2015, when Angel America invited immigrants, you know, from fleeing the Syrian civil war to come to Germany.

And they began streaming over land

into Europe and were then joined opportunistically,

as you may remember, by a lot of Pakistanis and Iraqis and Iranians and Afghans and just a whole huge human wave.

And a woman in the party, a very charismatic,

sort of like mother of many children

named Frauka Petri,

said, you know what, we are the alternative for Germany.

No party is

arguing for an alternative immigration policy, and that has to be us.

And so it became

the anti-immigration party.

But at the same time,

it had, for similar but less noticeable reasons, it had attracted people who wanted a change in Germany for all sorts of things, including

what we would call culture warriors, people who wanted to change the school curriculum

so that it denigrated Germany less.

And then it became a whole big grab bag of parties, of tendencies, which it is today, although they are a much more united party than I think a lot of people think.

And they're now, you know,

they got 20% in the last election.

And between elections, they tend to pull much higher.

So they're a serious party.

They have at times in

the last few months since the elections in January, I believe,

they have been the largest party in Germany in terms of opinion polling.

Aaron Powell, so

if you have a country that calls itself, advertises itself a democracy, a country

run by the people who live there, and

over time the establishment excludes parties that represent the majority of the people, then don't you get a revolution at a certain point?

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Maybe I, you know, I think I got a little off track.

There's one piece I forgot to explain.

So, so there is the,

there exists in the German constitution this idea of banning parties.

Yes.

And it's,

I think that then when people understood it, it was something that was supposed to be done in like 1948, whenever like a gang of people, you know, got together in one city.

And that's why like, there have been parties banned since the Second World War, not in a very long time, and they

tended to be, you know, tiny little groups of what we would call jack-booted thugs.

The idea that

this mechanism could be used to ban the largest party in the country, and furthermore, one that was founded, one that was founded two generations after the Second World War in 2013 is not what the Constitution envisioned.

Nonetheless, you can see the appeal of it for two formerly big

national parties that are now shriveling up and want to get those votes back or want to keep from being swept away.

You know?

Well, of course I can.

It's just such a violation of the core principle of a democracy that I just don't think you, you know, either you have to change the name of the system.

It's just, you know, it's an autocracy run by people with power and everyone else shuts up, or you have to stop doing doing that.

Yeah, yeah, that's right.

I mean, you, well, you have,

you know, you have

you've interviewed

Callan Georgescu on this,

on this show.

If you look at what happened in Romania and the elections last, you know, last November, where he was simply disqualified because someone in the government asserted without presenting proof that there had been a Russian campaign to elect him

and managed to head off the next, you know, his replacement in the second round of that election, which was delayed for many months, and got a member of the establishment into

the Romanian government.

It didn't really work like

like a democracy.

And yet when it happened, people said, well, we've defended democracy.

We've defended democracy against the voters.

So it's this sort of kind of, it's the kind of thing that that

Bertolt Brecht would make a joke about.

And yes, it's not small D democratic, but people have chosen to call this

form of government, which is, you might call it like state of emergency liberalism, which is basically, I think, the most accurate description of what it is

description.

They claim the term democracy, but I don't think they're doing so very successfully.

And the parties

that represent this state of emergency liberalism do not do terribly well.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: It just seems like the spread between what people want and what they're getting grows wider every year.

People seem to hate mass migration everywhere in the world.

I don't think there's a single person who likes mass migration really.

And you can tell by their behavior.

Certainly true in this country.

I think people have an expectation of sovereignty, which almost no country has.

Like a country gets to make its own decisions, but that's not in practice happening anywhere with only, again, a few exceptions.

And so there's so much frustration about that that I just, I'm wondering what's the point where it bubbles up into something unmanageable.

Well,

a couple of things.

I don't, I'm not sure that the, I think that the gap between what people

want and what they're getting is wide, is wide, but I'm not sure that it's widening.

I mean, the election of Trump

was certainly a call for more action against mass migration.

Yes.

And since he's been elected, the border has been pretty much closed.

There have been deportations.

There have been, you know, certainly the rhetorical stance of the of the administration is against migration.

I mean, Trump may disappoint his voters on other things, but on that one thing, which I think we agree is like a really central issue, actually the will of the people and the actions of the government have kind of converged.

I agree with that.

If there were to be, as I've just described, a conservative government in England and

it abolished the the Human Rights Act, which would allow Britain to act in a fully sovereign way, then the way would be wide open

to deporting people who did not have the right to be there and certainly to stopping the ongoing traffic of

small boat migration in England.

So I think that that's

I think it is

possible things are getting better from a democratic point of view.

You also said, okay, so at what point does this explode?

I'm not sure it does, because one of the things that makes

things explode is the

is the

is discontent in in numerous and dynamic classes and that's why you know the the arab world was so unruly throughout the the 1980s and the 1990s because you had this was a part of the world in which people were having like six or eight or ten kids and there was no place to put these young young men and um there was a lot of there was a lot of martial dynamism in the in these societies and um

uh in fact wherever you have a lot of young people if you look at the united states in the in the 60s and 70s you have a lot of disorder and rebellion but we're not societies like that anymore we are top-heavy societies full of old wobbly people and and not these are not the kind of societies that say, darn it, I've had enough.

These are people who need, I mean,

the demographic heart of our societies is

in people who are of an age where they need care, not where they're going to run out into the street shaking their fists.

So most of what the big health companies sell is loaded with sugar and fillers and synthetic junk.

It's probably not too good for you.

And that's why we're interested in a company called Peak.

It's a a modern wellness brand that is actually healthy.

It's got clean science-backed methods, all kinds of blends, trusted by doctors, loved by experts.

It supports gut health, glowing skin, steady energy, not peaks and valleys, and it makes it really easy for you to feel good all day long at your best.

One of our favorites is RE Fountain.

It's a calming electrolyte designed to help your body recharge and recover overnight.

It's got magnesium, no sugar at all, no artificial sweeteners, no fake flavors, and it gives gives your body what you need to hydrate and restore overnight, which is good.

Everyone here has felt the difference.

Better sleep, more energy, smoother mornings.

It has helped a lot of people here, and it can help you too.

You get 20% off for life, for life, when you start your first month.

Go to peaklife.com slash Tucker.

Peak, P-I-Q-U-Elife.com slash Tucker.

Highly recommend it.

Collap here.

Two big things are coming this fall.

Borderlands 4 and Spotify Raft.

So stop listening to that one playlist that reminds you of your ex who only made you cry.

Talking about you, Veronica.

And pre-order Borderlands 4 coming out September 12th.

Rated mature.

Everyone wants to feel safe in an increasingly dangerous world.

And for most of history, people assume that good locks and a loud alarm system are enough to do the trick, but they are not.

The more time that passes, the more stories we hear about actual home break-ins, home invasions that happen despite these tools being in place.

True security requires more than that, and that's why we trust SimplySafe.

SimplySafe is a preemptive security system.

It prevents home invasions before they happen rather than just scaring people away once they show up at your house or they're in your house.

Its cameras and live monitoring agents detect suspicious activities around your home.

If someone's lurking there, they engage in real time.

They activate spotlights.

They can even alert the police who will show up.

It's been called the best security system of 2025.

Over 4 million Americans trust SimplySafe to keep them safe.

Monitoring plans started about $1 a day.

There's a 60-day money-back guarantee.

Visit simply

safe, S-I-M-P-L-I safe.com slash Tucker to get 50% off a new system with a professional monitoring plan.

Your first month is free.

That's simplysafe.com slash Tucker.

There is no safe like SimplySafe.

Preemptive safety.

When

the children of the latest wave of migrants to the United States are 18,

so that'll be in 15 years,

then you're going to have a really dynamic society.

You're going to have a lot of people born in this country to immigrant parents who feel like they want a piece of it, and you're going to have massive change, wouldn't you think?

Absolutely.

And that, I think, is, that's why

I've

tended to look at this, you know, what's happening

now with arguments over the border and with,

you know, with Trump as part of a process that will come to resemble

about a century later the process that led to the new deal i mean because i think the new deal was uh

was the consolidation of a new governing system in a way that took account of the waves of migration that had changed the country between

1880 and 1920.

you know and and

you know we are

we look at our present demographic change and we say, oh my goodness, things are really, you know, what country has ever faced anything like this?

And it's, it's really, there really is a,

there are really a lot of points of contact between

what has happened with us and what happened to the country between 1880 and 1920.

You have, you know, people from, you know,

the initial argument is, look, you know, it's all well and good to receive people, but this country is about a certain set of values.

It's about, you know, it's historically determined.

These people who are coming know nothing of our, of our country.

How are they going to ever,

you know, assimilate into it.

It's exactly the same arguments that you got in the 1880s, 1890s.

Then you get demands for, you know, like closing the border.

And it just...

doesn't happen and doesn't happen and doesn't happen until 1924 when it suddenly happens.

And then suddenly the only people who can come here are the people who are already here.

You know, I mean, that's the only Americans are the ones who've already arrived.

Those are the only foreigners.

And that's why, you know, if you look at it, it's why there are so many Italians in Argentina.

They came after 1924 when the Italians could no longer go to

New York.

And so from there,

These people had no choice but to mix together into

a new kind of American.

And the people who said these people will never be able to adapt to the old American ways, they were wrong, but they weren't totally wrong.

I mean, they sort of like the country did change to reflect the identity of

the new immigrants.

And then in 1932, when Roosevelt came to power on the heels of an event that discredited the old elites, which is the crash, then he claimed the authority to basically reorganize the country in the name of this new

mix of

the settled Americans and the new immigrant Americans.

And it knit the country into one people so effectively that by the 1950, the 1950s and 60s, young Americans were sort of like complaining about how boring and homogenized the United States was.

You know what I mean?

Yes.

So, so it can be done.

Will there,

after Trump leaves in three years, will there be like a series of Trumps or will the party revert to what it was?

Oh, you've will be, will the Republican Party revert to what it was before Trump?

Oh,

first of all,

I think Trump is such

an unusual person that I don't think he can really be replicated, even if

no matter how hard anyone tries.

He was a

he came to prominence because he had an incredible amount of

what used to be called brass at a time when brass was

what

was required.

There are other people who have sort of sort of who seem to have more of the

more of the qualifications that

a politician would require.

That is like patience and like an understanding of policy and things like that.

You had people like Ron DeSantis seem to be offering that to the Republican Party for a while, but it's not what the country felt it needed.

The country felt it needed brass.

The country felt it needed someone

to come in and insult,

topple, and

break the old establishment.

Was that establishment broken, like after Trump?

Well, it's still in progress.

I mean, it's, I mean, I think, I mean, this is something you know a lot more about than I do.

But I mean, if I look at Trump won,

I would say that it was an almost utter failure on Trump's own terms.

That is,

I mean, he used that list that Leonard Leo and others had given him to

fortify the Supreme Court as

a more or less conservative

force.

And he nominated a lot of judges.

But I don't think that he ever understood

where the actual levers of power in the government were.

And so

the same deep state that he had complained about went on, was as strong on the day he left office as it was on the day that he arrived.

And so one had the impression that he'd learned absolutely nothing.

And so what has happened

under Trump too is one of the most astonishing surprises in the history of American politics.

Now, in Brexit, you had a guy who was kind of a genius in the workings of British government named Dominic Cummings, who

was able to say, well, no, you don't need to win a majority in Parliament on this one.

You just need to control

the cabinet office, et cetera.

Trump never had such a person, but apparently, and the details are still not clear how, apparently he acquired one or several

in the course of his four years out of power.

I think Steve Bannon is correct to say that the four years out of power in Trumpian terms were a great blessing for him.

So there's someone, I mean, maybe Steve Miller

is a candidate for this, who has the most tremendous Machiavellian understanding of what can be done inside government.

I mean, the speed

with which,

you know, USAID

was dismantled, which in what seems to me, it was not really a cost-saving operation.

It was like a purge of a certain tendency

in government, was really,

you know, whatever you think of it as an ideological operation, it was a tremendously expert

operation in terms of, you know, government rejiggering.

The executive orders that he has, you know, canceled and the new ones that he has passed in order to give a new reading to affirmative action.

And I would say that

affirmative action was in many ways the key

institution of American government of the last half century to render it inoperative, even if he hasn't fully killed it, is

a constitutional revolution.

So,

yeah, this is, I mean, things are still in progress.

It's very difficult to see

whether an operation like, say, deportations, whether that is going to accelerate or whether Trump is really running out of gas

and this is going to, but it's hard to see how it will proceed from here, but it's been a huge change.

He's turned out to be a very significant president.

Can you go back a second?

How was affirmative action the key institution in American government?

Well,

I've always thought, and we've talked about this, that

the passage of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the

you know, it created a new constitution that

was really at odds, a de facto new constitution that was at odds with what we thought of as our real constitution.

And as, you know,

what it basically tried to do was sort of like create a more, you know, create a society in the South where, you know, blacks could live as equal citizens to whites,

you know, in public and in large companies and

that sort of thing.

But it wound up to be a wound up being an incredibly um versatile tool you could use it for anything um once you had declared a sort of national emergency so like getting women onto you know like corporate boards or getting um

you know uh

uh uh uh bilingual education into schools getting you know protecting you know transgender story hour I mean, it just, it just ramified into every corner of American life.

And

anybody could be made, any, anybody was under suspicion.

And, you know, let's, let's just say incorporation,

it worked publicly and privately.

In corporations, anyone who ran a company that was, you know, larger than a few dozen people was understood to be under, you know, the government's watchful eye.

You could

avoid being sued really only by establishing an affirmative action program.

And so

it became the means through which the government could approach any institution, public or private, and say, you know, we'd like to have a look at your hiring practices.

We'd like to have a look at like how you and you know how you've been behaving for the last, you know,

for the last year and your board meetings.

We'd like to know if there's anyone you're hiring who has kind of an animus against black people or women or gays or immigrants.

And so it had a very chilling effect at every level of government and at every level of society.

Is that over?

It is for now, except we now have a culture in which for 50 years, people,

even in the most private, you know, conversations, sort of have been trained to ask themselves, you know, can I say this?

Or, or is this okay?

Or, you know, like, you know, I'm not homophobic, but, you know,

and so you have a...

you have a society that has really been trained to be scared.

So a lot of this,

you know,

yes, I think, so I think that institutionally it's over, but

culturally, we are really not

a people that has sort of like learned to use freedom.

And that will take a long time.

It'll take a long time to get an easy freedom of conversation back.

About

things, obvious things that you notice, differences between people and differences between groups.

About anything.

About anything.

Almost anything.

Yeah.

Do you see that changing?

I see it changing.

Do you see it changing?

Yes, I do.

That's interesting.

Yeah.

It feels like the term racist has lost its sting like almost completely.

Yeah.

Well,

I would expect that to happen.

I haven't really gathered any evidence about it.

I mean, for one thing, it's harder to, you know, sue a person when you're, you know, the government has announced that it's not enforcing affirmative action, that kind of thing.

So, I mean, if you can, it used to be that if someone could just, if you could just successfully attach the word racist to a person,

you know,

whether through a lawsuit or

a public relations campaign, no one could hire him.

Do you know what I mean?

It was a real

and it was sort of like it was not as different from the Chinese social credit system, which we liked to deplore, as we like to think.

And that is no longer true?

Yes,

I think that is no longer true.

I think it's no longer true that institutionally you can destroy a person with that kind of imputation.

However, it may become true again, depending on what happens in the next election.

So people are wary.

And I also think that people, we're not the sort of people that is comfortable going out on a limb anymore.

We've become a very conversationally cautious.

people or at least anyone who's like lived the last several decades in this country, you acquire habits.

I mean, I think that you can't expect

a person who's had these very self-protective habits beaten into him over

decades to give them up in the same way that, you know, like, you know, people who lived through the Depression maintained their habits of frugality for 60 years after that.

Yeah.

I remember when banks introduced ATM cards, they couldn't get people who grew up during the Depression to use them.

Well, that's a very good analogy.

Because it was just too spooky.

You know?

Do you remember a country where people spoke freely in conversation?

Do you have memories of that?

I remember one where people spoke more frequently, more freely.

I remember, and in fact, I went to college in the 1980s.

I think it was pretty free.

And actually, when people describe the

first

really mention in the wider public of so-called political correctness was, I think, in the winter of 1990 to 1991.

Yes.

And shortly thereafter, you know, you had the Clarence Thomas

hearings for the Supreme Court, which introduced the idea of sexual harassment.

And I got the feeling that things were changing very

quickly right then.

There were a couple of incidents

then.

And one that I remember very clearly was

there was

a Dodgers,

an executive for the Los Angeles Dodgers named Al Campanis, who got invited on

Ted Coppel's show Nightline to talk about Jackie Robinson 40 years after

he'd entered the

big leagues.

And Al Campanis had been,

you know, he was, he was, not only was he not a racist, he was, he had been Jackie Robinson's roommate and he was one of his defenders.

He was great, but he said a few things kind of the wrong way.

You know, like he gave a wrong answer to the question of why aren't more blacks managers?

And he was ruined.

He was ruined.

This is a guy who had like fought to bring Jackie Robinson into the major leagues.

But I mean, you know, you had, he lost his job.

And I remember Maxine Waters, who was the,

who was already in, I don't think she was yet in Congress, actually, but she was a very active in California politics already.

So she wanted to be sure that he wasn't, you know, secretly being given any benefits by the Dodgers of any kind.

And I mean, it was just like, he was just destroyed.

This kindly old man who had been a friend of Jackie Robinson's.

And it was

clearly something was something was happening there.

And I think that what was happening is that these enforcement possibilities, which are in the Civil Rights Act, that

lawyers were getting

were getting more adept at using them for a growing number of things, like saying, well, of course you have freedom of speech, but if you say that in the company you own, you will create a hostile environment for your employees, and therefore they'll be able to sue you for this much money.

So basically,

without banning speech, you were able to make speech very uncomfortable for people.

Did that just play out?

I mean, is it just impossible for people to live this way forever and people just decide?

No, it didn't play out.

It had to be rebelled against.

And the and the

removal, the lifting of the executive orders

that order affirmative action by Trump was an absolutely necessary step.

The decision not to enforce affirmative action

was a necessary step.

By the way,

it was preceded by a Supreme Court case that appeared in its mealy-mouthed way to say negative things about affirmative action programs in universities.

But it's clear that universities

were proceeding as best they could to maintain it.

So, no, it does not play out.

It's

this affirmative action, political correctness woke this whole constellation of authoritarian and even totalitarian seeming rules.

They are rules.

They are not part of the culture.

They are not the result of, you know, a lot of people deciding we really ought to be nicer to trans people.

They are enforced by the fact that if you fall afoul of these

of,

you know, of civil rights laws, it can cost you your business and your reputation and everything else.

What's the real purpose of them?

I sense that social justice is not actually

the goal.

Well,

no,

and I should add that

this is just a,

well,

let's deal with this.

I think that solving the age-old race problem in the United States was the original goal of civil rights.

But the tools that

were given to solve that problem included ways to overturn

democratically made decisions in the South.

That tool, that ability to circumvent a democratic mandate from the American people, from any people, is such a valuable valuable thing for politicians to have.

And so they started using it for everything.

As I say, you know,

underrepresentation of women, underrepresentation of immigrants, underrepresentation of Hispanics, all these things become...

become crises.

And social justice actually was the name that was given to this.

But it was always, and you can call it anything you want, but it always was a way of

using the government to sort of order society.

And that's, and the danger of it was that you could do that at a really, really micro level.

You know, I mean, you can do it at the level of like what signs people hang in the doors of their shops.

You know, and so it became kind of like the world that, you know, Václav Havel describes in his,

and that's why everyone started reading Václav Havel and Alexander solzhanitsyn again because our society felt like those eastern european societies at the time of no it was it was it was soviet it was totalitarian i mean in this in the strict sense it was that's right total control over people's lives yeah i like the to to draw the distinction that that hannah arendt does at one point a lot of people use totalitarianism to mean like a really, you know, I mean, Mussolini originally used it to mean, you know, like the state can, you know, like can be all competent.

And a lot of people in our time use it to mean like a really, really, really bad dictatorship.

But the way Hannah Arendt uses it

means like the state gets into the totalitary,

the totality of your

life.

It doesn't have to be a lot of time.

Right.

There's no nook of your life

that the state, where the state does not belong.

The state wants to be at your dinner table, you know what I mean?

And listening in on you.

You know, the state wants to be, you know, on your route to work and make sure, you know, the state wants to be everywhere with you in everything you do.

Can we go back to that?

So you said that this was not organic.

The population never cried out for total control of its personal conversations or anything else.

It was imposed on the population by the state.

Now it's been rolled back by the state,

run by Donald Trump.

but can it be reimposed would people put like could president alexandria casio-cortez be like

you know my goal as president is gonna be to eliminate racism wouldn't people just laugh at her yes um but there there might be a confrontation i mean as long as trump hasn't um

you know removed these laws from the books which he hasn't um he's merely sort of like suspended the enforcement of them and he's unwritten some executive orders which can be re you know reissued i mean it's it's a reprieve so the interesting thing would be what would happen if you know how would the the public respond with you know four

years of living more freely if those freedoms were suddenly withdrawn and this includes you mentioned young people this includes people you know who've had who've never had any experience of of having political sent politically correct censorship at work or that sort of thing.

And I don't know.

You were saying last night at dinner that people often say the Democratic Party, when it takes power again, as it will at some point, will be a lot more radical.

But you were saying maybe that's not correct.

I don't know what they will have the capacity to do.

You know, I don't, you know, you say, well, you know, how will people respond if President Ocasio-Cortez says, you know, we're going to have, you know, affirmative action and Drag Queen Story Hour again?

I just don't know.

But I do, yes, I do think the Democratic Party

is probably

going to,

you know, it's going to find something to, you know, some way to radicalize.

At what point do economic debates like re-emerge?

I notice we've, you know, as we've been talking about Drag Queen Story Hour and race and sexuality and all this stuff, there's been, in a way that would have been weird 40 years ago, but almost no conversation of like macroeconomics in public.

Like all the oxygen's taken up by that, this, the political correctness stuff.

Yeah, and I think it's a very welcome thing that economics is coming back.

You hear a bit of it when we talk about the tariffs, you know.

A very interesting, I mean, but Trump is, um, Trump has really confounded a lot of the

categories.

I think that

everyone has the habit of like saying, you know, talking about tax cuts for the rich and

all that kind of thing.

To

tie this to what we've been saying with immigration, immigration is a very important part of this economic

question.

Trump, an interesting thing about Trump's first term is that as best we can measure it, it was a highly egalitarian period.

And

we really only have accurate, undistorted numbers for the first three years of it because the final year of it was COVID.

But it really appeared that

the bottom quintile of

earners advanced against other quintiles for the first time since the 20th century.

And I, you know.

Really?

Yes, yes.

And this is in

the Fed's numbers that came out towards the end of the Trump administration.

If you look at total economic performance, like the way we tend to measure it, okay, we tend to measure it by the mean, that is the GDP per capita.

Economic performance was much better, or it was better under the Obama administration than it was under Trump.

The economy grew more.

However, if you look at the distribution of it,

there were far lower gains for the very rich under Trump.

But there were relative gains for the people.

There were absolute gains, let us say, for the people in the lower quintiles.

I think the four bottom quintiles did quite well under Trump.

And that

his voters benefited, is what you're saying.

Exactly.

Okay.

So there's, I mean, it's hard to say why that happened.

I think immigration did go down, but mostly immigration was talked down.

Okay.

When you have high immigration, high immigration is like a direct transfer payment from

those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants.

But

that's, you know, that's interesting.

Yeah, immigration really is a transfer of wealth to the rich.

Yeah.

So when we talk about Trump and immigration, that's that that's, I think, an important thing to keep in mind.

Um

and and and that is why

a lot of people were really surprised by the shift in votes

among particularly among black and Hispanic males to Trump in 2024.

And people have sought to explain it through these cultural

factors that we've been discussing earlier today.

Oh, it was a Trump's

endorsement by this rap hip-hop star or whatever.

But I think it might just be that people, you know, people at that part of the economy, you know, who tend to be, you know,

that benefited from Trump one,

tend to be disproportionately black and Hispanic.

And it might just be a direct, a case of, of, of people people just devoting their direct economic interests.

It's a little weird if you go through the Congressional Black Caucus,

certainly among the people whose names you've heard, like the famous black political leaders in this country, they're all for open borders.

Huh.

Well, I think that that is largely

intersectionality.

And, you know, people talk about, people in

in

universities talk about intersectionality like it's a theory about you know the how you know um

different types of lack of privilege intersect like you know am i am i more um discriminated against because i'm a black woman or because i'm a lesbian and and that kind of thing um or because i'm foreign or whatever but actually what intersectionality is you've you you've used the term on your show but i what i think it really is is just coalition building the civil rights regime created a

a system in which you

um

you could do almost anything you wanted a minority could do almost anything that he wanted with government you could do almost anything you wanted with government in the name of minorities but minorities remained minorities you couldn't get the the majority to do that.

So what happens is minorities wind up make the beneficiaries of minority government wind up making making an alliance.

You know, you can't vote against immigration because you're a woman and women's rights are immigrant rights and immigrant rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights and they're all wrapped up together.

And that's where the, you know, like the much mocked non-sequiturs of intersectionality come from, like, like gays for Gaza and

that kind of thing.

That's my favorite.

Yeah.

So.

But really, you're just describing the Democratic Party.

This is just like theoretical overlay to justify retroactively a coalition.

The Democratic Party is the party of the

beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Democratic Party is the party of beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And the Republican Party is the party of the victims of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Or those who have objections to it on, you know, I mean, if you count among the victims, those who feel their liberties constrained by it.

Yeah.

I would say curtailing someone's liberty is to hurt somebody.

Yeah.

Interesting.

Does that change?

Well, as I say, I think it's

in abeyance now.

But, um, but you know, to if if I could say another thing about

immigration and the economy, there is a kind of a longer term

there is a kind of a longer term

process sort of working itself out as we create this

as we create through border enforcement, a tightening of the labor market on the bottom of the income distribution.

It should do some very good things for the country.

If you believe, as I think you probably should believe, that inequality is one of the biggest problems confronting the country, it's going to alleviate that somewhat, but it's going to do it in a kind of a, it's going to do it in a way that is going to hurt in places.

I think people are right.

I mean, I think those economists who say that

immigration, that curtailing immigration is inflationary, are right.

And it's inflationary in a lot of ways that affect the, not just the upper middle class, but also the middle class lifestyle.

Like the great proliferation of

really nice restaurants.

The idea that, you know, when this experiment in mass immigration in a nearly open border, you know, with Mexico began

in the 1970s, there weren't a dozen sushi restaurants in pittsburgh you know i mean people didn't there were no sushi pitts

restaurants in pittsburgh this stuff we tend to think that that this is that these amenities have developed because of our you know improving taste that we're just so much more discerning than our parents were but the difference i think is this source of

of of just

plentiful, bountiful, really cheap labor for people who can

work in back kitchens and things like that.

So, just notice when I worked in a restaurant as a dishwasher 40 years ago, this summer, it was a diner in New England.

Everyone was white in the kitchen.

Everybody.

Everyone had a criminal record.

Everyone was white.

That's interesting.

But so

when you tighten up that labor market and suddenly you have to pay your dishwasher a dollar more, $2 more, $3 more,

the meals in your restaurant are going to get more expensive.

So there aren't going to be, you know, like sandwiches, gourmet sandwiches for $11.99 anymore.

They're going to be like $28.99, you know?

And people are going to say,

I'm going to bring my sandwich to work, you know, I'm going to, and, and then the restaurant is going to close.

And the country is going to become much more like it was, like what you saw the tail end of in your diner in New England.

It's going to have crummier food.

It's going to have, you know, things are going to, there's going to be a lot more sameness.

That's what the world of

a low immigration, less free market,

where there's less of a free market in labor.

That's what a society like that looks like.

The working class gets richer.

They move towards the middle.

Everyone gravitates towards the middle class, right?

And institutions, economic institutions begin to serve the middle class.

That is, you have

a shrinking of gourmet restaurants and

a concentration of restaurants in the middle of, you know, the middle of the road category.

So the middle class was the dominant,

you know, was the dominant

portion of the country.

It was a majority middle class country up until I think 2015.

And did that change?

And then the middle class is no longer the majority.

Is that because of immigration?

It has a lot to do with immigration.

Yes, globalization and immigration.

And

I mean, I think people tend not to mention

immigration.

I mean, people tend to say it's a mix of globalization, that is free trade,

and technology.

But I think that the most important part of globalization is immigration.

Why is it the most important?

I mean, it has affected those changes.

George Borjas, the Harvard economist, has said that, you know, immigration, people always talk about, you know, is immigration good for the economy or bad for the economy?

And basically, whenever you measure it, it's tough to get an effect on the economy that's more than like 1%.

It's so trivial.

I mean, but what the huge effect is, which is like dozens of times larger than the effect on the economy as a whole, whole is the transfer effect.

The sort of loss of jobs by people who need $15 an hour to wash dishes to those who will do it for $8 an hour, okay?

And the benefit to people who used to be paying their gardener, you know, $30 an hour, but now find it can be done for $6 an hour.

Or more likely, they pay a guy who's got a team on his truck and they pay him, you know, $30 an hour and let him sort out how this is done.

And he does it much quicker and they save money.

You see what I mean?

I do.

So it becomes a, it becomes a transfer from the, from the working class.

So it doesn't necessarily expand.

I think what you're saying is it doesn't necessarily expand your economy, but it just makes the rich richer.

I think so.

So that would explain why rich people, these are broad strokes, but in general, hate any conversation about immigration, immediately go to motive, you're a racist, and just aren't at all interested in talking about it at all, and why working class people really resent it.

There may be other reasons too, but that seems like a big reason.

Yes, those are broad strokes, but I think they're roughly accurate.

There's a,

you know,

there's a French sociologist named Christophe Gilouilly who's written books about how this has worked in France, and his thinking has really clarified mine on this.

But you know, you basically in France, you have 20 cities that are like nodes of the global economy.

And they like, you know, like in

Toulouse, you have Airbus and where there, you know, where there are engineers and executives at Airbus, they have, you know, you know, African gardeners and there are nannies and there are all sorts of people there.

It's a global economy niche.

When you get out into the countryside, none of that stuff stuff touches anything.

It's basically people, the economy consists of like returning, you know, cans to the, you know, to the grocery store.

This explains why, you know, if you live in a place like Washington, D.C.

or Berkeley, California, and

or Boston, people are like sincerely puzzled.

They say like, how did Trump win?

I don't know anyone who voted for him, you know, and they say, they'll say something like, no, really.

I've talked to people of all classes.

I didn't vote for him.

My mother didn't vote for him.

My nanny,

from Jamaica didn't, who's not naturalized and can vote.

She didn't vote for him.

And the answer is

the dividing line

is not between rich and poor.

It's between the beneficiaries of and the excluded from the global economy, right?

That's the dividing line in the politics.

So when you give up open borders, you're really giving up like a whole way of life.

You give up the solidarity between classes in your country.

Huh.

What does that mean?

I don't know.

As soon as I said it, I realized that you could look at it in a separate, in a different way.

I mean,

you give up a dynamic that brings the classes close together, you know, which is that

the ability of

working-class people to withhold their labor for more money.

You know what I mean?

You undercut that.

They become,

it's why trade unions, when they were actual industrial unions and not arms of the Democratic Party, you know,

were, you know, they equated immigrant labor with scab labor.

That was

behind the immigration restrictions of the 1960s.

So

um, so you give up that dynamic, you know.

Um, it's but it's very tempting.

You know, it's there, there are other ways to look at it, but yeah, I think that's basically that's basically the best way to look at it.

Will China ever decide, um, is it as its you know economy matures and it and cools inevitably

that it needs mass immigration to China?

Um, you know,

I don't know much about China.

I know, I know a little more about, about Japanese, you know,

China's had a tremendous amount of internal labor migration, which it is just, which is just about to come to the end of.

And, and, and so its labor costs are going to rise.

Um, I don't know how it's going to react.

It's very interesting that Japan has chosen,

you know, a tightening economy over a diversifying society.

That is, they've kept out immigrant labor for the most part.

And where they've admitted it, they've tended to do it on a temporary basis.

You know, you get a few Filipino nannies and they send them home at the end of

their term.

The only mass migration they've had in the last 100 years has been from Korea,

which they controlled until 1945.

And then the the Koreans who stayed kind of pretend they're Japanese.

Yes.

So, you know, I think that, you know, and how's that trade worked for them?

I think it's worked well for them.

I mean, I think it's worked for them.

I mean, the United States is constantly,

the United States has brought tremendous pressure on Japan to admit immigrants.

And this is one of the things that I find exactly.

This is one of the things I find quite mysterious.

But if you look at the pressure that the United States, this is one of the things that I think that USAID did.

I mean, it's sort of an ideological arm of the country.

But if you look at not just programs,

but people in the United States, diplomatic or in the State Department, were always sort of like browbeating

Victor Orban in Europe, for instance,

for not being more welcoming.

of immigrants.

But so I think we're at the point now where we're in a moment of transition.

But

you know, Japan is

deeply in debt.

I believe they have the largest per capita debt in the world, although it is all to themselves, you know, so it's the it's debt to the, so it's, it should be, it should be workable.

But there's still a Japan.

And, you know, as we've discussed,

Japan decided that it valued its

cultural continuity more than European countries did.

And so Japan, if you go there, you'll discover is still,

I think, the Japan that people who went there 20 or 30 years ago remember it as.

So that, I mean, they seem like the only smart country, like in the world, because that does seem, no one's starving in Japan.

Actually, Japan is infinitely nicer than New York, for example.

Sorry.

Tokyo is.

And even though it's bigger and more crowded.

Yeah.

And I just wonder, like, is that

like that just that just seems like the greatest win to me?

I, well, I, well, they, they think so because they continue to, they continue to keep this policy.

And, and there's not a lot of, um,

there's not a lot of agitation for

changing it, you know, but

I don't, I don't, I don't know.

It's been a few years since I've been there.

Last question.

Are you hopeful about the United States?

Yeah,

you know, but I'm not sure that's saying much.

I tend to want to be hopeful.

And

the United States has some

tremendous strengths.

The United States is something has happened since the, I'm using Europe, which I think is the best, you know,

frame of comparison here.

The United States has got a lot richer than Europe in the last 15 years.

I don't know why that's happened.

The two societies seem to be converging up until roughly the time of the

financial crisis of 2008 and then the Euro crisis that followed it.

And since then, the United States has peeled away by like, I don't know,

20 or 25% from European standards of living.

So it's it's richer.

It seems to have a

it seems to be in a period of democratic ebullition.

I mean, that is the the

the

the populace is engaged.

This doesn't mean that, you know, they've made a right choice with Donald Trump or that he's always going to

do the right thing, but uh

but the the the the the public is kind of vigilant vigilant and

it is reforming the country.

And

we've reformed before.

So

I'm relatively optimistic.

I am too.

And you make me feel optimistic.

Christopher Caldwell, thank you very much.

Thank you, Tucker.

We want to thank you for watching us on Spotify, a company that we use every day.

We know the people who run it, good people.

While you're here, do us a favor, hit, follow, and tap the bell so you never miss an episode.

We have real conversations, news, things that actually matter.

Telling the truth always, you will not miss it if you follow us on Spotify and hit the bell.

We appreciate it.

Thanks for watching.