Tyranny EXPERT issues EXPLOSIVE Trump warning

[00:00:00]I'm joined now by historian and author of the book that I'm sure most people have heard of and that is on tyranny and the author of the newer book from 2024 on freedom Tim Snyder. Thanks so much for coming on. I I want to start off with this because you know you are one of the foremost experts on this idea and so I this is a this is a big question to begin with but in your exploration of of tyranny and autocracies in other countries and then looking to what we have here in the United States to what extent do you think what we have here in the US right now is salvageable >> I don't think it's salvageable at all I I I think we're beyond the point where reform or rescue you or even healing is the right way to think about this. I think if the US is going to make it through this, what we're going to have to have is rather something like a new beginning. I I think just as a like as a matter of practical politics, there aren't any reference points in the recent past which most Americans find acceptable or interesting. I think the task after Trump or rather at late Trump is to define what a better American America will look like. So that's that's that's how I I see it. It's not about salvaging something. It's about a pretty drastic rethinking.

[00:01:12]>> Okay. So, let me let me ask a little bit of a different iteration on that question then because people are going to be watching the extent to which the administration attacks um the very concept of democracy on a daily basis.

[00:01:24]The extent to which uh Congress, Republican le Congress is willing to allow him to do that. The extent to which uh the Republican le judiciary, the Supreme Court is also willing to be an active participant in this whole scheme. And so to what extent do you think that democracy in this country maybe it looks different uh in the aftermath of Trump as we were just talking about but the very idea of democracy persisting is salvageable.

[00:01:50]>> Nope. Not at all. Can't persist has to be remade. It's so we are where we are not just because of Trump but because of prior mistakes that we made as a people.

[00:02:02]And Trump has brought to a point several things that were already wrong with the United States. And if we're going to get out of those, if we're going to get out of Trump, we were going to have to, for example, get money out of politics because there's a reason why Trump's line that everybody is corrupt and I'm just honest about it. There's a reason why that works. And the reason why it works has to be dealt with. Um, if we're going to win this election, it's not going to be by way of conventional means. It's not just going to be because, okay, there's going to be a normal election. People going to show up and vote. If we win a meaningful sense, it's going to be because there's an abnormal, historically speaking, abnormal big coalition between center right and far left. It's going to be because there's enough protest potential that those who want to throw the elections are going to be deterred from doing so. And to win in a meaningful sense, the political party that wins, the Democrats, are going to have to recognize that they didn't win just because Trump lost, but they won because people were angry and because and and that that anger has to be transformed into something positive right away. So I I'm sorry if I sound pedantic, but I I think any notion of persistence um is also not helpful because too much is already gone mentally, psychologically, institutionally, legally, too much is already gone um for us to be thinking about persisting or remaining or showing resilience. It has to be more about a stunning demoralizing defeat for Trump and the people around him and a creative impulse that pushes us towards something that's much better than we think could happen. Well, so that's that's basically this idea of like accelerationism and just tearing everything down um so that something new can be built in its place.

[00:03:37]I mean, politics for so long has been focused on the complete opposite on incrementalism. It's like, okay, we can't get Medicare for all, which Obama has has been, you know, um on record saying was the was the initial hope uh for for um the ACA. Obviously without enough support it kind of devolved into um the more incremental approach that that it that it turned that the ACA Obamacare turned into. Um but but this country has been pretty resistant to to sweeping changes in kind of the more modern era um at least until Trump. I mean it's been so difficult to get anything done. whether it's Medicare for all, whether it's uh a more just tax system, um big sweeping infrastructure reforms, like it is so difficult to do things in this country. Um and so I guess the question is, do you think that there is an appetite now for some of these big sweeping changes um that people have been been angling to see for so long but always feel like we just cannot get done?

[00:04:38]>> Yeah. I mean, I think the American population on most of the things that you're talking about is much more radical than either of the political parties. I think mo if you put the question the right way, most people, including a lot of Republicans, are in favor of a good deal of wealth redistribution. Most people, including a lot of Republicans, are in favor of rich people paying taxes, which is not the current American policy. Um, most people, including a lot of Republicans, are in favor of education and health care being run by people for people rather than being run by machines for um, a few individuals to make a lot of money. And the list is pretty long. Um, most people are in favor of decent public schools and are against vouchers.

[00:05:17]Like there's a long list of issues where there's a pretty deep consensus and it's not the people, it's not public opinion, but it's rather the structures themselves. And so if you are coming out of a victory in November, you have to be at least ready to talk about changing the structures themselves. And then if you have a majority in both houses in the presidency in 28, you know, assuming we get that far, you have to be willing to change the structure themselves because I agree with you, the structures are not responsive and that's very demoralizing and it's one of the things that went wrong for the Biden people, right? like their some of their policies were quite ambitious and they actually passed some ambitious stuff. But even when they passed it, the consequences weren't felt until three or four or five years later.

[00:05:58]>> I mean, that's that's like the the the standard Democratic response to some of this stuff is like, okay, we're going to implement what we can even on healthcare and we'll make sure that it that it hits eight years down the road where it's basically scientifically engineered so that the party in power can ever get credit for it. it's not felt by people and therefore um the war can't continue because because you know by then the parties have turned over and you have you know Trump that's run rough shot over everything.

[00:06:27]I mean my like back at back in the day these are now old these are now old references but when Obama won and the Democrats had both houses I thought on day one they should pass a law saying we are going to offer health care for Americans on the model of the health care that people in Congress have end of story right like how could that be resisted um and and if they had done that I think they would have you know it'd be over but instead we had debates and we gave the other side a And so I want to pause on one point which is that a lot of this is about power and not expecting history to go your way. So you know the thing where Obama paraphrases you know was it Martin Luther King the idea that like the arc of history is long but it bends toward justice 100% not true. History does not have a single arc and it doesn't bend and justice is justice is something that you fight for. I mean, not that Martin Luther King didn't know that or do it, but I it's but the notion that history is somehow on your side and that if you can just somehow correct the parameters a little bit, then the juices of history will flow the right way. The Democrats have got to get out of that. That's just not the way things work. One of the things they have to learn from Trump is that power matters and when you have the levers of power, you have to use them in the short term that in the time that you have. And to pick up one of your points, they have to be more aggressive about using government agencies and about making government agencies work faster.

[00:07:51]Um, you there's a way that Obama and Biden fell in love with the procedures themselves and like praise themselves for following all the procedures, but like the procedures are actually there to get things done and not to prevent things from from from getting done.

[00:08:04]Third thing um there has to be coming out of November there has to be a trajectory which indicates that transformative action is possible and I think that begins practically with investigation and prosecution of some of the very soft target corrupt people around the president of the United States because if you do that you're showing that you actually care that that you're capable of some form of directed action but also you're bringing closer to the center of the conversation issues like corruption and bribery and wealth inequality. quality, which when you have real power, you can then pursue. But if you don't have some kind of thing that you're planning to do right after January with your majority that s that signals that you're different, that you're not corrupt, that you aren't just controlled like the other party is, um then you're going to have trouble down the line.

[00:08:50]>> You know, I I um I have a book coming out in about a month called The Day After. And in that book, it's it's all about this idea of power and how Republicans have abused it, how Democrats have been too afraid to wield it, and finally, what Democrats can and must do if they're fortunate enough to get power back. But one theme that I talk about is that exact idea of Democrats are in power and there seems to be this automatic difference paid to the institutions and not to the outcomes. And so there's this focus on, okay, well, we're here in, you know, [clears throat] in government. And so now we have to pay homage constantly to the filibuster and the parliamentarian and uh norms and and and processes as opposed to just saying these things are there in theory to actually um to actually achieve some outcomes. But but that gets lost like we we lose the forest for the trees at some point in the process and it and it just becomes well now we have to defend the filibuster because without the filibuster all hell will break loose and if that means we can't get anything done on the governing side so be it so long as our precious filibuster is still intact.

[00:09:54]>> Yeah. I mean I there's a there's a structural explanation for this which I'm going to give like out of empathy um but also because I think it's true. A comparison would be the 20s and 30s in Germany and the social democratic party in Germany which was a bit like our democrats like the social democratic party in principle was about the future but because of the existence of the Nazis they had to defend the status quo right and so then they get caught in this position where hey in principle we'd like to make the future better but for the time being we've got to defend things exactly the way they are because look there are the Nazis right and I just want to say that's a psych logically understandable position to be in and that you know two proposing god day right like that's the position our democrats have been in since tea party basically where the the republicans have got them trapped because the republicans say hey we're radical we could like throw the baby out with the bathwater any day now and so it's your job to protect the bathwater right and so then the Democrats the Democrats buy this and they say okay the Republicans could destroy everything it's our job to protect the bathwater the whole time and that's kind of comfortable because you feel like you're doing the right thing you know the procedures the status quo D, but before you know it, you're in a rut and you've forgotten that you were supposed to be the party of the future.

[00:11:08]And so now we've reached a critical point where you can't say, "I'm defending the status quo cuz nobody believes in the status quo. The status quo is dead, right? Nobody believes in it." And so you can't, you know, you some of the Democratic party is not where I am on this obviously, but you can't say that because everybody will hate you if you do. And so you have no choice but to jump over your own shadow and say, "All right, we're the party of the future again. we're going to do radical stuff.

[00:11:33]>> You know, you had described a lot of these um popular policy positions, taxing the wealthy, um making sure that health care is actually affordable. Um you know, the the list goes on and on of what Americans would like to see. And it strikes me that a lot of these positions, if not most or all of these positions, are positions that Democrats have historically espoused. Like it is not popular to heap, you know, tens of tens of billions of dollars every year in in subsidies to fossil fuel companies. It's not popular to deny the existence of climate change. It's not popular to strip healthcare away from people, to strip food assistance away from people, uh to gut public education.

[00:12:10]And yet those are the things that they do constantly. And so it would lend itself to reason that when you have one party espousing these egregiously unpopular policies and the other side who is on, you know, the other side of that issue that the de facto the default position would be that more people would flock to Democrats. And so is it just a testament to the rank incompetence of the Democratic party that even when all of these issues are on their side, they can't seem uh to have to to to win elections and and to find themselves in the majority in any uh part of government right now?

[00:12:42]Um, so again, I'm going to be a little I'm going to be a little empathetic because we don't live in a country where um this the playing field is level, right? So the the the media playing field in my view anyway is wildly right-wing in a way that distorts these conversations in a fundamental way. And so the the notion that we should that we all that we should have better health care, people agree with that. But if I say healthcare is a right, so much ideological work has been done for so long across so many popular media channels that that position is going to bump up against a lot of resistance. It shouldn't in my view like healthcare is clearly a right. Um and we could start from there. So the but the the the media playing field isn't level and the wealth playing field is also not level that it's so there there are entrenched interests who are working for the things like you know fossil fuels is a classic example. It's one of the wildest things that one can do to invest in fossil fuels right now because it's going to literally destroy the the basics of the world that we take for granted. And yet we're doing it but largely because there's a lot of money to be made there and and our politics and this is where I want to land because it's an issue that everybody agrees on that really has to be done. Our politics is not insulated from money. It's just not I mean like from Canada where I'm sitting now or from Europe or from other democracies it's just bizarre the degree to which money penetrates our politics. And so what I where I would where I would land is to say if we had the dark money out of politics, if our campaigns are public finance and so on, I think the party that's called the Democrats would win everything because your argument would then hold. But that's not the system that we're we're living in. And so the Democrats have to bite the bullet. And some of them are thinking along these lines and say if we ever have power, we're going to get the money out of politics even though it'll make our lives a little more complicated, too.

[00:14:40]We're just going to do it. we're going to be the party that leads that, right?

[00:14:43]Because if you don't do that, it it ultim ultimately things are going to get clogged up because it's not just bureaucracy. It's also special interests. It's wellunded campaigns.

[00:14:51]It's big companies that are holding things back. We we have seen instances where Democrats have tried to um practice good governance in the past. I I think in that instance it's important not just to try and lead by example but to make sure that it applies to everybody because for example as we look at redistricting and gerrymandering we have these Democratic weapons so to speak of California of of New York where these independent redistricting commissions are in place and yet because it's not a national standard um it's allowed the Republicans to gain a huge edge on on blue states because while we're practicing good governance and making sure that everybody has fair districts and all of these places where we could garner a lot of a huge advantage. Instead, you look at places like Texas that just has gerrymandered maps on top of gerrymandered maps. You look at places like Florida. Again, same deal. Jerrymandered maps on top of jerrymandered maps. And so in these instances where Democrats do try to practice good governance, I think that the fatal flaw that they um incur here is that they do it by thinking if we just do it ourselves, we'll set a good example and we'll be rewarded by the people for that. Not recognizing that when you put yourself at that disadvantage, the disadvantage in and of itself is going to be crippling for you.

[00:16:05]you're not going to win because the other party is not going to be interested in playing by the rules and they're going to take they're going to squeeze every benefit they can out of that asymmetry.

[00:16:16]So, I want to push this in a slightly different direction because while I agree with you about all of that and I would add the point that there's been a lack of long-term thinking, the factors that you're talking about have to do with Republican control of state Republican control of state houses, which was a long-term project which they successfully implemented. The Republicans understood the necessity of appreciating our the federal character of our system and they invested in financial resources in getting state houses and state houses control elections, not just state elections, right? And so that that was a project of theirs which was not seen and not and not and not answered. So I would add that to the list of of of grievances or problems. That said, I want to I want to add that um the Democrats are who they are right now and I don't expect them to change without people inviting them to change, right? So, I mean, I look I look forward to your book, but the it's it's it's a matter not just of showing like their internal contradictions and their and their weaknesses. It's a matter of pushing them. And I think the elections in November, if they're going to work out, have to be a matter of people pushing the Democrats towards more radical positions. Um the that's where I think the whole thing hangs because if if they win in November and they say, "Oh, we won." That's because everything we've done so far has been okay and now we'll make a few gestures about affordability, then I think we're really in trouble.

[00:17:49]Like that's the thing that I fear the most because then the Democratic Party fails to function and we don't have any viable political parties. So, I think the thing that we have to think about in November is not are the Democrats going to win. In my view, they're going to win. What we have to think about is what they do with that victory and whether they take drastic radical steps afterwards which will tell people they have in mind something significant that they're going to do down the road. And what I'm trying to say is we can't we're not going to get them there just by debating. They they have to be gotten there by um massive voter turnout, by demonstrations, by other organizations who are making these arguments. They're being who they are in in in June 2026.

[00:18:32]They're not going to get there on their own. I I I completely agree and I I think um I think a this moment right here is the moment to h have that argument to let them know so that we don't waste time doing what I think would be the would be the the default reaction which is okay now that we have power we can start doing commissions. We can start really giving this a good think. We can try and convince ourselves by having you know all of our teams go out and do and do their meetings and come back in six to eight months with their findings and decide whether we want to implement something. I feel like that's the default position for a lot of Democrats. And I think that you're exactly right by focusing on this stuff now so that if and when we get power again, we don't waste any valuable precious time doawling over it and and talking about it, but rather just doing it is going to be uh is is going to be um crucial here.

[00:19:22]>> I'm going to I'm going to add criminal prosecution. So, >> yes. And and I'm I'm glad you said that and I and I'm I'm sorry to interrupt, but that's actually a great point and I wanted to jump in on this and I want to get your opinion. I'm gonna I'm gonna ask a general general question here and then and then you you you can add on to this, but a lot of what we saw in the aftermath of Trump 1.0 was a return to normaly. I think we can all agree that that didn't I mean it objectively didn't work. Like we we are not more normal.

[00:19:50]there was not some yearning, long-standing desire um to to just go back to the status quo. We also watched as Merrick Garland sat on his hands for most of the the Biden uh administration as opposed to aggressively prosecuting the misconduct from Trump 1.0 and offering something of a deterrent effect. And so, do you think that had Merrick Garland moved quickly and aggressively to take on Trump that we would be in the position that we're in today? And then just more broadly, I just want to hear your your thoughts on the idea of of prosecuting misconduct and corruption as we move forward from what we're seeing right now.

[00:20:31]>> Uh so short answer yes. I mean there are two there are two kinds of conclusions one could draw from the last from those four years. One is that you shouldn't try to prosecute because it's too complicated, you know, and and and and people don't like it per se. And the other is that you should do it and you should just be more determined about it. And I'm definitely in the second camp. I So if you are here's where I think they went wrong at a theoretical level. If you're going to say, "Okay, we're the good guys in the sense that we're the defenders of the rule of law and the Constitution and the Republicans are the wild and crazy people." If that's your position, then you damn well better defend the rule of law and the Constitution when you got a chance. You can't be if you're going to you can't then compromise on that, right? Like that if that's your fall back, that's your bull work, that's where you are, then you got to hold tight to that and not just be like, "Oh, well, you know, things will things will work themselves out."

[00:21:25]>> Otherwise, you just look weak.

[00:21:27]>> Yeah. But also, you you make things you make things worse. I mean, you make it's not neutral. You're make you're you're participating.

[00:21:34]>> I mean, Trump Trump looked at that and got emboldened by virtue of the fact that he was not uh he was not held to account. I mean, there's no doubt that the lawlessness is is multiples levels higher in Trump 2.0 than it was in 1.0.

[00:21:47]And and I'm in the same camp as you. Had action been taken to to hold these people to account um in Trump 1.0, we wouldn't be here. He wouldn't think, "Oh, if if my opponent is this unwilling to hold me to account for what I did the first time, sky's the limit."

[00:22:03]>> Yeah. It's more than that, though, because since he wasn't prosecuted and convicted, he could raise tons of money.

[00:22:09]Since he wasn't prosecuted and convicted, his whole story his whole story is like, "I'm an outlaw. The rules don't apply to me." Right? Oh, well, looks like his story is true because nobody made the rules apply to him in any meaningful >> way. But I'm going to I'm going to add something from outside the US here, which I think is very important.

[00:22:26]We we do know that these democratic small D democratic comebacks are possible. But in in the recent cases where they have succeeded, Poland in 23, Hungary in 26, the person running the campaign said, "I'm going to prosecute the people who have broken the law." And that's a very important message for two reasons. The first is that it communicates to people that you're not in La La Land, that you actually are going to dig into stuff, right? But the second reason is that it deters people from committing more crimes, which is relevant in the US now because whether or not we have a decent election in November depends partly on whether people think it's going to be safe for them to do criminal things on Trump's behalf. And if you're talking about prosecuting, you're giving a re you're giving people a reason not to take part in criminal conspiracies to overthrow the elections in November 2026. So that legal language is there not just out of principle and not just to change, you know, the corrupt practice of the country, but it also has to be there to deter things from happening that could otherwise happen.

[00:23:34]>> Yeah, I think that's an excellent point.

[00:23:36]Um, look, I I know that you are a historian and your job is to is is to um make sense of of how history kind of informs the present. And so, not necessarily your job to make predictions about the future, but in so far as you're comfortable making a prediction, what do you think America looks like in late January of 2029 based on the trajectory that we're on right now?

[00:24:01]>> Um, so about I mean just about predictions, I think historians can be invited to make them as much as anyone else since like everybody else seems to be wrong all the time about everything.

[00:24:10]There's nothing wrong. I mean, right?

[00:24:12]like >> totally think try to think quickly of a political scientist being right about something about the future or you know like anybody um so what I would I mean I don't mean to dodge but what what I think is that we are heading towards an axial moment which is November and that the critical thing is do the Democrats win with a big coalition and are they ready to act afterwards. If that's the case, I think there's a pretty decent chance the American republic survives and um and that there's a decent and we'll have a more or less normal election in 28 and we'll get a decent president. But if if the Democrats win and they don't have an aggressive agenda, um, and they discredit themselves, you know, before they even take power in January, which is all entirely possible, then I think we're in a very bad situation because no matter how unpopular Trump is, if people think, well, he's, you know, he's terrible, but the other side are completely ineffectual. You know, they just won power and they didn't do anything. Um, if the Democrats don't do the things they can do, and this, by the way, is why investigation and corruption are lowhanging fruit because you can seem to be doing something about something people care about, right? So, you go after people who are making money because of Trump. Sure, Trump can pardon them or whatever, or he can veto your legislation, but that just identifies him with the corruption. It creates some daylight between you and him on the corruption issue, which is what you want. So, the Democrats have to go after the low-hanging fruit. They have to do aggressive, obvious things. um they have to announce they're going to do them like the day after the election. If we go that way, then I think we're going to be okay. But if we go the other way where the Democrats, as we've been talking about, say, "Okay, we won forces of history on our side. Now we're just going to like kind of wait till January.

[00:26:00]We're going to pretend everything's normal." Then I think we then I don't I'm my negative scenario is that then the US becomes dysfunctional. Like I'm more worried about the dysfunctionality of the republic than I am about Trump succeeding in some kind of plot to make the whole country authoritarian. That's what he would like. But what I worry about is that if we have Trump levels of dysfunctionality continuing um and no effective resistance inside Washington DC will be in a different national conversation which will be more about why am I paying taxes at all for this? Why am I involved at all in this?

[00:26:36]That's that's my negative scenario for 2027 2028 is that Americans like Trump keeps doing worse things. He he does things that don't work. He tries to use the military in politics. It doesn't work. But the fact that it doesn't work doesn't mean that people like America more. They just sort of throw up their hands and say, "Well, okay, why are we in this thing?" Right? That's that's what I worry about. That's my negative scenario.

[00:26:59]>> Yeah. I think the when we see mass disillusionment kind of along the lines that we saw in 2028 and beyond, when we see this kind of mass uh disillusionment, I think the parties that that are going to lean into that are parties that exhibit autocratic behavior. And that's and you know the fact that Trump won again in an era of such disillusionment already is a testament to exactly that. I want to finish off with one question um international and you had mentioned Hungary in in uh this year. Was that a surprising development for you um to see and how unorthodox in a historical context is watching an illiberal state like Hungary was um turn into what I presume will be a much more liberal democracy.

[00:27:44]I want to remark before answering that question that it's not just a comparison that Hungary and the US overlap. Like there's a reason why Trump and Trump Jr.

[00:27:57]and Vance etc all wrote love letters to Orban or in Vance's case actually went to Budapest and told Hungarians that God needed them to vote for Orban. Um, there's a reason why they did that and that is because they all belong to a transnational network of the far right which shares money and memes. It's mostly Russian money which was filtered through Hungary and now that's going to stop. But I I make this point because we I think we fail often to see how cosmopolitan or how international the far right is that the stuff that Trump is doing none of almost none of it's original. It's mostly laundered Orban stuff or or some of it's laundered Putin stuff. None of it's original. And like in that sense, these guys are they're not like they're they're not American in that sense. Like they they believe that they belong to a kind of international oligarchy and that's how they act and then they pretend that okay, this is all somehow about American nationalism or whatever. So I just want to make that point that before we get to the lessons that Democrats might draw, we should note that the fact that Hungary lost that that Orban lost in Hungary isn't just it's a sign that democratic oppositions can work, but also it was a body blow to the Trump people. Like it was it's for them it was an important moment marking their own decline. Um and we should notice that we should notice that that was a huge loss from their point of view of their guy. On the positive side, it's not unusual. It doesn't always happen, but it's not unusual for there to be democratic comebacks. And it's a very pertinent question. Um, David Shimemer wrote a really good op-ed about this in the New York Times about a year ago now. Um, there's there's scholarly literature on this about how democratic comebacks happen. And I think, you know, since we're Americans, it can help sometimes to look back and sort of take a broader view of this stuff. Democratic comebacks depend upon number one you have to have a big coalition from center right to far left which means that you've got to get along with people who you might not agree with about everything and you have to do it in practice like in demonstrations in organizing and stuff not just in theory second so that that is what you need you need that thing if you can't have that thing so it's like the way these things work it's center right to far left plus like some sponsors against for against foreign oligarchs, native billionaires, and the far right. I mean, I put it in a very primitive way, but like that is the clash and you can only win that clash if you can hold that coalition together.

[00:30:31]Second thing is personal politics really matter. In both Poland and Hungary, the guy who ended up winning the campaign spent a huge amount of time actually engaging human beings. So America is a big country and it's harder, but there's still a lesson there, which is that if you go out and actually talk to people, you'll learn stuff and you'll learn how to talk to people in a way that maybe not all of our li our leading Democrats have. And the final thing is you have to have a strong message and stick to it as the leader of the coalition or the political party. It doesn't matter even so much exactly what the message is, but you have to not be boxed in as the opposition. You have to have your own affirmative message. And that affirmative message tends to involve how we're going to prosecute people. It tends to involve like a willingness to assert that you're going to use power when you when you get power because people respect that and listen to it.

[00:31:27]Like being against is not enough. In order for that coalition to actually get across the finish line, there has to be somebody who at the end of the day says, "I am positively going to do these things and it's going to have costs for the other side when I do these things."

[00:31:41]>> Tim, for those who are looking to follow your work, where can they go?

[00:31:44]>> Um, well, there are a whole bunch of history books. Um, but where and you know, Bloodlands and Black Earth and Road to Unfreedom um you kindly mentioned on tyranny on freedom. My philosophy book on freedom is my positive vision of where the United States can go. Most of my writing um about day-to-day stuff is on my substack. So that's where you can find me.

[00:32:04]>> Great. Well, I'm going to link that right here on the screen and also in the post description for those who are listening on the podcast. I'm going to put it in the show notes. Thank you so much for the work you do and uh and for taking the time with me today.

[00:32:14]>> It's been great. Thanks for having me.